Talk:What Must Be Said

Removal of parts of Grass's poem

Arbitrary removal of parts of Grass's poem is not in line with rules of Wikipedia and it damages its reputation. AsiBakshish 01:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsiBakshish (talk • contribs)

Can you clarify to which removal and what Wikipedia policies you're referring?TMCk (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I just posted an OWN translation of the Grass Poem and I entered the copyright into the GNU It was removed after 2 hours without any justification. It seems that some operational group from Israel (Mossad?) got the job to prevent that a greater public sees what Grass really wrote, to keep up the legend that he is an anti-Semite. If Wikipedia allows such a censorship by political pressure groups, that it will lose all credibility very fast. THIS IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT A POEM WHICH BECAME PART OF HISTORY ALREADY: YOU MUST PRINT IT IF THE ARTICLE SHALL MAKE SENSE!

WernerBln — Preceding unsigned comment added by WernerBln (talk • contribs) 23:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I recognise that you must have put a lot of work into it. I did give a justification in the edit summary. One's own translations count here as original research, which is to say, they do not come from a recognised, reliable, secondary source, as is required. This is nothing to do with a conspiracy of secret agents. The original text and various translations are already clearly linked in the 'external links' section at the bottom of the article. Welcome to Wikipedia. Span (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Many external links in Wikipedia are dead after some time, that is why they make little sense in an article whose subject is the content of this external link. Wikipedia has NO control about how long the external link will exist. It is very probable that it will disappear after some weeks. That is why you need the poem in the article itself. If you are afraid that a translation might be "own research" in the meaning of faulty or not authentic, then print the translation as synopsis beside the Germany original. The proviso, that an own translation is equivalent with own research is applicable ONLY, if the translated original is not accessible for the user. In the case in hand the translation can be compared with the original by any user who has any doubts about correctness of the translation. Momentarily the quality of the whole article is just lousy. The proviso which you abused as justification for deleting content is obviously a cheap pretext for politically motivated censorship. You publish some arbitrarily chosen lines and arbitrary summaries (which always equals biased "own research" and which is always subjective and never objective), but you censor an UNCUT, absolutely objective, exact word by word translation, which can be checked by EVERY Wikipedia user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WernerBln (talk • contribs) 03:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC) WernerBln — Preceding unsigned comment added by WernerBln (talk • contribs) 00:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

WernerBln, I would suggest bearing in mind a couple of points. Firstly, that we work assuming the good faith of other editors. I assure you I am not trying to cheat you or censor or push a narrow version of things. We are trying to craft an article that stands up as a useful encyclopaedic account over time and one that meets the guidelines. All parts of WP articles can be edited by anyone at any time, pretty much, whether an external link or anything else. This is not a news story, though it is in the news at the moment. This is a work in progress; we have lots of eyes, it seems, on the article and editors working together to improve it. Please note that his article was only created yesterday and given its sensitive subject, the content may need to be carefully worked through. There is no deadline, we can take our time to get it right, assuming the good faith of others. The comments below on content sound constructive. Best wishes Span (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, this article addresses some very emotive issues and some of the language and claims made above are unfortunate and potentially hurtful. The quality of this page seems remarkable for such a recently created article on a controversial subject.

WernerBln is new to Wikipedia editing, and we all know it takes some time to familiarize oneself with Wikipedia's principles, policies and guidelines, including WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks, in addition to the fundamental principle of WP:Assume good faith, already cited by Span. It's really important to bear these matters in mind, especially when contributing to sensitive topics like the present one.

On the specific question in hand, while agreeing that it would probably be desirable to include the full text of this poem in translation directly on the page, I suspect serious legal copyright issues would have to be considered (even if the translation used were an unpublished one). I note that there are external links to several translations, including one on a particularly stable website. Span is a highly esteemed editor of poetry pages, and is a valued mentor on such questions.
Regards, —MistyMorn (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


My elaborate answer to the deletion of the Poem was moved arbitrarily from this section to the end of the Talk page into a new section with the title "20 Why the deletion of the Poem from Wikipedia is censorship". I still think the comment belongs in THIS section and NOT into a separate section. The length of an answer is no justification to remove it from the appropriate section --WernerBln (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Direct link to Translation?

Can somebody please point me to the section in the Manual of Style where it says that direct links are not allowed? I can't seem to find this mentioned in the MOS. For this article, I think it would be really helpful to have a direct click-through link to the translation, because it seems that many people have not actually read it entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetilo (talk • contribs) 02:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The MOS tells you how to use links (not how not to use them). Also the original text and translation is provided in the external link section which is common practice. Another common practice is to add such links into a "notes" section (as an extension or replacement of a reference section) but such style is not needed for this specific article.TMCk (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I think it is equally important to clearly state what is not good practice, so that new users can easily understand the rules by reading about them in one place. Thetilo (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Translations do not deserve whole sections. Only a paragraph in existing section. Very WP:Undue. If http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/Det-som-ma-sies-6800899.html belongs with other Norway ref that doesn't have a link, please add since I don't read the language and can't tell.</ref>CarolMooreDC 16:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Sorry, I don't speak Norwegian. So what's the best way to handle this? Should I edit the "Contents" section and add the translation line by line? People were complaining that the current contents section is too abbreviated and is mis-quoting the "poem". Thetilo (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

We don' t need a Norwegian translation in en.wp. There are several published English translations and they are linked already and can be used for proper or improved content description.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I just left in the links to foreign translations as a courtesy, but I'm sure there will be hundreds in the end. CarolMooreDC 12:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

content section

The tenuous summary of the poem is misleading and full of bias - a total mess - and does not in any way represent the real content of the poem. It also reflects that most editors rather follow their lobbying efforts, than to grapple and expose themselves to the original text. Sad but true. Lost in translation, I guess.--IIIraute (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. I tried to include direct references to the complete translations, but my edits were reverted. I agree with you, that a partial quotation is completely misleading.

It would be nice if there could be an exception for the strict Wikipedia rules, so a reference like this could be possible: (Original text / English translation). --- allowing users to quickly click-through to a version of the text they can understand, so they can build their own opinion on the complete text, rather than misleading excerpts.

Thetilo (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess one solution to this is to edit the "Content" section to discuss the poem paragraph by paragraph. Making sure that each paragraph is paraphrased and correctly referenced.. Any objections? Thetilo (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. No objections from my side.--IIIraute (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds ok, but paraphrasing every single paragraph in detail seems overdoing it. People interested in the exact content of every paragraph or line even or the literal formulations can consult the external links, that's why we have them.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks somebody else added a complete translation to the content section today, and it was reverted as original research. Will it be permissable if I go ahead and translate the content section of the German wikipedia article about the same topic, using references? Thetilo (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The content section is not written in recognisable English. It is all WP:OR, which can be permitted in some circs like this, but only if it hews strictly to a paraphrase of content.

The poem consists of nine sentences written in prose. Each sentence talks about a topic, and is broken into short lines which do not rhyme./The author asks himself the question if (=whether) Iran, because of its nuclear program, really has nuclear weapons at its disposal (false construal), and adds that the "nuclear power Israel threatens the (=an) already fragile world peace"[4],

I think the author(s) meant something like:-

'The work is an unrhymed prose poem of 69 verses over nine unrhymed stanzas, ranging in length from 4 to 13 lines, . Each stanza develops a theme.

In the first stanza, the author asks himself why he has persisted in holding his silence with regard to war games. In the second, the author illuminates his allusion by clarifying that the war games refer to the exercise of a first strike against a country, Iran, subjugated by a loudmouth - implicitly Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - suspected of developing nuclear weapons.'etc.etc.Nishidani (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Samson option?!

Samson option is not a term used in What Must Be Said at all. It merely once more singles out Israel and reiterates Grass's accusation, that Israel wants to "wipe out" Iranian people. The question is: Does Wikipedia want to present itself as something that follows suit of Waffen SS member? Do we want to have here an article based on conspiratorial theory? --85.250.20.198 (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Grass was directly referring to 'nuclear first strike', this lead me to the Wikipedia page 'Samson Option' when searching for 'nuclear first strike Israel'. This seems like a valid reference to something that the poem refers to. Are you disagreeing that the author refers to 'nuclear first strike' in his poem? (see: translation). Your "WaffenSS" remark makes you look biased. If there is a better reference for "nuclear first strike in relation to Israel, then please provide it. Thetilo (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The Samson option seems to describe a "massive retaliation"-strategy (=second strike) rather than a first strike, hence linking it here imho makes little.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "massive nuclear retaliation" in case of being overwhelmed by conventional forces counts as "second strike" (see 1973 Yom Kippur War). It's not like there were two nuclear powers, and one is doing a response attack (=second strike) to a nuclear attack of the other. Thetilo (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read sources before opining. ;-) The source plainly says eregarding the poem responding to Grass's poem: The Samson Option – taking out Israel's enemies with it, possibly causing irreparable damage to the entire world – has been floated by Israeli strategists including Ariel Sharon, as a last-ditch option if Israel faces annihilation. CarolMooreDC 12:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually the Samson option is mischaracterised in the current article. The Samson option refers to releasing a nuclear attack on the world in the event of a threat to Israel's existence. It does not merely mean a retaliation against those who are threatening Israel militarily. I think the words of the peom itself make that pretty clear, "For it is the right of the Nation of Israel to finally shut the gates to the world after it leaves this place". Dlv999 (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You are referring to the text, which is simply not representative to Israel at all. It was issued by an individual, who does not hold any public function.--AsiBakshish 17:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsiBakshish (talk • contribs)

Removal of legal reasons for persona non grata status

The persona non grata status is based on 1952 law against the members of national socialistic organizations. If there is mentioned, that Grass is persona non grata in Israel, why was there censorship of the legal reasons? --85.250.20.198 (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Once more this was removed without even mentioning it on talk page.--AsiBakshish 12:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsiBakshish (talk • contribs)

Isn't it still there in the first paragraph of the 'political controversy' section? Span (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Grass's Waffen SS membership is as important as his Nobel price for literature and much more important then badly referenced "frequent" visits of Israel. Israel perceives Grass's poem as return to his youth ideology of Waffen SS.--AsiBakshish 01:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsiBakshish (talk • contribs)

"Grass's Waffen SS membership is as important as his Nobel price for literature..." - doesn't really make a lot of sense, does it?--IIIraute (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"Israel perceives Grass's poem as return to his youth ideology of Waffen SS" This statement is clearly wrong. Israel as a land mass, has no opinion at all, and among it's inhabitants, there are several, partially contradicting opinions about the poem, of whom some are already included in this article.--46.142.41.127 (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, may be I should have written "government of Israel" or "majority of Israelis". It is quite common to say, that an opinion of some country is something, even though it is only opinion of the majority represented by the government and there is some dissent to it. The point I wanted to make is, that for Israelis this is definitely not only a pretext. Several Israeli sources of the article make the direct link between Grass's text and his youth military carrier. Even the sources usually very critical of the current government, who criticize the decision on persona non grata status, can't seriously claim unimportance of Grass's youth military carrier for that decision. --AsiBakshish (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

They just don't like his criticism, and his military service was just a convenient excuse to ban him from the country. It's rather absurd, since he's made it pretty clear that he's changed his views from his younger days. Afalbrig (talk) 07:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Rules???

This is an article about a German author who published a poem, criticising Israeli and German government policies.

Why is this article being "arbitrarily" put under Arbitration Rules for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict? Clearly this article has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. This seem to be abuse of power on sides of whoever put those rules in place. Thetilo (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It is probably not necessary but in subsequent interviews of Grass and comments by others the Palestine question/Israel's occupation is mentioned as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

this seems overkill, no? ;-) Is there a way to remove the restriction, until proven necessary? Over-policing doesn't fit well in with a democratic media.

Thetilo (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree but I'm not involved with the arbitration team. However all that the arbitration tag means, is that the general rules are simply strictly enforced and watched, so it doesn't really interfere much with the article work other than keeping edit warriors at bay.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

+1. There is no need at all for arbitration in this article. It seems that someone is using their "power" to push their own political views (on Wikipedia? *gasp* Shocking!). --Zaiger (talk) 08:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

arbitration is not pushing political views but enforces behaviour, i.e. it blocks pro palestinean and pro israeli pov pusher from constant edit warring.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I find that having the box does help deter edit wars. However also needed is the big, clear warning on the edit screen of the main page - like this one here. I have never figured out how to put the dang thing on, though I have asked a couple times in the appropriate place. Maybe only admins can do it. So if you now how, please put it there so people don't innocently get caught violating 1RR. CarolMooreDC 14:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh : why are the arbitration rules in place? this is not related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict! Can somebody please check who put those rules in place, and revert them, as this is not applicable. thanks. Thetilo (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it was nor do I think that tag is necessary here. I merely explained what the likely motivation of the person was, who put it there. That is, that in subsequent talks on his poem Grass brings up the Palestine issue as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the ARB-tag as it's use here is clearly in doubt. The word "Palestinian" doesn't come up ones in the article and in the poem only mentioned in passing. Feel free to ask for clarification at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles.TMCk (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

@TMCk : thanks Thetilo (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

While I'm not going to put the tag back, I do want to point out that most criticism of Israel is regarding its continuing expropriation of Palestinian lands, human rights abuses and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians - and the wars and threats of wars it engages in to keep up these policies and keep the lands already taken. Grass' poem criticizes Israels nuclear threats, now especially against Iran, whose credibility is increased by Israel's possession of new high tech German submarines. Iran is a target because IF it had nuclear weapons it would not use them vs. Israel, but its merely having them would make its voice calling for Palestinians to get all that land back more credible. So the whole thing IS related and if the article edit warring gets too crazy someone else might come along and stick the tag back on again. CarolMooreDC 12:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit

Just noting here that I've started a copy edit, as the article was not in good shape (grammar and spelling issues, repetition, a couple of poor sources, and sources not saying what the text said).

I'll also be tightening some of the quotes (except for the poet's), to reduce the quote-farm aspect, but I'll try to paraphrase rather than remove entirely -- though I did remove some of the literary responses, one of which was from a journalist, and the other a letter to the editor from Eli Uncyk, who wasn't described in the text as a literary figure. I googled the name and couldn't find it, so I removed it. If that is indeed a literary figure, please let me know and I'll restore. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Your edit goes well beyond "tightening some quotes" -- your are destroying work by previous editors, deleting ten references in the wake of your clear-cutting edit! I think this is not in the spirit of Wikipedia to act as a self-appointed editor in chief Thetilo (talk) 06:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the article was in poor shape. If I've removed important references, let me know, but I could see lots of poor quality, repetitive references, so I removed some of them. As well as the repetition, some were being used inappropriately. As things stand, we have (just as one example), a German quote translated into English from an Italian publication. That makes no sense, and invites inadvertent error. Similarly, the article went beyond anything Grass actually said in the poem. So I'm currently fixing those issues, as well as the writing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What you call "repetitive references" where put in place because other Wikipedia users had flagged those locations, questioning if there was "original research" ... these references clearly indicated that this was not the case -- you removed them, destroying other people's hard work. Those references were not second-hand translations! Do you speak German? It is my first language, and I am bilingual, so I can assure you that I can judge the quality of an English translation quite well. You also mis-represented two facts in the introduction of the article. Furthermore you single-handedly deleted 10 references. This is not cool - no matter how many stars or badges you have. Thetilo (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It's usually best to find one good source for a contentious point, unless different sources are bringing something new -- but adding lots of tertiary or repetitive secondary sources can make straightforward points look as though they're contentious. I retained your three sources about the sale of the sixth submarine, but again, one would be fine. Thank you for fixing that, by the way.

Yes, I speak German. Would you mind looking to see where the interviewee or interviewer said: "While Reich-Ranicki said he did not regard Grass as anti-Semitic, he thinks that his past has finally come back to his mind now that he is getting old" in this source? I couldn't find it, so I've made it invisible for now.

It's there. Quote:"Er hat den Antisemitismus in sich komplett verdrängt, besiegt. Aber im Alter wird das alles anders. Weil auch die Erinnerung an die Jugend stärker wird".TMCk (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, just a point about citations. We always need byline, title or headline, publisher (e.g. newspaper), and date of publication. There were lots of citations missing that basic information. I think I've fixed them all; will check again shortly in case I missed any. Also worth noting that I only read some of the sources, so can't vouch for them all.

I'm sorry you feel I removed anyone's work. If you want to point it out, I'll restore it if it's appropriate, but the difficulty was lots of problematic writing and repetition, so it did need a thorough copy edit. Also, we were using a translation from a private website, which wasn't ideal. Before and after, if you want to check in case anything that matters is missing (diff). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

A lot of those references were cite-web, containing title and url - other info not applicable. The translation I used was Copyleft, and was of good quality - it was trying to stay close to the actual words used in Grass's poem, rather than trying to look like a poem (a poem which doesn't even rhyme).

Please don't hog the editing of this article - other ppl have an equal right to make autonomous contributions, and don't need your OK to do so, or you as a gateway to add stuff to the article. Thetilo (talk) 09:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Overall I think the copy edit was an improvement. Though personally I'm not really a friend of bundling sources and I'd like to note that Spiegel Online and Der Spiegel are different publications, the former is not simply an online copy of the latter.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed it now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed new Content Section

This was translated from the German Wikipedia page about this poem -- RFC

The poem consists of nine sentences written in prose. Each sentence talks about a topic, and is broken into short lines which do not rhyme. The author asks himself the question if Iran, because of its nuclear program, really has nuclear weapons at its disposal, and adds that the "nuclear power Israel threatens the already fragile world peace", because they practive a preemptive strike in war games, which could eliminate the Iraninan people, [who are] "dominated by a loudmouth" – in reference to Mahmud Ahmadinejad – "and led by organized jubilation". Israel on the other hand already has a "growing nuclear potential available", which is "out of control". The author assesses that an attack on Iran would be a crime, to which Germany would be an accomplice.

A noticaple stilistic theme is that in six of the nine sentences, the theme of silence is repeated as "silence", "generel silence", or "forbidding myself to name [the country]". he first asks himself "Why [was] I silent for so long?" and answers it with "because my heritage, which is forever burdened by an unclearing stain, prohibits, to deliver this fact as a spoken truth to the state of Israel, to which I feel connected and want to stay connected". Continuing, he is demanding that no further German "submarine shall be delivered to Israel, with the specialty of delivering annihilating warheads to where the existence of one single nuclear bomb is unproven". These are delivered by "my country, which is time after time caught-up [...] for its very own and unprecedented crimes, [...] on a pure commercial basis, even though declared with fast tounge as reparation". He continues that he feels it as an "incriminating lie and constraint" to keep the "general silence about these facts", even though it "promises punishment as soon as it is broached" -- the common verdict: "anti-Semitism".

He further criticises the "Western hypocrisy" and hopes "that many will want to get rid of their silence, to demand from the initiator of this recognizable danger, to abstinence from violence". Finally he demands that an "unhindered and permanent control of the Israeli nuclear arsenal and the Iranean nuclear complexes by an international authority will be allowed by the governments of both countries"; only this way "Israelis, Palestinians, and even more everybody who is living face to face as enemies in this region occupied by delusion and craziness, and last not least ourselves, can be helped." Thetilo (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Probablyl it's best just to find sources that discuss what the prominent points are. Two sources for each point should do it. And if they happen to be points you emphasize and no one adds others with other sources, so be it. At least then we can get rid of the tag. CarolMooreDC 13:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Translation of the German interwiki is an option. However writing a sourced independent article is usually preferred and I see no need goo reason to resort to translation of the German article, which anyhow is still subject to constant change for now.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Btw. the German Wikipedia version of the Content section is stable for several days. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Was_gesagt_werden_muss . Seems to indicate that the German speaking Wikipedia users (who understand the poem without translation) seem to agree it's of good quality for the German Wikipedia. Thetilo (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It is possible. But there is also the possibility Grass's text became more discussed in German speaking countries and consequently the article on Wikipedia is less important there. --89.139.111.186 (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Referencing issue

There seems to be a mismatch between the level of detail provided by this reference and the staement it is supporting (The poem discusses the planned delivery to Israel by Germany of a sixth Dolphin class submarine, capable of carrying nuclear warheads, and the writer's fear that the deliveries might help an Israeli nuclear attack on Iran). For example, the annotation beginning * For the sixth submarine, see... has no apparent link to the rest of the current text. However, as a de novo reader of this article I haven't attempted to intervene. —MistyMorn (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding sources where this detail directly attributed. A little more encyclopedic detail to show that this isn't a Grass fantasy doesn't hurt. CarolMooreDC 13:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The reference to the newspaper articles discussing the delivery of a sixth submarine was needed, as there was previous discussion about the number of submarines delivered. (I believe one news article was using the wrong number, which caused the confusion). Thetilo (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Dolphin submarines

The submarines are just one of the themes of this text. Why should the content section start with Dolphin submarines? And why should this article make connection between the submarines and nuclear strike, when the Grass's text is ambiguous on this issue?--AsiBakshish 12:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsiBakshish (talk • contribs)

Added Ref from source explicitly saying Grass motivated by submarine issue; just found a better one where Grass says so directly; will add. CarolMooreDC 13:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If it was referred later this way by Grass, the link still was not mentioned this way in the original text, which is after all, theme of this page. Why not to add separate section Later Author Comments? It still does not make the link integral part of the content of Grass's text. --AsiBakshish 14:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsiBakshish (talk • contribs)

what a nonsense. Grass did write "...weil aus meinem Land...ein weiteres U-Boot nach Israel geliefert werden soll...". The Type 800 Dolphin class submarine was developed and constructed by Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft AG (HDW), Germany, for the Israeli Navy. The first two (Dolphin and Leviathan) were fully donated by Germany, the third (Tekumah) was paid for halfway through Israel. In 2006 Israel signed a contract with ThyssenKrupp to purchase two additional submarines from its HDW subsidiary. The two submarines cost, overall, around 1.3 billion euro, of up to one-third was paid by Germany. In 2011, Israel ordered a sixth Dolphin submarine, subsidized with 135 million euros by Germany. That's the one he's writing about.--IIIraute (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

the main topic of his "poem" is his concern about the delivery of these dolphin-class submarines to Israel, because they can carry and deliver nuclear warheads (e.g. targeting Iran) - the concern in his "poem" is specifically that the does not want it to be on the German conciousness if Israel would use said submarines to attack an enemy [Iran]. Did you actually read the translation? Then it should be obvious why that reference is in there. Thetilo (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Tags?

Are the 'multiple issues' and 'original research' tags still as valid or can we remove them and work out the issues on the talk page? Given the article was only created yesterday one might expect it to have issues to work out. Span (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned both can be removed (actually they probably were not really valid right from the start).--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree and was close to remove them last night but it was getting late...TMCk (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done

Is the tag back because of the dolphins? The lead gives the Guardian cite. Span (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the OR tag, because everything is sourced and expressed in a way that's true to the sources, so far as I can tell. If someone thinks there is OR, please point it out rather than tagging. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

How is sourced the Propeye misile? Why does the article start describing the middle of Grass's text completely skipping the second paragraph? This article is a stain on the reputation of Wikipedia. --AsiBakshish 19:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsiBakshish (talk • contribs)

Could you quote the part you think is unsourced or poorly sourced? Re: the second paragraph being skipped. We begin our quoting of the poem at its second paragraph. Do you mean you want something else added to the lead? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I see it's back. The main remaining issue seems to be interprtation of the poem so a SectionOR tag seems appropriate. I'll put one there til people figure it out. CarolMooreDC 20:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

German public media

Avoid linking to websites of public German TV without archiving them yourself first (at wayback or something similar) as these sources tend to be rather short lived and a very likely to become invalid within a few weeks. There's some stupid regulation issue blocking them proving access to permanent links in their archives. However afaik Swiss or Austrian public media may not have that problem as they are not affected by that regulation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Please note that Austria also is part of the European Union that is behind this regulation. In fact, it holds true for all EU member countries.--Aschmidt (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Are talking about the same thing here?--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope so. de:Depublizieren is not special to German public TV and radio. Its handling is different in each EU country, but it's something they all have in common.--Aschmidt (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well but according to that article it is primarily a result of purely German Rundfunkstaatsvertrag. Other countries may handle "EU obligations" rather differently. Though it seems at least Austria's more recent news content has become temprorary as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There is still a lot of anti-Israel bias in the article

Grass's text alleged nothing less then the "annihilation the Iranian people". That is the staring point of his text. But this article started to read the text somewhere in the middle. Why? And why are there links to weapons never mentioned by Grass? --AsiBakshish 17:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsiBakshish (talk • contribs)

I agree that it would be better to say the poem critisises the politics of the Israeli government that has threatened to use military force against the Iranien nuclear programme which itself could threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It should also begin with that Mr Grass has also opined against the German government, speaking out against the delivery of another submarine to Israel. The poem is directed against both the Israeli and the German governments. That would draw the whole picture.--Aschmidt (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is filled with hate and poorly based conspiracy theories. --AsiBakshish 18:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsiBakshish (talk • contribs)

which are exactly?--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Propeye misile. How is it connected to Grass's text?--AsiBakshish 19:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsiBakshish (talk • contribs)

It's gone now.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Grass writes about Warheads that can be delivered through the submarines from Germany. Only AGM-142 can be deliverd from this submarine.--IIIraute (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

So?--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

So? ....so, why not name them?--IIIraute (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well first of all I see no particular need or reason to name them. This is an article about the poem and the public reactions to it, not about details on israeli military hardware, which is neither mentioned in the poem nor in the reactions to it. But even if one saw the need to mention the missile, it shouldn't sail under a "false flag", i.e. as a hidden link under "first nuclear strike".--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The article does not have anti-Israel bias - it is factual - it simply doesn't have the pro-Israel bias you seem to desire. IMHO a quote of the "Samson Option" would be a more adequate reference then the one about the Popeye missiles, because of the 1973 Yom Kippur incident , e.g Israel threatening a nuclear first strike back then. Thetilo (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is much more factual then it was before. The articles you just mentioned have real problems with the sources. Obviously, Grass's poem was published in newspapers, military strategy of any country is usually not published in newspapers and remains therefore kind of enigma. Samson option is still part of the article, although it was used by the INN source, which is normally not unanimously accepted on Wikipedia.--AsiBakshish 17:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsiBakshish (talk • contribs)

The link could be put in the lead, with "nuclear warheads". It makes a lot of sense in this sentence.--IIIraute (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Why? If you really feel the need to mention that missile or at least if want to argue that point, then don't link it "hidden" under a different term, but link it under its real name in a sentence that is arguably appropriate as content for this article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought it would give the reader a better understanding of the connection between the submarine and its capability of a nuclear strike.--IIIraute (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Popeye missile?!

Why is there link to Propeye misile? Did Grass mention it in his text?--AsiBakshish 19:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

yes, he did. Grass writes about "ein weiteres U-Boot" and "allesvernichtende Sprengköpfe". ergo: Dolphin class submarine and AGM-142 warheads. what else?--IIIraute (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Where is there the specific mentioning of Popeye missile? "allesvernichtende Sprengköpfe" is not even a missile, but merely a nuclear warhead. And moreover it is hard to assume, that Popeye can be used for nukes. It was just assumed by FAS on its blog. The article is making actually three assumptions. First, that Israel has nukes. Second, that Israel has Popeye missiles suitable for nukes, as alleged by FAS. Third, all these components are suitable to the German submarines. I have nothing against these assumptions, but all this should have been mentioned in the article as an assumption. --46.116.70.152 (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The link is NOT inappropriate. source: "Israel Makes Nuclear Waves With Submarine Missile Test," By Uzi Mahnaimi and Matthew Campbell London Sunday Times June 18, 2000, as well as [1] and "Deadly arsenals: nuclear, biological, and chemical threats, Joseph Cirincione, Jon B. Wolfsthal, Miriam Rajkumar, Carnegie Endowment, 2005, page 263-4" --IIIraute (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The link you provided does not take the reports on nuclear capable missiles on Dolphin submarines for granted. In other words, it is still an assumption. I cannot judge on the Uzi Mahnaimi article, because I did not read it.--AsiBakshish 23:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I moved your posting one up, as if I understand you correctly your were answering to the IP rather than me. As far as the IP complaints are concerned they seem partially a bit artificial. That Israel has nuclear weapons is common knowledge, completely independent of whether Israeli government officially confirms that or not (and there are plenty of sources to that regard). However if he assumed the FAS blog to have been the only source, he might have had a point, before provided additiona (better sources). Nevertheless as the fact that is something can properly source doesn't necessarily mean that it needs to be mentioned in the article, in particular in the form it was given (see my answer one further up).--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What else? It was a somewhat inappropriate link. The phrase nuclear first strike doesn't really need an explantion. But even if so it were to be linked to general article on (first) nuclear strikes rather than an israeli missile. Hence I removed the link.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok. You made a great thing for the mankind. Every assumption like the one above accelerates the arms race.--AsiBakshish 23:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

...what???--IIIraute (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Given the historic background that Israel already threatened the Samson Option back in 1973, IMHO a quote of the "Samson Option" would be a more adequate reference then the one about the Popeye missiles, because of the 1973 Yom Kippur incident , e.g Israel threatening a nuclear first strike back then. Thetilo (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

First, I can't understand how can you believe that and still defend the Grass's text. According to your assumption written above, it would be impossible for the poem to reach its goals, so what was then the point in writing it? Second, yes, I really think that exaggeration of capabilities of any country by the outsiders does not help peace at all. After all, that was what started the Second Gulf War. --AsiBakshish 09:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsiBakshish (talk • contribs)

The Israeli law

The Israeli law prevent free pass to Israel from anyone who served in the SS, the same way the international law define anyone who served in the SS as "war criminal". Also, every German who were born before the late 30's is subject to scrutinized background check when come to Israel. So in any case, even without declaring him publicly Persona non Grate, the Israeli law already did it in more general way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.90.2 (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember Kurt Waldheim being turned back at Ben Gurion airport in 1973. In any case, this is all WP:OR and irrelevant, unless some RS makes the point. Nishidani (talk) 08:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The focus is specifically the poem and its impact. Span (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Chronology of first translation (by nation) in national newspapers

I have added to sections (which might be suitable as subsections of a yet to be determined section),

• "Date of the first translation (by nation) in national newspapers"
• "Translations published on websites of national newspapers"

The sections are notable and encyclopedic. (When was the last time a poem was translated and printed in national newspapers in more than 4 countries?)

That websites print poems, is possibly less notable then when national newspapers in different countries prints them. (There seems to be somewhat of a threshold regarding printing poems in newspapers, on pages allocated to literature reviews etc—the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten is one example of a newspaper that did not print the poem on a page assigned to literary review.)

As the first section is improved, then it might indicate the chronology of when the very first national newspapers (in various nations) printed translations of the poem. (I would not be suprised if my Nordic country was "the last Nordic country to print the poem"—not that anyone necessarily could draw a conclusion from that, even if it is the case.) --Sywoofer (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Original research

The "Content" section contains analysis of the poem, which is sourced to a translation of the poem that contains no analysis whatsoever. This would appear to be original research. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

True but every article dealing with literature has it, to small and large degree. And if done well, as SlimVirgin notably did, if my memory is correct, at Night, it's acceptable: WP:BOLD, WP:IAR, since most articles in the humanities can't be written without some paraphrase that RS do not provide. It all depends on the capabilities of editors, and commonsense. The present pastiche, just removed, is hackwork, but should have been improved, not removed.Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

What you call "pastiche", I'd call quoting the original text as good as possible :) Quoting is better than injecting opinion, or paraphrasing the poem to the point where the discussion starts again about if it is original research or if there are references... no? Thetilo (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the whole section. One does not quote the original text, one translates it into fluent readable English that does not sound like an awkward crib. The German text is WP:OR, and not problematical.Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Btw. the German Wikipedia version of the Content section is stable for several days. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Was_gesagt_werden_muss . Seems to indicate that the German speaking Wikipedia users (who understand the poem without translation) seem to agree it's of good quality for the German Wikipedia. Thetilo (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I only gave the poem a couple quick reads and don't feel like doing a big analysis to figure out if the WP:OR is good or bad or indifferent or useable WP:OR. I do think adding a few refs from WP:RS that point out different aspects of the poem Thetilo identifies would help end the discussion, however. And doubtless some of them can be found in sources already used in the article so a lot of tedious referencing not as necessary. CarolMooreDC 15:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

First paragraph of Content is almost entirely original research. Did Grass speak about Israel hypocrisy? Why should this be the main theme of the text?--AsiBakshish 11:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsiBakshish (talk • contribs)

Zionism or (the zionists) dictate what must be said.

Usually you can smell them from very far away before they hamper content about them on Wikipedia. why the whole Zionist(s) movement is not mentioned in this article? ~ Mr. ano-nim-us~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.66.86.227 (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's an article about a poem. Span (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Currently it rather smells like the "pro Palestine" and "pro Israel" (pov pushing) factions have finally found their way here. Let's hope they don't create the same mess as elsewhere.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Mahmud Ahmadinejad

Why Mahmud Ahmadinejad - did Grass mention him in the poem? If he did - he also did mention Dolphin class submarines and AGM-142 Popeye missiles.--IIIraute (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The content section is a direct translation of the German content section, which also mentions Ahmadinejad in an explanation who is referred to as a "loudmouth". He is not mentioned directly in the poem. Thetilo (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Why the deletion of the Poem from Wikipedia is censorship

I posted twice an OWN translation of the Grass Poem and I entered my copyright into the GNU Free Documentation License. It was twice removed after 2 hours without an logically understandable justification, so that the impression of political censorship accrued. Finally even the whole discussion section about the posting of the poem was removed, to clean up all traces of the censorship. Obviously some operational group from Israel (Mossad?) got the job to prevent that a greater public sees what Grass really wrote, to keep up the legend that he is an anti-Semite and Nazi, which is massively worldwide propagated by Israel. If Wikipedia allows such a censorship by political pressure groups, it will lose all credibility very fast. THIS IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT A POEM WHICH BECAME PART OF THE CONTEMPRARY HISTORY ALREADY: WIKIPEDIA MUST PRINT THE POEM ITSELF, IF THE ARTICLE SHALL MAKE SENSE!

First I want to say: It is correct that I am new to Wikipedia editing, and I am just learning that there are specific control characters and formatting rules in the discussion pages. I will try to follow the rules in future.
But I use Wikipedia since ten years on a daily basis, I know all the pros and cons of it very well and I always supported it. I believed in its credibility and high academic standards up to now and always defended wikipedia when colleagues attacked its quality standard. So this case is the first time that I really doubt the quality and integrity of wikipedia.
1. I always assume primarilly good faith in everyone, until I am forced to get suspicious for a good reason.
2. The rule that "recognised, reliable secondary sources" are required and own research is not accepted is a good rule in principle. But in the serious academic field no rule is a 100% absolute rule, and the writing of articles automatically always implies own research, also if you use secondary sources. And that is no problem, if the own research is clearly marked as own research, recognizable for every reader and open to criticism and discussion.

a) Because many secondary sources are just worse than any "own research" information could be and the assessment which secondary source is used as "recognised and reliable" is ALWAYS "own research" anyhow.

b) For the full coverage of actual news there are no really reliable sources, cause the reliability and quality of any news is only proven after some time, sometimes after long time.

c) I think I speak for all wikipedia users saying that I come to wikipedia to find fast quality information which I often cannot find anywhere else and which is regularly reviewed by a worldwide community with experts on every topic. That is why I prefer any time to find some information partly based on "own research" to finding no information at all, if that information is clearly marked as "own research". Because I know that in wikipedia wrong or corrupted information is fast corrected by experts in the community.

d) The strict separation between secondary source information and own research information is simply delusional, cause for copy right reasons, you never can copy and paste the secondary source, but you always subjectively select, rephrase and summarize the secondary information, which equals at least partly own research.

In the case at hand it looks like a questionably motivated pretext to designate the arbitrary selection of some freely translated lines and the self written summary objective and NO own research and print it it in the article, whereas the exact, UNCUT word by word translation is designated subjective and own research and deleted.

3. Yes it is a sensitive politically controversial topic and even prime time news here reported that there was a lot of massive pressure on all media NOT to publish this poem by the Israelian government and Zionist political pressure groups. Additionally there was a lot of libel, slander and attempted character assassination against the author of the poem by the same people in the media, to keep people from reading the poem at all. The reproach 'conspiracy theorist' is therefore unsuitable cause the situation justifies to be worried.
4. The linked translations in the net are all very free translations trying to create own English poetry. They have a limited serviceability in the discussion about the accusation against the author to be racist, fascist or antisemitic, because there always will be arguing that the translation is not exact. Plus none of the links is stable. These links will be dead soon and exactly that is what the Zionist political pressure groups are working for. For all these reasons you need an exact word by word translation which corresponds exactly to the original inside the article.
5. There are no 'severe copyright issues' which I explained clearly in the deleted text.

I now post my original text here on the Talk page, so that all reviewers can judge themselves.
I made this translation of the Grass poem whenever possible word by word as close to the German original as possible, to allow English speakers to form an own opinion from the unbiased, unrevised original work, which is not possible otherwise.

– Copyright violation deleted --Aschmidt (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC) –

I intentionally tried to keep up an exact word by word translation whenever the differences between German and English grammar allowed that, to give English speakers a feeling for the rhythm of the German original.

The German Poem became part of contemporary history meanwhile and therefore may be printed for reporting and documentation purposes following German copyright law. I herewith assure that the translation is 100% my own work and I enter herewith the copyright of my translation into the GNU Free Documentation License: You may post it wherever you want, as long as you print the name of the author.

--WernerBln (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

WernerBln. There are lots of different help and training resources listed at WP:Workshop, including the one day workshop which also can be used as a tutorial. Check it out. CarolMooreDC 23:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

WernerBln, no-one deleted your comments, they are still there in the very first section of the article, just where you put them. Reasons were given, concerning original research and the inability to keep a very long quote in an article. If you read through the various discussions above about various aspects of the article, you will see that this is a collective process, not lead by Mossad. The poem and its translations are clearly linked. Span (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course you are entitled to express your concerns, but please understand that Wikipedia has principles and policies to implement -- see the Welcome message posted on your Talk page by Span. The editors replying to you here are just trying to help out in this regard. Please also understand that suggesting, as you did in your initial post above, that Wikipedians are serving a secret organization like Mossad (or any other) could be construed as a personal attack; to avoid hurt and unnecessary conflict, may I suggest you read Wikipedia's policy on civility, perhaps with a nice warm drink to hand? Thank you, —MistyMorn (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

@WernerBln: Please note that you are not entitled to translate Günter Grass' poem for it is in the copyright. Posting a translation here is a severe copyright violation. This is why I have deleted your text above. Please keep to the rules. Thanks.--Aschmidt (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read edits closely.

There's a lot of editing here, but obvious errors are left in (practice = practive), suggesting lack of attention by many who are keen to edit. The grammar is generally atrocious, with many unable to perceive simple elements of style in English, such as when to use 'the' and when not to. Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It is always good practice to try to read one's edits closeli [oops!]. At the same time, not all contributors are native speakers of English. Obviously, genuinely valuable content additions can always be tidied up. —MistyMorn (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Chronology of newspaper translations

I don't see why dates of newspaper translations of the poem is significant. It was published in Germany, Italy and Spain on 4 April and in other countries after that; in the UK on 5 April and in Norway on 10 April etc . Listing each country and when it picked up the story hardly seems to add very much to the article. Span (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree it's enough to say that translations almost immediately appeared in many leading national newspapers. —MistyMorn (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree, there is absolutely no need for rather vague formulation "national newspapers". There is no problem in explicitly stating the exact papers and languages in whic it was publiahed. I agree that the exact date of those additional however is less important and might be summarized in "subsequently" or a similar formulation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What I meant was that the titles/dates of national newspapers which rapidly published translations can be seen in the references, or included succinctly in the main text (but without a separate sentence/paragraph for each publication/website etc). —MistyMorn (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Public Reception

It seems to me the article is currently lacking in discussing the public response to the poem. There is a very interesting article in the NYT today, which says that in Germany although many political and media elites have criticized the poem, it has been very well received by the public in general. "Mr. Grass has struck a nerve with the broader public, articulating frustrations with Israel here in Germany that are frequently expressed in private but rarely in public, where the discourse is checked by the lingering presence of the past.". the article goes on to discuss facebook groups that have been formed in support of Grass, and a You tube video with a musical interpretation of the poem. I certainly think the public reception to the poem is an angle that we should be covering in the article. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/world/europe/with-gunter-grasss-poem-germans-anti-israel-whispers-grow-louder.html?_r=2— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlv999 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It might be very tricky to generalise an 'international public response' in any balanced or undue manner. "It has been very well received by the public in general". Which 'public in general'? Skittles have over 21 million supporters on Facebook. Span (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it the Skittles article, that would be well worth mentioning. Better stay with the topic.--IIIraute (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

No. The NYTs here is RS for both German public response and facebook/Youtube. No one is talking about an 'international puiblic response' (which doesn't exist) I'll edit the ref and its argument in later today.Nishidani (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

who is talking about an international public response?? The editor above did write the following: "There is a very interesting article in the NYT today, which says that in Germany although many political and media elites have criticized the poem, it has been very well received by the public in general: "Mr. Grass has struck a nerve with the broader public, articulating frustrations with Israel here in Germany that are frequently expressed in private but rarely in public, where the discourse is checked by the lingering presence of the past."--IIIraute (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The NYT report is a report from Germany about the public response in Germany. Sorry if my initial post did not make that clear, but if you look at the NYT report it is fairly obvious. Dlv999 (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

IIIraute asks 'who is talking about an international public response??' The answer is a few posts above your comment.See Span 00:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC) above.

Dlv999's sentence was unambiguous, and said nothing about international public response. 'in Germany ..., it has been very well received by the public in general.' The NYTs article makes this clear. One should try to construe the meaning of sentences, before challenging them. Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

exactly, that's what I'm asking. it was a rhetoric question! maybe Span should read the original post properly before wasting everybody's time. No offense meant.--IIIraute (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I was responding to the section heading and the initial line "It seems to me the article is currently lacking in discussing the public response to the poem." I was suggesting that there isn't one 'public response to the poem', obviously enough. Maybe it was so obvious it didn't need saying. We are free to post article related comments. How much time you give them is entirely up to you; nobody is obliged to respond. Span (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"It is hypocritical for Israel"

It is completely new to me, Grass according to the current state of the article said something like "It is hypocritical for Israel". If he stated that in his text, please, indicate where and why do you think it is the "main theme".--AsiBakshish 11:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsiBakshish (talk • contribs)

Günter Grass granted the licence to print the full original poem and the official English translation in Wikipedia

I posted the Poem already three times and each time it was removed after a few hours because somebody claimed "a severe copyright violation". I am still convinced that the posting was legal according to the German Urheberrechtsgesetz (§ 51 UrhG Zitate) corresponding to the American Fair Use Law (17 USC § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use) cause the posting was a non-commercial documenting of a text of the contemporary history. But because I was sick of the fighting, I contacted the author and he granted me the licence to print the German original and the English translation by the official Grass translator Breon Mitchell (to be found on the homepage of "The Guardian") in Wikipedia, on condition that both texts are printed unchanged and unabbreviated and with the following copyright note below them:

for the poem for all languages (C) 2012 Günter Grass + Steidl Verlag, Göttingen; for the English translation (C) 2012 Breon B. Mitchell

Mr. Jan Menkens is Mr. Grass' copyright agent. The Steidl Verlag is Mr. Grass' Editor.

Lieber Herr Steinschulte (=WernerBln),

wie gerade schon telefonisch angesprochen, können Sie das Gedicht gern bei Wikipedia abdrucken sowohl auf Deutsch als auch auf Englisch. Bedingung ist, daß Sie die offzielle Übersetzung des Grass-Übersetzers Breon Mitchell nutzen (findet sich auf der Homepage von "The Guardian"). Er hat nichts dagegen, daß Sie seine Übersetzung kostenfrei nutzen. Wenn Sie möchten, können Sie in Ihrem Metatext (nicht im Gedicht selbst) Ihre davon abweichende Übersetzung diskutieren. Zudem muss das Gedicht vollständig (ohne jedwede Kürzungen) abgedruckt werden.

Bitte nennen Sie unterhalb des Gedichts folgende Copyright-Vermerke:

für das Gedicht für alle Sprachen (C) 2012 Günter Grass + Steidl Verlag, Göttingen für die englische Übersetzung (C) 2012 Breon B. Mitchell

Ergänzung: Nur im Rahmen von Fair use liesse sich die Abdruckerlaubnis nicht allein abhandeln. Es handelt sich schon um eigenständigen Content, auch wenn er Bestandteil dieser ganzen Debatte ist. Aber das erübrigt sich hier ja, weil wir Ihnen den Abdruck gern einräumen.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Jan Menkens

---

Marketing& Rights Tel.: +49-551-49 60 618 Fax: +49-551-49 60 617 jmenkens@steidl.de

Gerhard Steidl Druckerei und Verlag GmbH& Co.OHG Duestere Str. 4 D-37073 Goettingen www.steidl.de www.steidlville.com Amtsgericht Göttingen HRA 3930 Geschäftsführer: Gerhard Steidl Steuernummer: 20/220/04218 Ust-IdNr. / VAT-No. DE 814 407 485

--WernerBln (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI: On German Wikipedia we have discussed publishing the poem in German Wikisource because it does not fit in an encyclopaedia itself, but whether this is possible has to be left to the Wikisource project. Mr Grass's literary agent seems to agree to publishing the poem in Wikipedia, but so far there has been no contact to OTRS. We hold the opinion that this statement does not comply with GFDL/CC-BY-SA because it requires the poem be published complete and unmodified, and that it be not modified in future revisions. This is why we have removed it from the article for the time being.--Aschmidt (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"Frequent visitor of Israel"

Uri Avnery opinion piece on Counterpunch is really not a reliable source for the introduction of this article. Besides, it does not mention how frequently Grass visited Israel. Moreover, Grass's visits to Israel are of less importance for his persona non grata status then his Waffen SS membership, which after all was the legal reason for that status and was removed several times from the introduction of the article.--AsiBakshish 15:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsiBakshish (talk • contribs)

We use the information we have. Avnery is not obliged to go to the Immigration Bureau to check data you think is not sufficiently precise. Frequency of visits is important given the controversy over his remarks on Israel and the ban. The objection is pointless. The Waffen SS membership was the legal reason or rather pretext for the ban. One could add that, if you have a source for it.Nishidani (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You are not serious, are you? --109.186.30.203 (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Even Grass himself does not claim, he was frequent visitor of Israel. You simply don't have this info from a reliable source.--AsiBakshish 00:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsiBakshish (talk • contribs)

The source for Waffen SS membership is already several times in the article. It is just removed over and over just to show there was nothing like that in the history, or at least to show, Waffen SS membership is something almost normal and unimportant. --AsiBakshish 00:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsiBakshish (talk • contribs)

Grass visited Israel twice in his life![2].--IIIraute (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we please change this part now: Grass was not a "frequent" traveller to Israel. There are lots and lots of refs, saying he visited the country twice. Avnery is obviously wrong. I also do not really know why we have Avnery for giving a summary of the poem in the content section?--IIIraute (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually this illustrates why counterpunch is normally not an acceptable source for WP and hence this article in particular shouldn't use it as source (other than sourcing Avnery's personal opnion in case somebody can make an argument for it being notable here).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Ok now I'm bit a confused from the conversation here, after reading Avnery's article, I have to say there's nothing wrong with it, in particular he is not mentioning anything about Grass visiting Israel (nvm "frequent" traveller to Israel). The current usage of counterpunch seems appropriate as it is just sourcing Avnery's opinion (considering it notable here seems reasonable too). So whole thing seems to have been made up by some editor and not related to any source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"I did not meet him during his many visits to Israel."[3].--IIIraute (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I overread that when first browsing the article and the word check for "frequent" turned up empty.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Procedure is, for relevant information, to include it from RS irrespective of the 'truth' of what is said. I'm happy to see Uri Avnery's wandering memory of Grass's visits has been corrected. Had I not put in Avnery's remark, one probably would not have turned up a source with the precise facts. Wikipedia works that way, by slow incremental improvements. I don't think it helpful to endlessly worry about WP:RS that may be borderline, to the detriment of articles. Avnery is a German-Israeli, who has read Grass throughout the decades, and met him. In those circumstances, his view, given his own personal stature and background, was eminently worth mentioning, independently of considerations of where it was printed or digitalised. I've written recently, when Counterpunch was challenged as a source, to show in detail that the range of its contributors veers from the far left to the right wing and libertarianism - it runs right across the spectrum, and has ex CIA spies, conservative fiscal experts from the Pentagon, ex-Reagan undersecretaries like Craig Roberts, etc.etc. Thus one judges according to the content of the article. A large number of articles in there are clearly not up to snuff as RS. But a good many of them are, being written by eminently respectable authorities in their fields. Thanks for clearing this up, and that gratitude is extended to IIIraute as well.Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A few comments here.

• If you think our policy allows for inclusions of obviously false information just because it was stated erroneously is some reliable source then you are mistaken. WP uses reliable sources as a proxy to establish what is accurate or "true". It does however not judge which of several notable opinions/theories in disputed areas is true, but simply reports on all of them. That however concerns notable opinions/theories and not factual errors or inaccuracies one might occasionally encounters in a reliable source, those need to be corrected (based on other sources).
• Avnery made no remark regarding Grass _Visits to Israel (frequent or otherwise)
• As far as Counterpunch is concerned, you need to distinguish between reliability associated with the publisher (counter punch) and the author (Avnery). You may occasionally use a counter punch article for WP because it stems from a reliable author, but not because it is from counter punch. However you would always cite peer reviewed science journals even if the author is not particularly reputable because you consider the publisher as reliable.

--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• No, I've edited for 6 years. I know policy. There was nothing to me 'obviously false' about Avnery's remark at the time I edited it in. My edit prompted searches, and Avnery's misprision was corrected. Your third point is, more lucidly, exactly my position as stated above. But the comparison with science journals is unfair. The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times are all taken on Wikipedia as RS because of their prestige, though their coverage of Iraq and Afganistan was notoriously bad, fatally flawed by their commitment to the administration, and consistently exposed in articles on Counterpunch. That is no guarantee that Counterpunch is reliable, of course. Nishidani (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The comments are above are not about, whether your initial use of Avnery as a source for Grass' Israel visits was appropriate or not, but whether it is appropriate to use Avnery as a source for Grass' Israel visits now (respective of the truth/facts we know). I. e. it addresses your "include it from RS irrespective of the 'truth' of what is said" line in the context of currently available knowledge. And for that case the answer is clearly no as explained above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

We're misreading each other. There was no question to be answered ('no') since it is obvious that if a source is used for a 'fact' and then found to err, one does not use that source for that fact, but replaces it. I thought this implicit in what I said. But I've had a heavy day, and perhaps this was not clear. Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Good to see that this part got corrected, as Grass only visited Israel twice. However, Avnery is not a good source for the content part, and of course he did make remarks regarding Grass's visits: "I did not meet him during his many visits to Israel."[4].--IIIraute (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No. He is a good source because he is an author of notable books in Hebrew, a native reader of German, and is writing uncontroversially about a poem in that language by a fellow German, touching on his own homeland, Israel. We allow extremely poor WP:OR to stand in the second paragraph, when it is basically a snippety piece of primary source quoting, and while it's there, we should not be nitpicking one source that comes from a German-speaking writer with Avnery's credentials. The lit-crit brigade's studies of the poem will thicken over the following months and years, and when we have that, we can dispense with Avnery. But until we have better sources for what he says, he should stay. Many objections, perhaps not yours, to his presence are, unfortunately, political. Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

My mistake I overlooked when reading article (as it was only a minor point). Avnery is not a good source for facts about Grass (nor is counter punch). However an article by Avnery (no matter where it is published) is certainly a good source for his opinion on the Grass poem. I'd also consider Avnery as a notable opinion of sorts, he is well known writer and activist, who in addition speaks German as well and has some familiarity with German literary scene/German literature. The article in de.wp for instance cites him as well despite having a larger number of literary critics available.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Antisemitic publications

I removed Category:Antisemitic publications (which was added in 2016, after more than a year of inactivity [5]). There is a little "reverting war" going on now, with User:יניב הורון insisting that an accusation of antisemitism is sufficient to be included in the category. I disagree, since the article clearly mentions prominent opposing views, many Israelis among them. Please help with the resolution. Thank you. --82.6.101.144 (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)