Talk:Wir Juden

Over-reliance on single source

This whole article is based on one writer's review of the book. The reviewer appears (according to his page) to be a clearly biased source and his view appears to contradict how the book author is portrayed (with numerous references) on the author's own page. The source states "Dr Prinz, like many other early sympathizers and allies of Nazism, did not realize where that movement (and modern antisemitism generally) was leading." Yet Joachim Prinz describes someone strongly against Nazism and how he viewed its rise with alarm ("Prinz was a vocal opponent to Nazism and spent his young years warning others about the dangers of National Socialism long before Adolf Hitler seized power in 1933." and contrasts this with those who did not see the coming danger). He saw some ideas as useful only in limited context at best. It's WP:UNDUE at best (but nearly deletable as lopsided attack-page) to give the impression that he was some sort of generally-pro Nazi. DMacks (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding more sources, wait just a minute. I'm pretty sure that it is notable though, it should probably be kept. ADM (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Defintely notable, yes! Just need to make sure the factual description isn't too slanted (separate "what is the book about" from "what do others see in it"). DMacks (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleting Properly Sourced Information ?

User:Jayjg writes:

remove huge amounts of WP:NOR - please cite reliable secondary sources, rather than your own personal analyses

Yet all the statements he's deleted are properly sourced. Here are the paragraphis in question:

          ---------------------------------------

Prinz theorized that fall of liberalism, as signified by Hitler's ascension, meant the end to practical assimilation of Jews into the larger European community:

The meaning of the German Revolution for the German nation will eventually be clear to those who have created it and formed its image. Its meaning for us must be set forth there: the fortunes of liberalism are lost. The only form of political life which has helped Jewish assimilation is sunk.

    Support for anti-assimilation efforts

Another notable passage concerns Jewish assimilation:

We want assimilation to be replaced by a new law: the declaration of belonging to the Jewish nation and the Jewish race. A state built upon the principle of the purity of nation and race can only be honored and respected by a Jew who declares his belonging to his own kind. Having so declared himself, he will never be capable of faulty loyalty towards a state. The state cannot want other Jews but such as declare themselves as belonging to their nation.

  Practical aims of collaboration
	

He adds that :

For its practical aims, Zionism hopes to be able to win the collaboration even of a government fundamentally hostile to Jews, because in dealing with the Jewish question not sentimentalities are involved but a real problem whose solution interests all people’s, and at the present moment especially the German people.

  Legacy
	
    Usage by critics of Judaism

Controversial Israeli critic Israel Shahak mentioned Wir Juden in his notorious attack on Judaism, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight Of Three Thousand Years." Shahak claimed that the book was full of crude flatteries of Nazi ideology and glee about the decline of the ideas of the French Revolution. Shahak accuses Prinz of representing various evils of the Jewish religion. Shahak's accusations against Prinz have been echoed by anti-Jewish activists, such as David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, in his book Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question.

   Usage by anti-Zionistm

The book has also been controversial because anti-Zionists have attempted to make the case that Zionists like Prinz were not primarily concerned helping Jews to escape Nazi oppression, discrimination, bigotry, and persecution. Anti-Zionists like Lenni Brenner have claimed that Prinz's advocacy for German Jews to escape to a Homeland for the Jewish people is somehow an indication that the Zionists approved of Nazi anti-Jewish values. David Duke's accusations against Prinz, for instance, have been repeated by anti-Zionists to claim that Prinz's Zionism contains fascist and racist elements, even though Prinz's subsequent career in the United States was intimately involved with the Civil Rights movement, the March on Washington, and other anti-fascist and anti-racist campaigns.

   Usage by Holocaust-Deniers
	

Deniers of the Holocaust and groups with neo-Nazi affiliations, such as the Institute for Historical Review, have also repeated unsubstantiated claims that Wir Juden indicates an association between Jewish Zionism and the Anti-Semitic Nazis. They often bolster these claims with quotes taken out of context, and invariably neglect to mention Prinz's long career as a civil-rights leader and anti-fascist.

   Subsequent defense of Prinz

Defenders of Prinz say that while he may have been naive at first, he was also a vocal opponent to Nazism. They contrast this with those who did not see the coming danger and add that he saw some ideas as useful only in limited context at best.

	------------------------------------------

So the question is: Why are these properly sourced statements being characterized as WP:NOR  ? Ronreisman (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

References

"We propose a new law"

I am not sure about this quote. See the source cited: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JTtGXWzfD10C&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=%22we+propose+a+new+law+to+replace+assimilation%22&source=bl&ots=VFn8tbw19l&sig=7ixt_Mi2GR3u1XDg_Lrac0OmwmY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiA3dKe2q7WAhVoL8AKHTxqCDYQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=%22we%20propose%20a%20new%20law%20to%20replace%20assimilation%22&f=false There it is not clear if Nicosia is quoting Prinz or rather the ZFvFD's 21 June statement, which seems more likely given the "We". BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Not only it is clear he is quoting Prinz (see the book's notes scheme, or the comparing style), as the referred 21 June statement was already quoted in the previous page and is being compared here after its presentation. Matheus Daisy (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)