User:Dweller/RPSM

This page is for me and RPSM only, to discuss editing behaviours. Others wishing to comment should do so at my user talk page, please.

First thing... walls of text

Hi RPSM.

Let's start here, shall we? One of the criticisms the Swedes have is that you post walls of text. I can certainly see their point of you. Not only is it a bit shocking to log in and find such a mass of material on my user talk, it makes it very hard to discuss things - you've made so many points, which are so different from one another, it's really hard to discuss things.

Can you agree to stop doing this on talk pages? If you can't, I'm going to find it very very hard to help you. --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

ok. RPSM (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Great. --Dweller (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Second: the plan

The Swedish admins have made it quite clear that you're not welcome back there. This is because they think you're not capable of making a good contribution. Going back and arguing for an unblock now is therefore pointless. Your best bet is to contribute usefully here and improve your skills as a Wikipedian. I am prepared to help you with this, if you are prepared to be helped. Then, with, say, four months of excellent editing behind you, which they are able to see for themselves, you'll have a good base for a request for unblock. Just to be clear, I'm prepared to help you if (and only if) you agree this is the plan and if you agree to listen to advice. I think it's worth it because you're intelligent and expert and because I like helping people, when it is to the betterment of the project. --Dweller (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a good plan, except the main problems were about communication and cooperation, not so much about the contributions themselves (arguments about point of view are common, but the point is being able to solve those without making bad feelings and taking too much of the time of other contributors). It was the time spent on the arguments that made the admins think the contributions were not worth the effort. (My five pennies, based on the discussions since the asking for help.) --LPfi (talk) (admin on sw-wp) 10:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello. That's helpful. I'm more than happy to work with RPSM on his communication and cooperation skills - in fact, I thought they were the nub of the problem. I'm more relaxed about POV pushers than most people are - I wrote WP:BALANCE! --Dweller (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

From the outset I edited the same articles on English wikipedia and Swedish wikipedia. The reception from the admins and editors on the two wikis has been markedly different. One friendly and one, from the outset aggresssive and suspect. The advice I had from admins on the English wiki was to be bold and edit the text directly. I did this but my edits were reverted immediately on the Swedish wikipedia by admins without giving proper references. The admins on the Swedish wikipedia are sticklers for rules but themselves bread the rules - e.g. not to erase own contributions. I may not erase my contributions, but they erase what ever suits them. My home page on Swedish wikipedia has controversial stuff in my favour erased. I remember what it was.

EG Grillo: You called me an antisemite!

Me: I did not.

Law: you imply that anyone who supports this law*, is an antisemite.

• the Swedish law banning religious slaughter by Jews and Muslims.

As I have been banned for calling people antisemites (which I have never done), it is not a good idea to remove my comments when I defended myself against this a number of years ago. Ths has been done on Sw wikip.

Jews are thin on the ground in Scandinavia (Norway and Sweden). This means that when a Jew finds themselves with an open identity (having "come out" for whatever reason) they are liable and open to bullying attacks that are constant and never cease. [1] Here it is assumed that I am a representatvive for a Jewish lobby regarding permitting Religious Slaughter in Europe (that is only banned in Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and a few other countries where the Jewish communities are miniscule.) My opinions on this matter are entirely dependent on the scientific research done. Jewish slaughter has been subject to more research than any other method. There is masses.

I edit English wikipedia and Swedish wikipedia in the same way and from the outset have been open with my identity. Several viscious attacks on me have been erased on the Swedish Wikipedia, so it is not possible to get a fair impression of what is left of my home page.

Anyone who edits at my level has the option of doing a serious academic paper to use on some course. Which is why there is not a queue of contributors. And, of course, I wonder if instead of donating my efforts for free, I could write something as an academic paper.

I am not a lone Jew on Swedish Wikipedia regarding this subject. But the other person has no desire to have a high Jewish profile and I respect this. The rest are non-Jews. The DIAREL project established the fact that Jews sincerely believe that Jewish slaughter is superior to all other slaughter methods. On the other hand non-Jews are convinced that Jewish and Muslim slaughter is more cruel than "modern industrial slaughter". Why this is so will uncover the antisemitic campaigns (from 1840 onwards) underlying public opinion today.

My contention is that certain people on Swedish Wikipedia are not able to separate the history of the anti-Jewish slaughter agitation in the 1930s (and the anti-Muslim slaughter agitation today) from their personal identity, that Swedish editor Wvs says is part of the Swedish identity.

Wikipedia rules say - Do not discuss the subject matter on the Talk Page, but this is ignored. I get a guy who asks is there any (non-religious) scientific research proving that Jewish slaughter is humane? Answer - Yes, 850 prominent scientists' opinions collected and published in the 1890s - but I should respond to this by entering the material in the text. It is there to read in the references already given. (The Right to Practice Shehitah). But none of the enraged Swedes bothers to get hold of the reference material given and read it.

Being able to keep separate a well known controversy and your own private prejudices is key to debating technique, and generally, in the Swedish school system, not being able to keep a cool head and being able to argue for both sides of an argument is very poor.

I have been completely isolated on Swedish wikipedia. When I edited directly in the text, it was immediately reverted, referring to references about animal slaughter and physiology not properly understood (a lawyer trying to understand statistics about the physiology of slaughter) and two or three admins were replaced by relays of new ones As the form is to justify edits by arguments and references, I went on the Discussion page to give a background, but how can non-Jews start to understand Jewish Law that is a discipline like any other requiring year of study? I said this openly from the start. It was contested. (Anyone can edit anything)

A quick google, and the non-Jews are back again ready to discuss Nikur Aharonim, nebeilah and whatever. You can see this among veterinarians on the web where projects have been set up to explain Religious Slaughter to secular Protestants (DIALREL, for example). My point is that to understand these things, you need years of study. RPSM (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

RPSM, that's a wall of text. I cannot possibly work through all those issues with you in one go. I can't help you like this. Please just respond, briefly and simply on the point I was asking. Do you agree with or disagree with the plan I have proposed? --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the plan. RPSM (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Helping you develop your Wikipedia skills

Allegations against other users

Great. We're now into the main business - helping you as a Wikipedian. Please read and reread WP:NPA. We all take this very seriously. And the more serious the attack, the more certain you must be. You have, apparently, called a number of Swedish Wikipedians "antisemite"s. Do you agree that you have done this? Please restrict your answer to this and all other questions on this page to a maximum of 200 words. --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have never called anyone an antisemite. I would be interested in anyone accusing me of this quoting where I did it. The first person to accuse me of calling him an antisemite was Grillo. I was most surprised.

-You called me an antisemite. Me: I did not. Law - You imply that anyone who supports the law is an an antisemite. (Law is an Swedish administrator who has a background in Botany. Later she said that she was convinced that the Swedish law was indeed based on antisemitism. She is Jewish and a vegetarian. Her vegetarianism conflicts with her wishing to delve deeply into this subject.

(Above conversation has been erased by someone on my talke page along with lots of angry controversy)

What I did do was to quote a source that says that by having a law that outlaws Jewish slaughter, an inference is made that Jews slaughter animals in a way that is more cruel than Christians. In fact, althought there is a variation from animal to animal, the worst horrific mistakes appear to occur with idustrial slaughter where animals are stunned with a Captive Bolt Pistor up to six times. Unless the shot is accurate the first time, the animal probably feels pain. There are reported attempted suicides with Captive Bolt Pistols.

refs later for every point made RPSM (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC) to be continued

No need for refs - this isn't Arbcom, nor an article. If you maintain you've not attacked other users, I have to trust you. Why do you think others think you called them antisemite? --Dweller (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a translation of my talk page in Swedish and what transpired there: (sorry it is long - I have cut out a lot at the end (can supply if needed)

QUOTE FROM MY SWEDISH TALK PAGE in original and translated STARTS HERE:

Hej RPSM! Nu tycker jag att du får ta och skärpa dig ordentligt. I helvete heller att jag är antisemit. Vad är det för dumheter du håller på med egentligen?! dnm ^{(d | b)} 1 april 2011 kl. 15.36 (CEST)

Hi RSPM! Now I think you need to pull your socks up good and proper. For f..ck's sake I'm not an antisemite. What kind of nonsense are you pissing about with? dnm ^{(d | b)} 1 april 2011 kl. 15.36 (CEST)

(I am not sure what sparked this off, it could be some comment on the talk page of the article Ritual Slaughter (sw Skäktning) but I haven't traced what preceded this comment yet. RPSM (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

:Hejsan! Jag håller mig så gått jag kan till ämnet så som jag har läst om den. Du är nu den tredje (3) person som har sagt att jar riktar personliga anklagesler om att den och den är antisemit, när dessa person är för mig endast virtuell avatarer. Jag säger att den bild du målar upp (och den kommer ur den offentlig diskussion - den är inte unik) innehåller klassiska antisemitiska motiv. Detta sett ur en analys som spårar deras ursprung (blodsförtal, rituellmordsanklagelser, hostiaskändning, mm.) Att dessa motiv och deras ursprung är välkända står t ex här [2]. Det finns ingen anledning varför du skulle veta om detta utan att ha läst i litteraturen. Vilken svensk som helst har dessa bilder i huvudet pga av vad som finns i den offentliga masskulturen. Jag bryr mig inte ens att definerar vad en antisemit är eller hur man skiljer mellan en antisemit och en vanlig människa. Jag vet inte vad skillnaden är. RPSM 1 april 2011 kl. 16.33 (CEST)

Hi! I am keeping to the subject matter as well according to what I have read. You are now the third (3) person who has said i direct personal accusations that whoever it is is an antisemite, when these people are to me only virtual avatars. What I am saying is that the picture you are presenting (and this derives from the public discussions - it is not unique) contains classical antisemitic motives - seen from an analysis whose origin can be traced to - Blood Libel, accusations of Ritual Murder and Host Desecration etc. That these motives and their origin are well known is here - [3]. There is no reason why you should know about this without having read it in the literature. Any Swede will have these images in their heads because of what it in the public mass culture. It is not my job (literally - I do not care) how to define an antisemite or how one can tell the difference between an antisemite and an ordinary person. I don't know what the difference is. RPSM 1 april 2011 kl. 16.33 (CEST)

:: Det är helt uppenbart att du inte kan hålla isär saker och jag tror detta beror på att du har svårt att hålla dig neutral till ämnet du faktiskt behandlar här. Oavsett avatar eller ej: Det är inte OK att säga att användare är antisemiter på så vaga grunder du anför! Ifall du inte ens vet vad en antisemit är bör du inte yppa de orden om en annan medmänniska! Kritiskt tänkande och ifrågasättanden är i grunden bra och diskussion skall inte kväsas genom att du tycker det är bekvämt att anklaga de med motsatt uppfattning din egen för antisemiter. Det är inte konstruktivt. Det är lågt. Det är fult. Återigen, skärpning! dnm ^{(d | b)} 1 april 2011 kl. 16.41 (CEST)

It is quite obvious that you can't distinguish between one thing and another and keep things separate and I think this because you have difficulty in remaining neutral with regard to the subject you are dealing with here. Quite apart from avatars or not. It is not OK to say that users are antisemites on such vague grounds as you present. If you don't know what an antisemite is, you should not utter these words about another fellow human being! Critical thought and questioning are basically good and positive and the discussion should not be quelled by those who you think of accusing who happen to have the opposite opinion as your own to be antisemites. It is not constructive. It is low down ugly. Once again, Shape up! dnm ^{(d | b)} 1 april 2011 kl. 16.41 (CEST

::: Jag har inte sagt att du är en antisemit. Jag säger att du använder allmänförekommande bilder som innehåller klassiska antisemitiska element som förekommer jämt i dagspressen, radio och speciellt i skäktningsdebatter. RPSM 1 april 2011 kl. 17.01 (CEST)

I have not said that you are an antisemite. What I am saying is that you are using commonly occurring metaphors that contain classic antisemitc elements that occur regularly in the daily newspapers, on the radio and especially in debates on Ritual Slaughter. RPSM 1 april 2011 kl. 17.01 (CEST)

:::: Dina liknelser du drar är extremt långtgående och något du bör vara försiktig att göra. Du förtar allvaret i antisemitism genom att slentrianmässigt dra obskyra paralleller som dessutom är helt ovidkommande för diskussionen. Bilden jag "målade" upp är en faktisk bild av verkligheten, och jag ogillar din Guilt-by-association-stämpel. Undvik sådant framöver och det kan uppstå en konstruktiv diskussion. dnm ^{(d | b)} 1 april 2011 kl. 17.08 (CEST)

Kan du börja identa (sätt ut kolon i början) dina svar? Det är fruktansvärt svårt att följa diskussioner som inte är indentade.

Can you please start to indent (by putting a colon in the beginning) your answers? It is tremendously difficult to follow discussions that are not indented.

Your metaphors are extremely far fetched and something you ought to be careful about using. You diminish the seriousness in the term antisemitsm by carelessly drawing obscure parallels which apart from anything else are completely irrelevant to the discussion. The picture I "painted" is a real picture of reality and I do not like your Guilt by Association rubber stamp. Avoid this in future and we might be able to have a constructive discussion. dnm ^{(d | b)} 1 april 2011 kl. 17.08 (CEST)

::::: Alla det som jag citerat står i litteraturen. Tidigare länk till Modiya (en typ av studiecirkel om sådana ämnen) [4] bekräftar ju samband melllan skäktningskampanjen, hostiaskändning och rituellmordanklagelser. Saken var att blodsförtal/rituellmordanklagelserna sammanflätades med antiskäktningskampanjen när tre av mer än hundra (100) anklagelserna mellan 1880 och första världskriget handlade om judiska slaktare anklagade för mord. Alla hundra anklagelserna var falska.

Everything I have cited is in the literature. The previous link to "Modiya" (a type of study group on these kind of subjects) [5] confirms the link between the anti-shehita (Ritual Slaughter) campaign, Host Desecration and Accusations of Ritual Slaughter (blood libel). The fact is that Blood Libel Accusations were mixed up with the anti-Shehitah campaign when three out of the more than one hundred accusations between 1880 and the First World War were against Jewish slaughterers accused of murder. All of the hundred accusations were false.

... ... ...

RPSM, be good enough not to distort the views of other users. Dnm does not write that "antisemitism and the ban on Jewish Ritual Slaughter are completely different subjects", On the other hand (as I interpret it) that a discussion about whether or not animals suffer is not a relevant argument to go on about antisemitism. I certainly would agree with that. .Sjö 1 april 2011 kl. 18.45

::::::::::RPSM, var vänlig och förvräng inte andra användares åsikter. Dnm skriver inte "att antisemitism och skäktningsförbud är helt skilda ämnen", däremot menar han (som jag tolkar det) att i en diskussion om huruvida djur lider eller ej är det inte ett relevant argument att börja tala om antisemitism. Det kan jag hålla med om.Sjö 1 april 2011 kl. 18.45

END OF QUOTES FROM MY SWEDISH TALK PAGE

Sjö (admin put in a request that I be blocked, and I was not able to answer Dnm's point (Is there any research (non-religous) that proves Jewish Slaughter is not cruel? The answer is "Yes - about 850 expert opinions collected and published in the 1890s." Rather than answering this point, it is more sensible to enter it in the text. RPSM (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Mast Head on my Talk Page as soon as I came onto Swedish Wikipedia telling me to f.. off.

SlaktJag har sett dina diskussionsinlägg och även deltagit något om debatten angående skäktning. Dina inlägg om ämnet och tillkomsten av nuvarande § 14 i svenska djurskyddslagen är mycket intressanta och återspeglar hur synen på judarna var under första halvan av förra seklet. Detta är nu historia och vi har ingen anledning att diskutera detta i dag i samband med skäktningsartikeln, varken hur det var då eller hur det är nu. Det vore bättre enligt min mening att du, om du vill sprida din kunskap, vänder dig till annat diskussionsforum än Wikipedia, som är en neutral encyklopedi med objektivt skrivna artiklar.

Det är bara att konstatera att vi i dag har ovanstående lag.

Det kan dock kanske vara av intresse för dig att läsa vad Europas veterinärer har för ståndpunkt i fråga om slakt utan bedövning. Denna visar även vad majoriteten av sveriges befolkning anser i frågan. http://www.svf.se/SVT/Senaste%20SVT-nr/Senaste%20ledaren/2007%20-%20nummer%2015.aspx /MvhWvs 2 december 2007 kl. 09.07 (CET)

"Slaughter. I have seen your contributions to discussions and even myself participated somewhat in the debate about Ritual/Religious Slaughter (sw: skäktning). Your contribution to the subject as well as the legislation introduced of the current law Section 14 in the Swedish Law for the Protection of Animals are very interesting and reflect how the view of Jews was during the first half of the last century. This is now history and there is no reason to discuss this today in connexion with the article on Religious Slaughter (sw: Skaktning) either how it was then, or what the situation is now. My opinion is, that if you want to disseminate your knowledge, you should turn to a discussion forum other than Wikipedia, which is a neutral encyclopedia with articles written objectively."

"It is just a matter of stating that we have the above law."

"However, it might be of interest to you to read what viewpoint the European veterinarians have on the question of slaughter without stunning. This shows what the majority of Sweden's population thinks about this question. (Link is now dead). Yours truly, Wvs

This has been at the top of my Home page ever since.

Qote (Temple Grandin) - "Evaluation of religious slaughter is an area where many people have lost scientific objectivity. This has resulted in biased and selective reviewing of the literature. Politics have interfered with good science." RPSM (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Walls of text again!

RPSM, I don't know why you insist on posting walls of text, when you have specifically been asked not to. In fact, I've repeatedly asked you not to. If you're not going to listen to me, I can't help you. Listen:

• People don't read walls of text
• They make you appear aggressive
• It's impossible to respond to all the points you make

Please read that list. And read it again. Then reply. --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"antisemite" allegations

I have never called anyone an antisemite. I could translate where one admin accuses me of this and what I said, but that would be more walls of text. Get someone who reads Swedish to check it, perhaps. RPSM (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Delighted with the short answer.

I believe you. But being totally honest did you use the following formula, without the last line?

Antisemites say "xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx"

You said "xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx"

Therefore you are an antisemite

? --Dweller (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Grillo (a grape variety) said very early on: "You called me an antisemite."

I was flummoxed because I had not done so. My response was "I did not."

Then in chips Law and says: "You believe that anyone who supports the current law (in Sweden banning Religious Slaughter) is an antisemite.

As it so happens, Law's comment appears in a review by ethnologists of newspaper debates, exactly word for word.

I have never at any time written the words you, are antisemite in that order.

The accusers are Grillo and Riggwelter (a Northern English beer) Riggwelter is a Scientologist. Their type of logic and argumentation includes jumps from me saying "The law defames the fair Jewish name, because if Jewish slaghter is cruel, then this implies that Jews are cruel." (quote from Berman, Munk and Munk The Right to Practise Shehitah)

Their thought process go: 1)The law is antisemitic (he says) 2) I like this law and think it is good 3)Therefore, he is saying I am an antisemite. As it so happens I do not use the words antisemite or antisemitic unless referring to prewar people who used the word to describe themselves believing in Racial cleansing and Racial Hygiene Racial Purity etc when it was not proven that variety in the gene base is beneficial. I said this or something lilke it.

For an example of wooly thinking, see the last edit on my talk page where Game On spitefully raps me over the knuckles for original research where the criticism from another user was unsourced. [[6]]

I explain to Game On that unsourced and original research are two different things. Grillo was tremendously angry that I had pointed out that he does not have a first degree (you can read short individual university courses in Sweden, but I don't know if he has). I have heard it said by the owner of a second hand bookshop of German extraction that "Swedes are illiterates who can read and write." (sorry, I must watch my tongue).

OK. As ever, I'm very happy to take your word for it. Yes, you must watch your tongue. I have no idea what the relevance of your last paragraph is and I would also be angry if you made a personal attack on me. Whether I do or don't have a degree is irrelevant to everything - concentrate on issues, not personalities of other editors. --Dweller (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)´

Ok. I have erased Game On's last answer to a question addressed to me. This will not work if all the Swedes land here ranting. If the Swedes had not made personal attacks on me and had concentrated on issues, not my personality, the conflict would not have arisen. RPSM (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Now, when I try to undo my erasure, the history is not showing. RPSM (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Leave it erased. This page is for you and me to discuss things. --Dweller (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have discovered a key difference between English Wikipedia and Swedish Wikipedia. On Swedish Wikipedia, you are not permitted to erase anything on your talk page. What this means is that if the text you are writng in an article is controversial, your talk page can show angry contributions from individuals with strong views on the subject that pile up, creating a feeling like a lot of stray dogs have walked over your lawn dropping turds you are not allowed to remove.

While the real reason is that they object to what I have written in the text (and even now make a condition that if I am allowed back, I should keep off Jewish subjects (Religious Slaughter Bans, Antisemitism, etc.) How does the claim that the problem is me in my communication with others (and not the texts I write) tie in with a condition that if I am allowed back, I should keep off Jewish texts? RPSM (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This new article is translated from the one I did on the Swedish Wikipedia. Is there anything wrong with it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIALREL] RPSM (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I am now informed by Game On that I cannot write on my talk page on Swedish Wikipedia. RPSM (talk) 08:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Game On has very kindly archived my home pages on Swedish Wikipedia. RPSM (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that I mentioned that the Swedish law banning Jewish slaughtering has it roots in antisemitism, as this article says here: [7]"In light of the checkered past of the campaign against ritual slaughter, with its roots in Nazism and xenophobia ..." not that I was accusing individuals, as was (erronously) stated. RPSM (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I would have to tackle this from another angle entirely. There is a lot to say about Antismitism in Sweden. In fact someone has written a book about it (I have not read it). The Law for the Protection of Animals was introduced by a Nazi friendly party with a Member of the Riksdag who, in the 1939 stood up and said he was proud to be an anti-Semite. He was one of the most enthusiastic promoters of the law banning Jewish slaughter. (Otto Wallén, a member of the Agrarian Party.) Jag erkänner gärna utan att blygas att jag är antisemit...Den asiatiska folkstammen passar icke i sällskap med vår hyggliga svenska folkstam. I readily admit without shame that I am an anti-Semite... The Asian race does not suit the company of our noble Swedish branch of humanity.

The Professors at the Veterinary College (Veterinärhögskolan) in 1925 had written a report commissioned by the Swedish Goverment that concluded that Jewish Slaughter (schächten) was humane and not cruel, but recommended post-stunning. Despite this, the law is still in force while a law with the exact same wording introduced by Hitler for the whole of Germany in 1933 has been abrogated in Germany.

When I say things like this (above), Swedish wikipedia editors today feel it is a personal attack on them. I cannot understand it. If I had to explain it, I would say that this is a taboo subject.

The chair of the Jewish community in Stockholm, Lena Posner-Korösi said on a tv programme that the Swedish Law for Animal Protection is the last surviving race law in Europe. This sort of thing gets Swedes' dander up. But how can you write an article on the Swedish ban on Religious Slaughter in Sweden without touching on these things? RPSM (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A few things. First, before making controversial edits, it's a good idea to discuss them with other editors, at article talk pages, WikiProjects etc. When writing up controversy, you have to do so in a neutral manner. There's two sides (at least) to most arguments and Wikipedia should present all sides without favour, or POV. --Dweller (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

When my edits in the article were immediately reverted or adapted, I started to put background and argue the case for my edits.

No one got hold of these sources and argued against them. I put my case on the talk page before adding to the article, but it was a monologue.

On the English site a working journalist Seth Franzman I think, said this was very interesting what I had written if I could get rid of the POV, which, since then, I have attempted to do. I have perhaps written too much without careful thought (on the discussion pages). My assessment is that I would like to erase everything and start afresh and reorganise the Swedish article so there is a narrative through it. If I cannot do this because of being blocked, I can possibly use it for course credit somewhere.

I have said on the Swedish discussion page that there is a requirement to have some knowledge of Jewish and Muslim law, of physiology and anatomy, of law and of the History of Antisemitism. Perhaps also of ethnology (cultural clashes).

Here: [8] is an argument claiming that much of the political activity against Jewish slaughtering is antisemitic. Swedes in general like to think that their law banning Religious Slaughter is based on research, but the research the government commissioned in the 1920s from the Professors at the Stockholm Veterinary College concluded in the 1925 report that Jewish slaughter is humane and not cruel. It was the Agrarian parties in Sweden and Norway that pushed through the legislation. The most active member to ban Religious Slaughter in the Riksdagen, Otto Wallén is notorious for stating in the Riksdagen that he "without shame" declared himself to be an antisemite (he led a delegation from his party to meet Hitler, Himmler and the rest) At the time, the Agrarian or Farmers' Party was in a coalition government with the Social Democrats. This is not talked about or discussed generally, and there was a blanket of silence after the war while the Swedes were brushing up their image.

But today there are a number of historians who were commissioned by the Swedish government to research into the Nazi period. Prime Minister Persson (social democrat) discovered that the denial of the Holocaust among school children was a high percentage (Neo-Nazis were going into the schools and preaching Holocaust denial [9] and took steps to inform the general public about the Holocaust by commissioning historians to write a book delivered to a large number of households.

Swedes in general are not antisemitic, but Nathan Shachar commented that the Swedish left and extremist Islamsts have joined in a common cause so that there are active expressions of antisemitism from the Mayor of Malmö (chairman of the council) Reepalu who said that he tolerates neither antisemitism nor Zionism. This created a reaction from Jews in Malmö where young professionals declared that they could not countenance building families in Sweden and had decided to leave. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/7278532/Jews-leave-Swedish-city-after-sharp-rise-in-anti-Semitic-hate-crimes.html]

This [10] is a 2002 overview of Sweden from the point of view of racism, and the article Antisemitism in Sweden gives an account of how Reepalu, the chairman of the Malmö town council, arrived at loggerheads with the regional newspaper resulting in a conflict parallel to the one I have had with the Swedish editors on WP where I am accused of calling people "antisemites" that I emphatically deny. RPSM (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Start again

I believe you. But being totally honest did you use the following formula, without the last line? Antisemites say "xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx" You said "xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx" Therefore you are an antisemite ? --Dweller (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Found it. The initiative came from the other side.

I said "Someone identifying themselves as an antisemite in a statement in the Swedish Parliament, was the most energetic in debating for a ban on Jewish slaughter."

Then the Swedish blocking administrator (incognito) says:

"Don't you call me an antisemite!"

The above is a paraphrase, but reflects the logic used. I can go back and translate the exact quote (a bit long though). RPSM (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless they're an MP in disguise, they made a mistake. Leave it alone now. It seems from the Swedish admins that this was not the main reason for your block. If you can ignore it and move on, you'll do better than if you try to pick at it. --Dweller (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)