Jump to content

Talk:Zvi Mazel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Removed paragraph on Helge Fossmo

I have removed a paragraph from the article because it was purely speculative, and the two links given as sources seem to be dead. If it is to be reinserted, it should be accompanied with sources, and no opinions should be expressed in the article, except where attributed to outside sources. Editorialization and speculation have no place on Wikipedia. — Dan | Talk 21:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT add non-NPOV statements to this BLP

Fair enough. I have rephrased it. Please do not remove any sourced content. // Liftarn (talk)

Neutrality check

Now that I have your attention, I wish editors to check neutrality of this BLP with extreme care on the following issues:

  • The article contains a line, "He made news a few times." and goes on to give a few news instances. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and surely not news. Therefore, either summarize these news items in an encyclopedic context if their historical importance has been proven, or do away with them.
  • There's another full paragraph dedicated to an event where the individual apparently destroyed some artpiece. That paragraph is clearly non neutral when seen in the context of the fact that it occupies an inordinate space in the biography. Either reduce the size of the space dedicated to the event, or increase the size of the full BLP.
  • The same paragraph starts with original research, "In January 2004 he became internationally known when he vandalized..." I don't care what the individual actually did in truth. Verifiability is not about the truth but about references backing up the claims. Therefore, unless you have references that use the word "vandalizing" in reference to this event, this word has to be deleted. Also, if you don't have some reliable source commentary that proves that this guy became "internationally known", do not jump to conclusions and put original research saying that this guy became internationally known. I live in one of the world's largest countries, and I can assure you, he really did not even spark an ant of a news here. So please don't forward a synthesis that because you think all newspapers covered him, he must have become internationally famous. Prove it using a reliable source which says he became internationally famous.
  • The usage of the term "claimed" is non-npov. Do not use the word "claimed". Rather, use the word, "said" or "commented."
  • The usage of the term "in reality" to start sentences is non-npov. Instead, start sentences directly quoting from the reliable sources. Don't add original research saying in reality. I repeat, verifiability is not about reality; it's not about truth; it's about exactly what reliable sources quote.
  • Why in heavens are the names of four Swedish newspapers with their political affiliations given here? Did Zvi actually talk about these papers? Or are you jumping again at original research because a reliable source said that he might have been "probably" talking about these papers? Please remove the mention of these papers and don't synthesize your conclusion through inferences.
  • There are dead links (at least one) in this BLP. Check them; or provided live reliable sources; or remove the statements that you've connected to the sources.
  • Next time you revert a change, make sure you don't replace it with your personal original research (which you seem to have) and your synthesis (which exists currently)

I'll wait till tomorrow before changing the BLP based on suggestions I receive here. Thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message 13:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please recommend a rephrasing of the line "He made news a few times" you obviously find offensive. His destruction of the artwork is de facto what made him internationally known.
  • This destruction of the artwork is described as reported by reliable sources. If you want to change the text, find sources for it first.
  • That he vandalised an artwork is well established by reliable sources. Do not remove that unless you have reliable sources saying otherwise. In this article (a reliable source) it says that he vandalised the artwork.
  • Ok, "claimed" changed to the more neutral "said".
  • "in reality" removed.
  • Zvi claimed 80% of the press is connected to the Social Democrat movement, to balance that POV I added the actual facts for all the major daily newspapers. There is no alternative interpretation of his statement than that he was referring to those newspapers. But if you want I can provide a source.[1]
  • Live sources are actually not needed, if you want to check it you can probably use something like Wayback.
  • I disagree.

As stated above. Please do not remove facts that are backed up by reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk)

  • This article is clearly written by someone (ie Liftarn) who is biased against Israel, and uses Wiki as a platform to justify or condone Palestinian terror.
  • Zvi's biography is written with the intent to disparage this public figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.161.134 (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than making personal attacks like this, it would be better if you turn to civil discussions on the talk page. It is suggested that you do not unilaterally change version until there are discussions. Of course, you can be bold. But once your changes have been undone (by me, in this case), come to the talk page and start discussing your views. Wifione ....... Leave a message 17:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you find this article unbalanced, and even I could, try to add less disparaging information about this public figure to have it rebalanced. Zvi Mazel is a controversial figure in Sweden and it is justifiable to have information exposing why. Steinberger (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some have speculated[2] that Mazel's strange ideas about the country he worked in may have been due to him getting his info from people like Helge Fossmo[3] who probably did not give an unbiased view. I've added it to the article so now Mazel no longer looks like some kind of paranoid delusional maniac, but someone who simply trusted the wrong people. // Liftarn (talk)
Hi Liftarn. I've added a few tags. What you say, is not there in the citations given. Kindly double check. Also, please give a citation for the newspapers claim. You'll have to ensure that the citation you give for the newspapers proves not only their political affiliations, but also that they are the major papers. Although, I would still prefer taking out that line. Kind regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to take out the Failed verification tags since the sources are plainly given and it does say that. If you have trouble finding the exact section I can provide it for you. In this source it says "By the ”four national papers” Mr Mazel most probably means Dagens Nyheter, Svenska Dagbladet, Aftonbladet and Expressen. He doesn’t explain how they are connected to the social democrats.". As for their political orientation it was taken from their respective pages here on Wikipedia. Ok, I know Wikipedia is not a reliable source as such, but I did not feel it was necessary to add sources for obvious things. // Liftarn (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that you can suggest that there is a lack of neutrality because the article refers to news reports. Mazel is not just controversial in Sweden. His vandalism of the art installation and outspoken comments about Sweden even made the news in New Zealand.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Issues yet to be resolved

Hi Liftarn. You have to consider the following issues again:

  • You have written a statement " Helle Klein have speculated that his strange ideas about Sweden may be from people like Helge Fossmo and other Christian extremists." and given two sources [4][5]. None of the two sources even mention any person named "Helge Fossmo". From where are you writing this statement then? Please write "exactly" what the reliable source mentions; or remove the statement altogether.
  • You refer to a statement that a reliable source has made - "By the ”four national papers” Mr Mazel most probably means Dagens Nyheter, Svenska Dagbladet, Aftonbladet and Expressen. He doesn’t explain how they are connected to the social democrats." Using this statement, you have jumped to a conclusion that Zvi Mazel must have talked about these four newspapers. And therefore, you intend giving the political affiliations of these four newspapers, claiming that these make up the Swedish media. I disagree completely as that is a prime example of original research again. Kindly (and I have to repeat it) remove this conjecture statement completely, unless you can show a reliable source that says that Zvi Mazel was "definitely" (and not probably) referring to these four newspapers and that these newspapers have so-and-so political affiliations. Even the reliable source is not sure which paper Zvi was referring to. My apologies; you have corrected this point already. Thanks for that. But you still will have to kindly give a source to prove their political affiliations. I've again placed a citation required tag. Please don't remove the tag until you place the reference.

I'll wait for your reply before proceeding with editing one of the statements you have placed. Kind regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the reference is not by name, but by position. Here Fossmo is refereed to as "Knutby-sektens pastor" (the pastor of the Knutby sect) and here he is refereed to as "Knutby-pastorn" (the Knutby pastor).
The political orientation of the newspapers was sourced to the source already given, but per your wish I have doubled it.
// Liftarn (talk)
Alright. So where is it written in any of these sources that "Zvi Mazel's strange ideas about Sweden may be from people like Helge Fossmo and other Christian extremists"? Can you give me the exact line please? Look, I'm sorry for being such a pest, but this is a BLP and I am concerned about this. Wifione ....... Leave a message 11:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant section is probably "Om det är i dessa sammanhang som Zvi Mazel får sin bild av Sverige som han sedan rapporterar hem till Israel är det inte underligt om verklighetsuppfattningen blir skev. Fanatiska kristna piskar gärna upp en hotfull stämning mot islam och muslimer." (If it in this context that Zvi mazel have received his views of Sweden that he then reports back to Israel it is not odd that his perception of reality become crooked. Fanatic Christians like to conjure up a threatening atmosphere against Islam and Muslims." // Liftarn (talk)

It has been quiet for a while now. Are all issues fixed? Can we remove the tag? // Liftarn (talk)

Non-npov words

  • Again, a request to avoid the usage of words like claimed, probably... and so on so forth unless the words themselves are supported by reliable sources. This is a BLP and one has to be extremely careful about the usage of both words and conjectures. I've followed the edits since I raised an NPOV flag on this article a few weeks back; and I have to say I'm quite satisfied with the progress till date. I've taken up a few edits, corrected English grammar within the article and have also broken up the BLP into various sections. In case you feel the section breakup is not appropriate, do suggest here what you believe could be more appropriate. Or you could edit the changes and I'll watch over them myself. Thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message 01:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good. We should watch so that the text on Snow White and The Madness of Truth don't swell too much as it has it's own article. I have also removed (several times actually) the word explained when it was used for one person's opinion. // Liftarn (talk)

vandal

I think that the category Category:Vandals is appropriate for this article as he is a documented destroyer of artwork: "In January 2004, he destroyed the art installation Snow White and The Madness of Truth by Israeli-Swedish artist Dror Feiler and his wife Gunilla Sköld Feiler.[1]" with further information in the same paragraph. A vandal is a vandal regardless of personal or political excuse offered, which none of us are obligated to accept. Hmains (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hmains. I respect your comments. There are two issues still. Unless there are many reliable source that clearly address Zvi as "a vandal", simply adding up the fact that he destroyed an art piece - and therefore is a vandal - will be a synthesis of information. As this is an exceptional claim (that he is a "vandal"), you'll require more than a handful of exceptional reliable sources to address him exactly as a "vandal". Even if you find just one or two reliable sources addressing him as a vandal (which I don't think you'll find; but still, even if you do), that will be considered a fringe attribution and should not be included here. Even assuming you find more than a handful of reliable sources explicitly addressing him as a "vandal", the mere addition of a non-neutral point of view category will be wrong as that would go against our NPOV advice, which is a pillar of Wikipedia. Therefore, adding the category vandal is not appropriate in this BLP. Sincere regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 05:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the problem with categorizing him as a vandal. BBC say he vandalized the artwork. Moscow Times say he vandalized the artwork. LA Times say he vandalized the artwork. Haaretz say he vandalized the artwork. So it is not fringe description that he vandalized the artwork and the category in question is "for people who have performed vandalism." And I wounder how the action of destroying a artwork would be neutrally described in a way other the vandalism anyway. So, if there should be a category for those who have vandalized something, this article should be listed. Steinberger (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. All news reports point to one incident. Therefore, there are the following arguments:
  • Categorizing a BLP as a vandal is akin to relegating the individual as a long term vandal. That's not true in this case.
  • This person destroyed an art piece 'once'. Therefore, one might create a category of "one-time art work vandals" and then add this BLP to that category. But generalizing this as belonging to the vandal category is generalizing it too much.
  • The vandal category per se is non-NPOV.
  • Irrespective of all this, the category itself is up for deletion discussions. Let's continue our discussions post the closure of those discussions. Thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message 15:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow, if you commit one murder you are a murderer. I really can't see that the use of the word would imply that Mazel habitually vandalizes stuff as you seem to mean it would - not if that one act is notable enough anyway. I also object to your assertion that the category is inherently Non-NPOV. Should Banksy be in that category? No, that would be POV. But in this case? I think so, Mazel can't dodge vandalism charges with reference to some artistic ambition. Steinberger (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Steinberger and don't understand the counter argument, which seems like special pleading and excuses for the behavior of this individual. Note, this article was previous in the vandal category until it was recently removed. Hmains (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the retained and renamed Category:Vandals_of_property to this article. If a one-instance politically motivated art vandal as Mary Richardson are be listed there, I can't see any reason to keep Zvi Mazel out. (Although I think "art vandal" would be better then "vandal of property".) Steinberger (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. I don't agree with the arguments. They are structurally faulty. Kindly do read the following points:
  • Comparing a murderer to a person who destroyed an art work is the most extreme comparison. A murderer is a convicted murderer who is a criminal. A person who has destroyed an art work is not a criminal; and in this case, the person hasn't even been pulled up for doing something illegal, only for something behaviorally wrong. And behavioral indiscretions can never be compared to permanent indiscretions. Let me give an example to make this clearer. If for example a person has had one bad alcoholic/drunk episode at a party, and it is reported throughout media, will you permanently categorize the person as being under the Category:Alcoholic or Category:Drunkard? Obviously not. Because while a murderer always remains a murderer, a person who has shown a behaviorally deviant behavior once, cannot be labelled as a permanently deviant individual. Please also read up on Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons#Categories.2C lists and navigation templates. In other words, a person who once destroyed an art piece cannot be labelled as a permanent all time vandal of property or anything like that - which is what your categorization is doing. I'm sorry but I am going to remove this category. (In fact, I hear that in countries like Germany, even a murderer can no longer be called a murderer once his sentence has been served).
  • Also, giving the argument that others are in this category, is logic that should be used minimally. Other stuff does exist; and we can't do anything about it or use it as evidence to enstregthen our arguments.
  • I have a good alternative for you both. And I hope I'm able to prove to you that I'm attempting to follow purely the policies. Now that you have reliable sources that show some reporter claiming that this person vandalized an art piece, why don't you add the term vandal to the main article itself, rather than categorizing? This will most probably satisfy your objective of getting the term vandal into the article and satisfy my objective of ensuring that this BLP is not seen as a permanent vandal. Thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can give you one right. The argument that others are in the category is weak. But I don't give mush for the others. I did not compare his actions to murder, only saying that the same logic applies. And it do. A person that have committed a crime is a criminal. A person that have written an doctors thesis is a doctor. Neither might not be a useful description as it might be a one-time happening or possibly, they have changed. Or in the other case, they might do something totally unrelated in their further career. But nominally they still are criminals, nominally they are still doctors. In this case, if one should give Zvi Mazel one title, it is diplomat/ambassador - that is the most useful epithet. But if there are no limitations to the epithets one can ascribe, vandal should be included as the case of vandalism was very notable. After all Wikipedia is, or at least should be, comprehensive according to its policies. Steinberger (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're wrong on almost all fronts as per our policies and guidelines. Please don't mind me saying this. I don't mean it to slight your argument. You can't call a living person a criminal, even if you have reliable sources, unless he is convicted under a court of law - that's Wikipedia's guidelines. Kindly read the same here. There are extreme limitations to epithets one can ascribe to living persons. And one incident of destroying an art work is neither a crime, nor is a sign of long term deviant behavior that can be permanently categorized as a vandal. A doctor is generally a permanent doctor. But an ambassador, once removed/retired from his post, is no longer an ambassador, and should not be categorized as an ambassador (you can make the correction of this ambassador point in this article too) but as a "former ambassador". If I place a category of "administrator" under my name on Wikipedia, and then resign/retire from the position, my category also ceases to exist. I encourage you to kindly reconsider my suggestion in the earlier reply. Rather than adding a permanent vandal of property category, please go ahead and in the main article, include the term "vandal" appropriately using reliable sources. My regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right on ambassador, I did not check on it before. But the others, I did. Criminal, vandal, murderer, doctor is something you don't just stop being. "Former vandal" sounds hilarious to me. Like something you might read in a not-that-serious feel-good article about born again Christians that have cured their compulsive urge to paint moustaches on busts with Jesus.
I read the two links (WP:BLPCAT and WP:CRIME) you have posted and where the rules on what rigours should be applied before placing someone is called or put in a category that equals "criminal" and Zvi Mazel manage vandal with no problem as I see it. As a diplomat he would never be convicted as he was immune, therefore, even if vandalism usually are a crime the question becomes hypothetical. Instead we have to look at the sources that say he is, are they reliable? (Yes) Was the event notable enough? (Absolutely, he might not qualify WP:DIPLOMAT without it.) That said, I figure you think I am wrong again. But I can wait a couple of days and we can see if can get input from Hmains, Liftarn or some fifth person beside you and me. In the other case, we can start a formal dispute resolution process. Steinberger (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. You're right - former vandal does sound hilarious. But that's how it is. I know this is repeating it ad nauseam but one cannot be termed a current vandal for a one-time past incident. By the way, while you consider the destruction of artwork incident to be notable, it might be not so, as per my interpretation of our guidelines on events.
However, I appreciate your view of including Hmains, Liftarn on this issue. I do realize that their views will be important. Thanks for the patience. Sincere regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 10:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering his main claim to fame is his destruction of an artwork the category sounds sensible. // Liftarn (talk)

References

  1. ^ "Ambassadör förstörde konst" Dagens Nyheter

Surfed into this page by googling the person descibed, and opened the history to understand the Helle Klein quote. I don´t see why the explanation of Fossmo-Mazel was deleted, it´s defenitely relevant for the story it´s easy to verify by a simple google search.

Althought the word "undermining" might be a speculative wording, as the the message probably was recieved different accoring to the reciever. Fossmo was a profile even before the murder-case, but at this time his support probably was seen as positive among ultra-conservative friends of Isarel, while undermining/not-helpful among moderately conservatives and liberal friends of Israel, while probaly was "used" by left wing Israel-critics.

BUT, it´s not logical to remove the story. When mentioning the Mazel-statements on people accused to be "anti-israel", the likewise controversial statements who was "israel-friendly" is very relevant. If there is a headline about the Sweden-Mazel relation this story can not be totally cut out to understand the infected situation. Also since the Helle Klein quote is there, the link between Mazel-Fossmo should be explained.

Adam R — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.181.46.212 (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Zvi Mazel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zvi_Mazel&oldid=1208892214"