Talk:Jerry Klein's 2006 radio experiment

Notable

This story has been picked up by the international media, is linked to by several other pages and is historically significant as a mark of the state of Muslims in America during a war with Muslim theocrats.Wowaconia 13:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It may have been picked up by the BBC and Reuters, but should everything that appears in the BBC have a Wikipedia page devoted to it????User:Wowaconia is taking this opportunity to turn Wikipedia into a soapbox agaist WP:SOAP. This article describes ONE segment of a AM radio talk show. The host made very seriously racist and provactive comments which he pretended to advocate for on his talk show. Callers called in. Some callers (horrifyingly) agreed with these manufactured points of view; others strongly did not. This was NOT a scientific sample. This was not even a regular poll. The writers of this article are using the article as their SOAPBOX to say that the plight of Muslims in the US now IS THE SAME as the plight of Jews in Germany under the Nazis. This is NOT how Muslims are treated in the US. Muslims have equal rights in the US, which has had separation of church and state since inception. Please review Nuremberg Laws to begin to edify yourself about the rights of Jews in Nazi Germany. Elizmr 20:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please substantiate your charges that I am making this a soapbox. It isn't just me who thought this was notable but Reuters whose works were picked up across America. Publications in England, Asia, and South Africa also thought this was notable. No one is suggesting that this was a scientific poll, information about non-Muslim American's reaction to Muslim-Americans taken in scientific polls can be found on the Islamophobia page which is linked to in this article. Your charge that "the writers of this article are using the article as their Soapbox to say the plight of Muslims in the US now is the same as the plight of Jews in Germany" is unsubstantiated. The article merely documents the strong Anti-American-Muslim sentiments among many Americans during war. The Jews had long been blamed by Germans as the reason they lost WWI and were seen as a traitorous fifth column within Germany before any laws were past against them. These laws could not have been enacted if the German people had not viewed the Jews with suspicion. Hitler was democratically elected as Chancellor and later seized absolute power. During WWII the internment of Japanese-Americans did not happen immediately after Pearl Harbor but after a sentiment among non-Japanese-Americans grew that these people could not be trusted. There was no protest by Americans over the internment, and FDR kept being re-elected. The documenting of a similar sentiment arising today in America (around the Washington DC area no-less) is notable. Your remarks that I need "to edify" myself are presumptuous.--Wowaconia 22:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I invite you to re-read the "No Soapbox standards" you linked to above and claim I am violating. Obviously I am not "advertising"; nor "writing in self-promotion" as Elzmir from long discussions past, you know I'm from Minnesota not Washington DC. So that leaves "Propaganda or advocacy" where in the article do you see anyone advocating any action? Even CAIR is not calling on people to take any specific actions, and the article quotes CAIR it does not advocate for them. Where in the article do you see a lack of objectivity or neutral point of view? Where am I trying to "convince people of the merits of... [my] favorite views." Where do you find any views expressed that are not in referenced quotations? Your claim that this article is a soapbox is at odds with the wiki-definition of the term soapbox, so your claim is without merit.--Wowaconia 22:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. This is very notable. I came to this article specifically to read up on the incident. Why some wish to take it down is beyond me. I heard somewhere that this radio host carried out this experiment. I used google to find his name and then found my way here. The information I got was very interesting. Please don't delete it. -- Rollo44 05:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

deletion tag removed from article before admin action

Hi, someone removed the AFD tag from the article before the matter was settled. I have not done an AFD before, and if I did it incorrectly then let me know. But it is against policy to remove the tag. There is a talk page to disucss the deletion and I put the reason for deletion there. Please replace it. Elizmr 14:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I had removed the AFD tag because you failed to follow the wiki-guidelines found at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination “Nomination… "Before nominating an article for AFD, please: 'first invite discussion on the talk page if you are at all unsure as to the article's worth. Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it's not notable!'"

If you would've questioned the notability here I could've pointed out all the international media that picked up this story and talked about if it needed to be renamed or other such concerns.--Wowaconia 04:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time I brought an AFD and I followed the steps that editors are instructed to follow in these matters. The tag itself says not to removed it until the AFD is decided. I'm not making this stuff up. Elizmr 20:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Next time please follow the Wikipedia guideline I posted above: "first invite discussion on the talk page".--Wowaconia 20:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, I followed the directions as best I could. I apologize if I didn't do everything right. Please consider also apologizing for removing the tag. Elizmr 20:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not remove the tag out of malice, but to "invite discussion on the talk page" please note the first post on this talk-page was from me on 13:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC) trying to figure out why you called for deletion and assuming it was over notablity I argued it was notable. Because you didn't follow wiki-guidelines I didn't realize then that you were claiming the article was a soapbox, which is an arguement that I don't think is substansiated (see above). Surely you must of seen my initial post to this talk-page when you added your comments on the removal of the tag over an hour later. Why didn't you offer any direct response to that post until two days later?--Wowaconia 22:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

On renaming

The article was retitled from "...Parody" to "...Radio Experiment" as during the discussion on whether to delete this article, many editors linked the word parody to comedians like Stephen Colbert. As Klein is not a comedian, nor was he trying to be funny I changed the article name to reflect these facts and clear up confusion.--Wowaconia 20:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be renamed parody since that is what it was, doesn't mean it was any good... 148.78.243.121 03:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As the definition of parody is "humorous or satirical mimicry" and if one listens to the episode in the WMAL link (see external sources) there was no intention of humor and no personality was mimicked. Therefore by definition it is not parody and needed to be renamed.--Wowaconia 20:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Horrified

I am horrified by this incident.Sumptuary Laws in America?????Rumpelstiltskin223 05:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Antisemitism

I think this article should be included in Category:Antisemitism. It's quite obvious and it's also mentioned in the article, "because basically what you just did was show me how the German people allowed what happened to the Jews to happen ... We need to separate them, we need to tattoo their arms, we need to make them wear the yellow Star of David, we need to put them in concentration camps, we basically just need to kill them all because they are dangerous." // Liftarn

Have you looked at the other entries in Category:Antisemitism that you wish to put this into? That category is for listing articles were acts of Antisemitism took place not a depository of every article that mentions the Holocaust. Look at the first two entrys in that category

1066 Granada massacre

On December 30, 1066 (9 Tevet 4827), a Muslim mob stormed the royal palace in Granada, crucified Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela and massacred most of the Jewish population of the city. "More than 1,500 Jewish families, numbering 4,000 persons, fell in one day."

1920 Palestine riots

The 1920 Palestine riots, or Nebi Musa riots, were violent riots against the Jews of Jerusalem under British rule on 4 and 7 April 1920 in and around the Old City of Jerusalem.

Putting this in the same category as events where hundreds were slaughtered because they were Jews trivializes those events. Every mention of the holocaust is not Anti-semitism. Klein is not saying that we need to seperate the Jews he is saying separting the Muslims would make us no better than the Nazis when they separated the Jews. Invoking the Holocaust in an effort to preserve endangered human rights is not Antisemitism by any stretch.

--Wowaconia 23:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It says (in large letters) "This category indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of antisemitism.". That certainly fits this article. // Liftarn

This article does not fit with the other links within that category. Jerry Klein’s Radio Experiment was not a case of Anti-Semitism. Yes it mentions the holocaust, but only in a warning and as an analogy. Just as many films talk about the holocaust but are not included in Category:Antisemitism. See Train of Life; Life Is Beautiful; Schindler's List; etc. A radio show that is in that category is Radio_Maryja#Accusations_of_Antisemitism. Jerry Klein like the films mentioned portrays the Holocaust as a warning to humanity against separating a religious or ethnic group as outsiders and removing them from the equal protection of the law. Meanwhile Radio Maryja is rightfully placed in that category because as the article states “In one broadcast Radio Maryja listeners were told that the Jewish people fled from Poland with all the Jewish gold and that Jews have a negative effect on the birth rate of the Polish people.” The category is not about people warning against anti-Semitism it is about acts of anti-Semitism.

--Wowaconia 18:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It fits the description of what should be included in the category. The examples you mention could be included, but for instance Train of Life is already in Category:Holocaust films so it's covered already. You may also notice that In My Country There Is Problem is included in the category. // Liftarn

You are incorrect, those films (Shindler's list, et al) would've been included in the anti-Semitism category if they would've fit but as they promote a reflection against anti-Semitism they are not. The Category Holocaust films that Train of Life is in is linked to other categories Category:Holocaust in popular culture | Category:World War II films | Category:The Holocaust you'll note that none of these is the anti-Semitism category. Jerry Klein's experiment recalls the holocaust in the same manner as these films do (though, of course, not to the level or extent that they do).

Sacha Baron Cohen uses his Borat character in the piece In My Country There is Problem to expose anti-Semitism or indifference to anti-Semitic thought see Borat#Denigration_of_Jews

"By himself pretending to be anti-Semitic, he lets people lower their guard and expose their own prejudice...[Cohen states] Did it reveal that they were anti-Semitic? Perhaps. But maybe it just revealed that they were indifferent to anti-Semitism".

Cohen targets anti-Semites there is no one targeting either anti-Semites or Jews in Klein's Experiment.

The category for anti-Semitism is not a collection of every mention of the Holocaust and Klein's experiment does not fit alongside the articles there. So its inclusion in this category goes against WP:Category#Guidelines (emphasis added) "Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles. Make decisions about the structure of categories and subcategories that make it easy for users to browse through similar articles."--Wowaconia 13:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As Category:Antisemitism clearly says Note: This category indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of antisemitism. so per the inclusion critera for the category this article fits. What Jerry Klein did was taking antisemitism and replacing "Jews" with "Muslims" to test how people would react. // Liftarn

Replacing Jews with Muslims means its not anti-Semitism but Islamophobia which is what its already categorized as. No Jews and no anti-Semites are targeted so it has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. By the logic your presenting the PETA advertising that compared the slaughter of farm animals to the Holocaust (see Animal rights and the Holocaust) would be worthy of inclusion in the anti-Semitism category because they are merely replacing Jews with Holsteins.

--Wowaconia 18:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want to be inclusive, you could tag Human with Category:Antisemitism, since many antisemites are human. (If I'm being too abstruse, I don't think this is closely enough related to antisemitism to fit the category). Gzuckier 19:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't discuss antisemitism; it doesn't even mention it. The category is for articles that discuss antisemitism; this one doesn't. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If you ould have read the article it would have been obvious that it does discuss antisemitism, but jut for you here is a relevant part: "because basically what you just did was show me how the German people allowed what happened to the Jews to happen ... We need to separate them, we need to tattoo their arms, we need to make them wear the yellow Star of David, we need to put them in concentration camps, we basically just need to kill them all because they are dangerous.". // Liftarn

I don't see the word "antisemitism" there, do you? Jayjg ^(talk) 12:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Liftarn Not only have I read this article, I wrote most of it and I can tell you it has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. In the title of your last edit you said this article "also explores islamophobia as the new antisemitism" even if that's the case then it would seem that your admiting that this article is about Islamophobia not anti-Semitism. And this article has always been included in the Islamophobia category. Your definition of what should be included in the anti-Semitism category is overly broad and diminishes the point of having such a category.--Wowaconia 11:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have problems with the inclusion criteria for Category:Antisemitism I suggest you go to Category talk:Antisemitism and try to get them changed. // Liftarn

What I have done is gone to the history page at Category:Antisemitism to see who helped develop that category page and asked them to comment in this discussion. So far two out of two editors who worked on that page believe this article does not meet the standards for inclusion in that category.--Wowaconia 12:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Which it doesn't. I still don't see the word antisemitism in this article, much less a discussion of it. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jerry klein.jpg

Image:Jerry klein.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)