Talk:Dreyfus Affair

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search

What's the point of this article, which looks as if it's simply been lifted from the other place? Toolbox 20:56, 9 August 2010 (IST)

Quite a lot of stuff here has been initially lifted from 'the other place' (and other sources). It's a useful way to get started with a topic, usually as a prelude (where clearly necessary to reflect Wikispooks editorial policy) to re-balancing it. The Dreyfus affair does have clear 'Deep Political' associations and, as such, I for one judge it an appropriate subject to be on the site. Maybe it needs further tweeking. I haven't had time to vet it thoroughly but do know something of the user who posted it - and she has serious deep politics research credentials. --Peter P 09:55, 10 August 2010 (IST)
Is there an argument anywhere that Dreyfus was in fact guilty as originally charged, and fraudulent accusations of antisemitism is what got him re-habilitated? It's difficult to imagine any other possible "deep politics" interest, and I've never seen such a claim. Under such conditions, holding a copy of an article which is presently going to be out of date does little more than degrade the worth of WS. Or encourage vandalism ....
Meanwhile, all material in the other place (as is very obvious in this article again) is heavily contaminated with Zionist sub-texts eg that the French are incurable antisemitic. The article parrots the Zionist argument that Theodore Herzl was some kind of wise philosopher when he was both a dangerous ethnic nationalist and openly defended Jews making other Jews suffer. I'd need to take a spade to clean it up and I'm hardly going to bother if others freely put in cac. Toolbox 14:36, 10 August 2010 (IST)
I don't take issue with any of that. However, anti-Semitism (for a whole complex gamut of reasons) was (and to some extent still is) a fact of life throughout Europe through the 19-20th centuries - in much the same fashion as racism of other kinds was and still is. I agree the affair IS often used as a Zionist apologia and this version probably needs some editing to reflect that. However I think Zionism and "Semitism" need very separate treatment even though they are intimately connected. I take your point about Herzl and, having skimmed the article, it could probably be beefed up in that and a few other areas - Care to have a go? --Peter P 12:32, 16 October 2010 (IST)