Talk:Benjamin H. Freedman/Archive 1

message: I just edited the opening text of the article, giving more light to Friedman's first occupation, "businessman" (according to the dis-ambiguation page). I also, since it is a disputed fact, given the usual antisemite accusations a more objective, less authoritative place, while still respecting the existing sources. I might still make some minor changes to my change, to try and be the most objective possible. MVictorP (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: User Diannaa edited some of my changes (which is alright), but his/her work let to believe that the New York Times qualified Freedman as being anti-semite, whereas what I can see of the article, it rather adressed him as an anti-zionist (a fact that's pretty much undisputed). As much of the "anti-semite" accusations are from the usual zionist watchdogs (what have we here anyway; two of these accusations are from Griffith, another from "Jews against Prejudice" author, and finally a conservative) rather than neutral observers, it's important that their opinion do not translate as gospel, right there in the first paragraph. Come on. 
Expect some more changes. The French version of this article is much more elaborate, and objective, IMO.MVictorP (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Sorry about that; I put in that change without looking closely enough at the source. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No sweat, and thanks for the good work. MVictorP (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smallish Edit Regarding "Businessman" and "Anti-semite" 

message: This article is textbook propaganda. The fact that some people resort to online name-calling, defining a certified academic as an "antisemite" is ludicrous. Wikipedia is not a tool for far-right zionist brainwashing. The sources are questionable at best, libel at worst. The people in charge of the quality of the information provided should be ashamed.
WIKIPEDIA IS A ESTABLISHMENT PROPAGANDA SH*THOLE!!!
F*CK YOU WIKIPEDIA AND DOUGHNUT EATING TROGLODYTE RAT "EDITORS"(PROPAGANDIST)!!!
: oh my. such language! I guess anti-zionism should be a more precise word. In any case, Freedman was an eccentric crackpot who fabricated history as he went (e.g. the Balfour Declaration being the reason why the US joined the war on side of the entente. What nonsense.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:540:6B80:CD86:562B:8246:D79C (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Those who oppose Freedman's hypothesis that there was a link between the Balfour Declaration and the US declaration of war on Germany should offer a better explanation for US war entry. There are others who utter the same hypothesis. Freedman may have been a doubtful character in some aspects. That does not exclude that he was right in some of his theses. I found no evidence that he was a Holocaust denier. He discussed the number killed. Please correct me if I am wrong. All that I found about Freedman was  highly controversial and contradictory.  Discussing the number of Holocaust victims does not make him a denier. The whole article sounds like Hasbara or AIPAC propaganda intended to discredit him. As a proselyte he is a natural enemy for zealous Zionists. Aish HaTorah ("Fire of Torah“) with the Hasbara Fellowships became an international program to spread propaganda for the Likud govt.  In 2007 this organisation appealed to target Wikipedia. Sadly Wikipedia thus loses more and more of its credibility. Ontologix (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "known for his antisemitic views and writings" 

message: Benjamin Freedman did not deny the holocaust. He refuted the number of 6 million Jews being killed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandraTruthWarrior (talk • contribs) 14:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust revisionist, not holocaust denier