Talk:José Saramago

Old discussion
I've moved the "Anti-semitism" text below, since i think that Saramago's quotes and Bibliography are far more important in an Encyclopedia.

--Joaop 20:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

roflmao about the anti-semitism bit...finally someone said something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.17.133 (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2004 (UTC)

Is there any reference about the supposed quota on the Nobel prize?

-- David Déharbe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.128.7 (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2004 (UTC)

I changed out "anti-semitism" in the introductory description. It IS important, but the descriptions of him as an anti-semite are less important than and external to his base profession and life.

--Adam — Preceding undated comment added 00:15, 22 November 2004 (UTC)

I removed a book supposedly published in 2005. I found no reference to this book in any other web page (well Google did not) but this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.19.160.1 (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2005 (UTC)

What?! Saramago is no way an anti-semitic! He just criticized Israel for killing THOUSANDS of innocent Palestinians in the way they kill. Just that! He is a communist, he is not anti-semitic. The quote on the nobel prize is indeed true, I'm Portuguese, I assure you. Afonso Silva 15:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The comment that purportedly relates to Saramago's Anti Semitism stems from an interview in Oct 2003, where Saramago stated that the crimes that are being perpetrated upon the Palestinians by the occupying Israeli military forces in the West Bank and Gaza are comparable to Auschwitz. The comment has more to do with how Saramago sees the treatment of the Palestinians than it does with defaming Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwikle (talk • contribs) 16:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"His main flaw, as writer, is predictability. One may assume for granted that in all his novels class struggle is the key for unraveling human conflict. Such a unilateral anthropology gives no room for psychological tension in his characters. They are not so much individuals as representatives of classes and values." This is POV, there is no place for such material in this article. If you believe I'm wrong, please revert, but present some links as to prove that there is a consensus on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sobretudo (talk • contribs) 05:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It doesn't take a critical essay to understand that such a description of Saramago's works is totally misleading, and factually false. It just sounds like a slur for ideological reasons. You just read his books and you understand that those lines talk about somebody else, not Saramago. Given Saramago's comments on Israel, one might suspect that people who support Israeli policy towards Palestinians may dislike the idea that a Nobel-prize winning author expressed such ideas--hence, the writer must be belittled. Which is a dishonest way to comment on a writer. Besides, I'd like to detach the part about Saramago's comments on Israel with a sub-title, which might be "Controversy"--something that has been done in many other articles--instead of leaving it in the Biography section.--213.140.21.227 (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am also portuguese and I'm waiting for the reference for the supposed quota.

--macl — Preceding undated comment added 11:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

-

In my opinion the "style" section on this Article is rather poor. You basically mention Saramago as an author who writes long sentences, etc, etc, and you do not try to insert him in any literary cathegory. I would suggest that Jose Saramago is inserted in the cathegory of magic realism. In fact, almost all his novels follow the basic patterns of such style, since there are fictitious elements added to a story occuring in a "real world", which are not disputed by the "real characters", and which are not explained in logical terms in the end of the story. For instance, the abillity of Blimunda for seing inside humans flesh and the flying ship in "Blimunda and Baltasar", the unexplained collective blindness of the population in "blindness", almost 100% of the people voting in white in the governement elections in "seeing", etc, etc... You could eventually insert a cross-reference to the "magic realism" Article, which by the way is very complete and interesting, despite also not mentioning Saramago... Andre Bento — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.132.162.155 (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

-

I replaced the doppelganger link with magical realism; I thought your point was valid, and doppelganger is one of many themes that Saramago adopts -- not quite a "see also" link, in my opinion. Judith24 15:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I took out the Palestine quote. I don't see how, removed from any context or explanation, it deserves to be singled out among all the things he's ever said, nor how it is relevant to his biography. Yak314 03:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

source required
I couldn't find a source for the following:

his publication of Baltasar and Blimunda in 1988 brought him to the attention of an English-speaking readership. This novel won the Portuguese PEN Club Award.

Anyone else? Judith24 15:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Nobel prize bio-/bibliogragphy says he gained international recognition after his publication of Baltasar and Blimunda, which is perhaps even better :-) I changed it. /SvNH 21:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversies
Now Saramago appears to be a very controversial person, the controversies section is almost as large as that on his work. Imho this does not give a fair description of the subject (cf. WP:UNDUE), and I think we should remove some of it - at least until other sections are extended. I removed the unsourced "Auschwitz" statement. /SvNH 21:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Bloom's Critisism
Being the most powerful force when it comes to literary criticism, I was wondering if it is worth mentioning either of these two Bloom quotes--one being a reinforcement of the 'best living novelist' title and another of negative criticism: “Saramago’s novels are endlessly inventive, endlessly good-natured, endlessly skillful,” “but it baffles me why the man can’t grow up politically. In 2007, to be a Portuguese Stalinist means you’re simply not living in the real world.” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/magazine/26saramago-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Neither quote may be detailed or descriptive enough to be worth adding, but I was just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmiller0167 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You should definitely add that. It's not really fair that there is only Bloom's flattering description of Saramago on the page, while the criticism is being left out. Girlunderglass (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because Bloom—a reactionary has-been who long ago capitulated to the journalistic pleasures of platitudinism, and a hardly a "powerful force" in criticism—says something in favor of or against Saramago doesn't make it true or notable.-FM (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say that calling a libertarian communist a Stalinist is enough to raise a few eyebrows in itself. Zazaban (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. Saramago personally opposed Stalinism and authoritarian communism, so to call him one is a bit rich. ValenShephard (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Antisemitism whitewashed out.
Well played, internet. --66.188.134.175 (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Accusing every critic of Israel of antisemitism and making shit up just because he's a communist. Well played, Wikipedia.
 * It's ironic because Jewish persecution during the Holocaust was deeply related to the persecution of communists - Hitler accused all Jews of being communists, and all communists of being Jews. It's also ironic because most of the people flinging "antisemitism" labels around at political dissidents would probably have joined the Nazi party during its rule.

202.40.139.168 (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is a difference between criticizing Israel and being anti-semitic, however, comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is either a very ignorant statement to make, or a very anti-semitic one. Saramago was not at all ignorant. The persecution of jews during the Holocaust, or any other time in history, was related to only a single fact: their being Jewish. They were accsued to be communists by fascists, capitalists by communists, or heathens by Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saram78 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * He didnt compare Israel to Nazi Germany. He compared one part of Israeli home policy to a policy of Nazi Germany. Yes, its a very controversial statement, but don't blow it out of proportion. ValenShephard (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Nazi Germany comparison is often made in good faith in the hope that this most shocking of comparisons will focus Israeli attention on how many other people see their actions in Gaza. It is important to remember that Israel has been subject to widespread condemnation by governments as well as individuals. To suggest that all these governments (many of which contain Jewish members) or individual (many of whom are Jews themselves) are anti-semitic is ridiculous. Sure there is anti-semitism. We encounter it from time to time, but to be against the policies of one countries towards another or to a segment of territory it has conquered is not to be racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treeinthebog (talk • contribs) 15:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A word on the good impartiality of the article
One of the american sayings that I, as an european, admire is "two wrongs don't make a right" (something which might be relevant to a thorough understanding of Saramago's statements and opinions), but I think such statement applies to both sides of the situation between israelis and palestinians. However, I will refrain from anymore coments on whether I agree or disagree with the topic of anti-semitism because this text is meant to applaud the neutrality of whoever wrote the article we discuss here.

I am not sure just how neutral the article is because I lack certain details and intuition in these matters, but as far as I can tell the article seems very well thought.

Whatever my opinion is, the article mentions both the positive and the negative ways of analizing the writer's words, as well as each side's advocate's arguments, without favoring either one. Since I admire his work, I am thankful for that.

Despite my good opinion of this person, I am not thankful because the positive side is present but because both sides are present. This is crucial to understand the social context of Saramago's opinions (what was society's position towards him) and will allow readers to decide where they stand on this matter with a clear view of the problem. Who knows? Maybe one day I will realize that I should have another point of view, but it is good to know both sides so I can make an informed choice.

I wonder if the Swedish Academy would be as neutral as this article and take into consideration only the writer's work and not his social status, if he had spoken his mind before receiving the Nobel Prize, or if it would shun the writer for fear of being accused of anti-semitism by proxy.

Thank you for the article, whoever you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkaever (talk • contribs) 10:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Statements regarding Jews, the Holocaust and Palestinians
I've reinstated a reduced quote from The Notebook, only on the basis that the preceding lines focus only on his alleged antisemitism, whereas this quote from one of his last books, and which was originally published on his blog, makes quite clear how the comparison between the Shoah and Palestine is intended to be read. He wants us to "extend the concept". Some people may find that shocking, but it is, nevertheless, a valid way of arguing. We do it all the time. In law, for example, one case is judged and establishes a precedent which is then extended in another case. He wants us to see Israel's (the State's) action in the occupied territories as being a version of what the Nazis did to the Jews (and indeed gays, communists, anarchists, etc). It may be right or wrong but it's what Saramago meant. That has to be taken into account. Otherwise, this article cannot be regarded as impartial. It must also be noted, as many contributors on this article have already said, that this is a tiny part of Saramago's life. It's even a tiny part of the number of people he offended. Should we also give equal weight to the anger felt by supporters of George W Bush, to the Vatican, to the right-wing parties in Portugal, the Junta of Argentina, General Pinochet, neo-nazis, etc.? The list of people and countries he expressed negative opinions on is large. He was a controversialist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treeinthebog (talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if all the contributors here have actually read Saramago's work. I have. Saramago was far from anti-semitic (he actually edited a book on the Holocaust). He was, however, violently opposed to Israel's policy with regard to Palestine. I believe that if his anti-Israeli comments are to be included, for fairness sake, the quote I posted from The Notebook also needs to be included. In fact his opposition to Israel must be seen in conjunction with his other oppositional stances - all of which are fairly standard left-wing political positions - to the Catholic Church, to George Bush and his policies, to various governments that he characterises as right-wing, to racism, to the exploitation of the poor etc. His work and his political commentary is vast and complex. When I first encountered this article I thought that the section on anti-semitism was in danger of overpowering an otherwise sound article on Portugal's then greatest living writer - that's why I intervened. In fact his anti-Israeli comments are a very minor part of his oeuvre and should not be taken out of context with his other political positions. Treeinthebog (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I am reinstating this section. It is properly sourced and extremely relevant to this article. The summarized version whitewash his comments as statments agains the state of Israel when in fact he has made statements specifically regarding Jews. Hence, a more detailed explanation is necessary to provide proper context.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC))
 * Do you know what undue weight is? About 1/5 of the article is taken up by a couple of paragraphs of comments a WRITER said during his over 60 year long professional career. Do these words represent 1/5 of academic sources on the writer, or 1/5 of his output? Absolutely not. They need to be cut down. We can't have a whole paragraph on his views on these issues when a sentence out of his books is not quoted. He is foremost a writer. This is classic undue weight, and could swing towards POV or trying to damage his standing. ValenShephard (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What is relevant about this? The political views on one subject by a fiction writer are not his most relevant contributions by far. Maybe its relevant to you because of your own POV of anti-communism. Extremely relevant? Laughable. Only so relevant if you have a personal desire to damage this writer. ValenShephard (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with ValenShepherd on this. It's out of all proportion. (see my other comments)Treeinthebog (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We are not talking about a politician or pundit specializing in Middle East politics, he's a Nobel prize winner novelist that sold millions of books. The section needs to be trimmed to reflect a worldwide view of the subject. --Jmundo (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree. A paragraph at best. ValenShephard (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Whitewashing Saramago's anti-semitism is hardly appropriate - and arguing that a focus on Anti-semitism is "laughable" is disgusting. The current summation convientently leaves out his specific statements against Jews. I'll consider trimming this section, but not to the point that it gives a false impression.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC))

Also, you have implied that my desire to include Saramago's statements on Jews is motivated by my views on Anti-Communism. Please elaborate: what do his statements on Jews have to do with Communism? Absolutely nothing. If you are going to imply that I am bias (i.e. that I have a "personal desire to damage" his reputation), surely you can come up with something better than that.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC))
 * An anti-communist would most likely have a personal POV against communists (like Saramago). I think thats pretty simple. ValenShephard (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * disagree comparing anything to Auschwitz deserves a little light. obsessive, psychological and pathologically exclusivist racism are justified if this is true, why hide it beneath his other accomplishments.  i doubt jose would want him comments censored.  communism has always taken a specific stance on religion, it is not for us to decide if that be correct, only if it be included and to what extent.  given the length of his statements, the weight given is appropriate based on the soources.  Darkstar1st (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Your arguments are poor. There is no whitewashing here. As the other editor said we are dealing with a writer of fiction books, not a political commentator. What is needed is that he said controversial remarks and what he was accused of. Two huge quotes from him is more than excessive. ValenShephard (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of how much weight his remarks should be given:

Google search

"Jose Saramago anti semite" 10,300 results "Jose Saramago writer" 134,000 results

This exaple shows that sources dealing with his writing are 1300% more common than sources dealing with his accused anti-semitism. So to have a balanced encyclopedia entry on this man, his controversial statements have to make up about 1/13 or 1/10 of the article. What is currently here is unaccepable. Go read WP Undue then come back with some arguments. ValenShephard (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * perhaps you have gone too far assuming he was an anti-Semite. it is possible to be opposed to the occupation, and not be a racist.  Darkstar1st (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is what Saramago himself tried to argue. He heaped criticism on many sources including the Portuguese government, none of which appears here. And he was much more vocal about this than Israel. He wrote about 3 novels which deal with the oppression of the post democratic porturgal, and this isn't even mentioned. But a few silly comments on Israel et al take up about a quarter of the article. If this article used due weight there would be a large section with his opinions on the portuguese state and a much sller section dealing with his views on Israel, Jews, Palestinians. Afterall, he never wrote novels about Israel, Jews and Palestinians it was only his personal views. He is a writer and we have to include mostly what he wrote about. ValenShephard (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * perhaps the search you tried with "anti-Semite" was flawed. i suggest this is a very noteworthy part of his ideology, not to be silenced by accusations.   Darkstar1st (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with his ideology. Do you have any sources to back that up? Your suggestion that this is noteworthy part of his ideology is a raping of the facts. ValenShephard (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is what wiki says about undue weight: Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.


 * As a proportion of sources dealing with Saramago a minority of them are to do with these comments, and as such cannot be so overrepresented in the article. ValenShephard (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * i meant to say "life", not ideology, apologies Darkstar1st (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not an important part of his life either. All his comments on Israel, Jews and Palestinians couldnt fill an A4 page, but his views on the catholic church, portugal, spain, censorship which his novels are about, could fill 1000+ pages. ValenShephard (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Valen, what changes would you like to see in the section, specifically in order to trim it down for WP:UNDUE?--Schwindtd (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We say his initial statement comparing the treatment of Palistinians to concentration camps, and list which groups and individuals claimed this was anti-semitism. We can't quote all his statements during his life on this issue, because it is a small part of his career. He wrote much more on other topics, and afterall, he is not a political commentator. The personal views of a writer cannot overtake what he said in his books. ValenShephard (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Would the editors of this page like to discuss the continued need for the tag above this section? --Schwindtd (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the cutting this section has recieved is inline with its weight. Now we need to simply work on expanding the rest of the article. We need to say more about his books, maybe a few reviews and comments from scholarly sources. I dont think the tag needs to remain anymore. ValenShephard (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reinstating the quote that was removed. It is properly sourced and clearly articulates Saramago's views on Jews. It has nothing to do with Communism, contrary to what ValenShephard seems to believe. Please do not remove material just because it might cast Saramago in a less than postive light. If you believe that this material is libelous or false, than please indicate why.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC))
 * Hyperionsteel, I think you might have misunderstood the reason the quotes were removed. I removed them not because of how they made Saramago look, but because of WP:UNDUE. While it is important that we mention some of his notable comments, we ought not to give so much space to an issue that, ultimately, makes up a very tiny proportion of his life and work. I do appreciate your concern and your work. Thanks! --Schwindtd (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with above user. Its all about Undue weight, as I tried to initially argue. We still need to expand other sections which are lacking in detail, he is one of the world's most famous writers and respected by critics from all sides of the political spectrum. ValenShephard (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that the changes were made, but did we get a consensus on removing the tags? I am just afraid that if we don't include User:Darkstar1st and User:Hyperionsteel we could have some problems. Just wondering. Thanks, everybody! --Schwindtd (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am still concerned about the attempts to conceal Saramago's comments on Jews. His statement that "the Jews endlessly scratch their own wound to keep it bleeding, to make it incurable, and they show it to the world as if it were a banner" deserves to be mentioned in this article. Statements of this nature (i.e. against a particular ethnic or religious group) are found on many Wikipedia biographies. I fail to see how this is not notable (nor, as ValenShephard has previously stated, "laughable").(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC))
 * Excellent, we are now beginning the process of WP:CONSENSUS on these tags! Hyperionsteel, the point of removing those quotes is that, while they do carry a certain notability, we have to weight things in all Wikipedia articles (see WP:UNDUE and WP:DUE). The policy means that we must give space to topics based on the proportion they take up in the life or work of the article's subject. For example, on Hugo Chavez there will obviously be a lot of weight to Presidency, but not a lot of weight given to early life or family because those are less important. I hope this helps! --Schwindtd (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Saramago's comments are inflammatory, but he is a Nobel Prize winning author of story books, not a political commentator, his comments on Israel are personal opinions. He doesn't have the notability to comment on those issues in an encyclopedia anyway. Undue weight says that because this is not notable to the writer, it is lacking in the vast majority of sources on him, it shoulnd't be included. And please stop making personal refernces to me. I said that your arguments on including the statements are laughable, not the statements themselves. ValenShephard (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If people want to read the detail of his comments, which are undue to be added in the article itself, they can follow the multiple sources given. ValenShephard (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I put my comments in the wrong place. I placed them at the beginning of this section instead of here at the end. however, they still stand. I agree with ValenShepherd and others that the emphasis formerly placed on the allegations of antisemitism was too great. However, I still believe the quotation from The Notebook is necessary as his own voice on the allegations is not heard. An alternative would be to delete the section entirely. If I don't get agreement on this I'll abide my the consensus. Treeinthebog (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't see your other comment until now. Even so, I think that Saramago doesn't have the notability in political issues to make such statements. I wouldn't be against removing the whole section because it deals with criticism not of his books, but of his personal opinions on a single issue, which his books (what he is notable for) don't deal with. ValenShephard (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to include his quote from The Notebook, that's fine. However, as I have previously stated, his poitical views and opinions (especially as they relate to controversial topics) are notable. Saramago is a well-known figure and his political views, while not his primary claim to fame, are not exempt from Wikipedia.

As for ValenShephard (talk) (and yes, I am making a personal reference to you), you began your arguments against me by writing "Maybe its relevant to you because of your own POV of anti-communism. Extremely relevant? Laughable. Only so relevant if you have a personal desire to damage this writer comments". You attacked me personally by claiming that my desire to include his anti-semitic comments was motivated my views on Communism or a personal desire to damage his reputation. Not only is your theory incorrect - if he were of any political stripe, I would still point out his anti-semitic statements - but its inappropriate that you resorted to personal attacks and wild theories simply because you disagree with my point of view. Furthermore, my argument above was based on the reasoning that Saramago's statements on Jews (i.e. "the Jews endlessly scratch their own wound to keep it bleeding, to make it incurable, and they show it to the world as if it were a banner") were relevant and notable because they denote an anti-semitic (or at least an inappropriate) view of the Jewish people. You proceeded to claim that this reasoning was "laughable", which I think is disgusting. If you are going to launch personal attacks on people and insult views that they hold as important, you shouldn't be surprised when someone criticizes you for doing so.

Anyway, I'm fed up with arguing about this. The current version of this section (including his quote from "the Notebook if you want) is fine for the time being. Let's move on.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC))
 * You do realise my bad faith towards you was one sentence? While my arguments based on sources and wikipedia policy number about 50+? I was inappropriate but your reply to my mistake was much worse, please stay on topic and use sources to argue your points, not personal references. You should try, and myself included, to assume good faith. ValenShephard (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * notice how the deletionist only use the word anti-semite. it is possible to oppose the occupation, and not be racist.  i doubt jose would want his final words on the matter excluded here   Darkstar1st (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I assumed good faith from the beginning when I argued that this section should be included because the material was properly sourced and the statements were notable and relevant (all of which are "Wikipedia policy"). You were the one accused me of having a hidden anti-communist agenda or a personal vendetta - when in fact, his political views were irrelevant to whether or not this section was included. Making up theories and accusations against people is hardly appropriate for Wikipedia (which is also "Wikipedia Policy"). I suggest you read up further on Wikipedia policy.

With regard to undue weight, you have somehow concluded that because a Google search has a 1-13 ration of the search "Jose Saramago anti semite" and "Jose Saramago writer", this wikipedia page should therefore have the exact same ratio. I was unaware that a google search is now considered to be a basis for material included in Wikipedia articles. You also claimed to cite 50+ wikipedia policy points to support you view... are you sure that is accurate? I didn't count that many.


 * Please read what I said again, you seem to have misunderstood. In any case, your current arguments do not add or improve anything. Stop bringing up the old point of my bad faith against you, that was a one time occurance and the argument has moved on since then. To keep bringing that up will not improve the article or make this discussion any more conclusive. ValenShephard (talk) 04:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the argument that Saramago is only Anti-Israel and not Anti-semitic, I have not discounted this possibility. Rather, his statements that were included in this section suggested otherwise. However, I only included the statement - I did not express my personal opinions in the article (only in the talk page). And if you want to cite additional evidence that indicates otherwise, feel free to (I have never argued against that). I completely agree that it is possible to oppose Israeli policy regarding the Palestinians without being Anti-semitic - however, it is also possible to oppose Israeli policy and be Anti-semitic.

Anyway, as I previously stated, the current configuration is fine for the time being.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC))

I have removed the citations to the hysterical David Frum's piece, and the ADL press releases. A press release from the ADL is not a source, it is propoganda. That is just a fact, not opinion. It has no place here. Frum's piece is so over the top and biased (referring to JS as a "Jew hater") that is also has no place in a reference article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDavidBurgess (talk • contribs) 19:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Politics
It would be useful to expand the politics section. For example, in Blindness, socialist methods of distribution are named. His politics are significant. And no, I do not mean Israel-related stuff. Zazaban (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, when politics are mentioned in his books (not just in his personal views) then they definately deserve to be expanded. But I read somewhere that he wasn't very ideological in his books, or that it wasnt a goal? ValenShephard (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He wasn't overwhelmingly ideological, but political allusions are definitely present. The aforementioned example from Blindness, for instance, was a positive mention of the phrase from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. There was no direct presentation of communism, but that is certainly political. A large segment of the book could in fact be seen as allegorical to class warfare. Zazaban (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. If you can provide a source or two I would be happy to help you include that information. ValenShephard (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the reference on Google Books from the book,, but it may be considered original research to take anything from it. I will add a line just saying it is used, until a more detailed source about it is found. Zazaban (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Saramago's political analysis of society informed all, or nearly all of his writing. Each of his most important books is a critique of at least one aspect of current politics. Blindness, for example, among other things, references Guy Debord's Society Of The Spectacle, consumerism, capitalist production, as well as offering a way out through solidarity and co-operative enterprise. He was not, in fact Stalinist, as one writer is quoted as saying, but closer to Gramsci and that strain of European communism. He must be seen as a member of a distinguished line of political satirists in fiction form beginning at least with Jonathan Swift and moving through George Orwell and Aldous Huxley - and that's only to reference the English language representatives that I know of. My Spanish and Portuguese friends, and indeed contributors from other languages, will have many more to add.Treeinthebog (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats very interesting, do you have any sources so we can add what you just talked about? Maybe you just used it to give evidence for your argument but it would be relevant in the article too. ValenShephard (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid a great deal of it comes from my own reading on Saramago and the other writers I mention. But I'll see what I can do to find sources.
 * http://politicalaffairs.net/article/view/9493/ - this one attests to the fact that his politics permeated his writing.
 * " ValenShepherd, I've found a link to an academic essay that makes most of the points I mentioned (re. Blindness, for example "The white blindness may be read as a metaphor less for totalitarianism than for the mindset that underlies it - that passive acceptance of authoritarian values by the mass of people that makes totalitarianism possible." The essay is here: http://yatrarollason.info/files/SaramagoandOrwell.pdf     However, I don't want to overburden an excellent Wikipedia article with an academic style analysis. So, I'm not sure where to go next.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treeinthebog (talk • contribs) 07:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont know, I dont see anything wrong with an academic analysis of his books like what you mentioned. On another note, would you recommend Blindness to me? ValenShephard (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Blindness is a great book - in every sense of the word. I'd certainly recommend it. I also really liked All The Names. I'll give the article some thought and see what I can do to add to it. Treeinthebog (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to hear, I don't like buying books blind (horrible pun). Keep working on the article as you are, its progressing nicely. ValenShephard (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice pun. In that case you should really read Seeing ! Treeinthebog (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on José Saramago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150511063948/http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1998/lecture-e.html to http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1998/lecture-e.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on José Saramago. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100112050649/http://www.travelbrochuregraphics.com/extra/bigotry_in_print.htm to http://www.travelbrochuregraphics.com/extra/bigotry_in_print.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116043056/http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=927 to http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=927

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on José Saramago. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307161912/http://www.pcp.pt/node/244347 to http://www.pcp.pt/node/244347

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on José Saramago. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100901072401/http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/winter03/review12.shtml.htm to http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/winter03/review12.shtml.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on José Saramago. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100623123203/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/culture/2010-06/21/c_13359797.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/culture/2010-06/21/c_13359797.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

ele comia merda 89.155.251.51 (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)