Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Poland and Antisemitism

honestly, the article about Poland and antisemitism is almost utopian. Despite the theoretical rights provided for the Jews, modern Poland - especially with the newly elected government and (as mentioned before) radio Maryja - is highly antisemitic. The ironic side of this is that the people who are openly criticising Jews and forming conspiracy theories are also the ones that deny the existence of any antisemitic connotations in Poland. At the term "Polish concentration camps" the Polish antisemitic masses just go crazy and riot over how it is untrue - or even how Jews make such stuff up.

Thus, I dare to say that the article is too idyllic part and doesn't correspond to reality. Of course, thousands of Polish antisemites are going to argue against any antisemetism taking place!

- 82.139.47.117 15:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please help me with Radio Maryja

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Maryja I have expanded it with issues of antisemitism (this is the largest and strongest Polish racist nationalwide radio station), but someone is always erasing everything I have added or reverted and his explanations are not really helpful- he tends to say that I am biased when writing about antisemitism. I am new to wikipedia and cannot do much about it. Please help. Moa anbessa 19:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Watchlisted. My polish is poor, but it looks like the polish article (as well as the czech article) include the anti-semitic references (the WTC myth, for example), so adding sources for the statements would be a good start. Ronabop 04:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The Polish article has extreme anti-clerical overtones to it, and that is how it was translated into Czech, as well as English. I will guard the article's NPOV and prevent it from becoming another arena for spewing falsitudes at the radio. BTW, tattle-tailing in Anti-Semitism made me laugh :)- clever idea. Cheers. Ksenon 11:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Isn't Semitism an antisemetic concept? So surely the use of the hyphenated anti-semitic assumes that there is a semitic, so shouldn't we use the spelling 'antisemitic'?

First (two) sentence(s) skewed?

It begins:

"The Jews in Germany were subject to many persecutions as well as brief times of tolerance. By the early 20th century, the Jews of Germany were the most integrated in Europe..."

The first sentence makes it sound as if anti-Jewish persecution in Germany has been the historical norm, punctuated only by short-lived (and temporary) respites. Yet, if the Jews of Germany were the most integrated in Europe, as the following sentence asserts, presumably that would have taken a considerable amount of time (a people cannot become well-integrated in a very short period of time).

Perhaps the first sentence should be reworded, along the lines of: "Jews in Germany have been subject to numerous persecutions as well as extended periods of tolerance."--Critic9328 04:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It was a pretty up-and-down experience, with a lot more down than up, I think that the phrasing is generally accurate. From History of the Jews in Germany on the 19th century: "Napoleon emancipated the Jews across Europe, but with Napoleon's fall in 1815, growing nationalism resulted in increasing repression. In 1819, Hep! Hep! Riots (from the Latin Hierosolyma est perdita--"Jerusalem is lost"--the rallying cry of the Crusaders), destroyed Jewish property and killed many Jews. The revolution of 1848 swung the pendulum back towards freedom for the Jews, but the financial crisis of 1873 created another era of prejudice and repression." --Goodoldpolonius2 04:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Did the Nazis really criticize Jews from a religious perspective?

Considering the extent to which the Nazis were anti-Christian? Are there citations for these statements?

--Critic9328 04:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

From ReligiousTolerance.org: "Hitler re-used the blood-libel myth as justification for the Holocaust. The Nazi periodical, Der Stürmer, often published special issues devoted to allegations of ritual murder by Jews. Hitler had asked that a propaganda film be made of the 1840 Damascus case. World War II ended before it could be made." But I agree that more sources are needed here. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Using rumours about ritual murder by Jews does not constitute criticism from a religious perspective, even if these rumours also accompanied the older, more religious kind of anti-Semitism. The Nazis selectively used religious motifs in their propaganda, such as exploiting the old religious anti-Semitism to a certain extent, or calling Christians for a crusade against atheist communism. In fact, most of the Germans who were swimming with the Nazis' tide back then considered themselves Christians. However, the Nazi ideology and leadership were evidently anti-Christian, and to say that the Nazis even had any religious perspective (safe for some vague neo-pagan leanings) is highly misleading. --Thorsten1 23:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Most anti-Semitism is not the result of actual religious criticism but bizarre stawmen, blood libels and other mayhem. Clearly it is some internalised fear projected on Jews. No more. JFW | T@lk 23:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Anti-Judaism

My sense is this recent addition very much dilutes and counters the meaning of the article overall: Jews are first portrayed as an oppressed people in Egypt. Subsequently, the Book of Esther tells about Haman, who seeks to destroy the Jews. The Books of the Maccabees recount the attempt to impose Greek religious ideas upon Jews. In 'Against Flaccus', Philo of Alexandria writes of an attack on Jews in the city of Alexandria about 38 CE. This last event is perhaps the most clearly religious in character.

Inorder to address POV, the first would require biblical references showing intolerance against non-Jewish groups. The second would require explaining that the Maccabees were attacking mostly Jews. The third would require a long explanation of commericial and cultural competition with violence and hate speech by more than one side.DaveHM 20:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Syrian edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

It says under a picture of a an Arabic book cover: 2005 Syrian edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion authorized by the Syrian Ministry of Information was featured at the Cairo International Book Fair

There are two reasons I'm against this: 1- It contains implicit criticism of the Syrian government (authorized by the Syrian MOI...). Wikipedia shouldn't pick and choose which details about a certain picture to include in the caption, especially if they're biased. 2- The title of the book does NOT say it is the 'Syrian edition of The PEZ'. The exact translation is: 'Lights on the the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Complete Texts). An Historical and Contemporary Investigative Study.' by Raja Abdulhamid Orabi. Published by the Syrian publisher 'Dar al-Awael'. --Fjmustak 00:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This question has been answered at Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Syrian edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, no need to cross-post. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Besides, it is only stating fact. This is the Syrian 2005 edition. The only other issues in production today are circulating among Arab nations (Outlawed everywhere else) so it doesn't really matter which one at that. Besides if you read the article it lists all the facts and editions on it.--Exander 08:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

outlawed everywhere else???? Not true at all Lehk 14:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia shouldn't pick and choose which details about a certain picture to include in the caption, especially if they're biased." -- Who or what is meant to be biased here, because the details, insofar as they are facts cannot be biased one way or the other. Including select details while excluding others could be considered editing bias, but is there a serious case for this accusation?

Causes?...

I think the article needs to have more discussion about the different root-causes that have been proposed for anti-semitism. Has prejudice against the Jews for most of their history been more than that against other groups of people who have lived as religious and/or ethnic minorities? If so, then why?...

The AISH link [1] at the end of the article seems to do a fairly good job of debunking most of the common explainations (showing that they're either just symptoms or excuses, but its conclusion [2] is probably not acceptable to most accademics, or pretty much anyone who's not a pretty hard-core religious and nationalist Jew.

So then if we eliminate the AISH theory that people hate Jews because they're morally superior, and we eliminate the anti-semitic theory that they're sinister and evil, then what are we left with? I think this article should try and go into some depth and explore the different views on this issue.

Well, an article shouldn't explore views, that is original research. If someone else has explored the different views, go ahead and cite them. But in general hate is an emotion, and emotions are not often subject to rational explanations. Ruby 22:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to say the Aish theory is controversal by non-Jews, but can easily be accepted by even the most liberal (praticing) Jews who have encountered it. It's not baseless at all. In the Torah, the Hebrew people are called a "light upon nations", and that they are "choosen by God as messagers of his word [at Sinai]". The Torah describes the pre-Israel world as a place of wonton disregard for human life and that the world has lost God, except for Abraham, and his son Jacob. God tests them many times, and these tests cause them much pain. Many Jews see anti-Semitism as a extension of this, and indeed, is discussed in the Talmud and Kabbalah texts and throughout Jewish history. Masterhomer 19:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ruby, you're asking the wrong question in a Jewish dominated media world. The causes are obvious (Money, power, etc.), but they will NEVER be discussed in the open. Look at Germany in the 1920's: In the great depression Jewish banks and lawyers took many people's houses, farms and businesses. But if you start discussing this aspect of antisemitism or the holocaust you are automatically seen as antisemitic. And I bet it won't be long before this paragraph is deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.27.231.129 (talk • contribs) .

Don't worry, your ideas are not as original as you might think. Aucaman^Talk 11:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism should be mentioned Jim Bowery 06:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Antisemitism people Category

Please see Category:Antisemitism (People) [[3]] and vote here[[4]].Doright 03:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please help with I. M. Vinogradov

An apparent newbie is getting close to the WP:3RR vio in an attempt to remove a reference substantiating the anti-semitic (and not only anti-semitic) activities of the late I. M. Vinogradov, refusing to talk via the talk page. I'm going off to sleep, and ask to watchlist the article, and help to polish the edit conflict section to as encyclopaedic and neutral version as possible. TIA, --BACbKA 23:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Help

I STILL don't understand, after searching the web for numerous times, how do they even justify their hatred? Please, someone, tell me... it doesn't even read where "anti-semitism" started from --84.249.252.211 13:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

See history of anti-semitism. Superm401 - Talk 02:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Envy. RJII 20:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Examples

For more examples of Anti-Semitism, follow the repeated attemps of some Wikipedians to re-introduce the racist use of the word "Aryan" into Wikipedia. Follow the discussions here and see examples on the following articles: Persian people, Tajik people, Iranian peoples, Aryan, and Indo-Iranians. Your help would be appreciated. Aucaman^Talk 03:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised when reading this article that no mention was made of academic anti semitism, I have revised to add that aspect of the problem.Incorrect 22:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed your text. Please provide sources to support your assertion that "Anti-semitism in the current Unites States seem to reside primarily in academia". -Will Beback 22:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

examples of left-wing Anti-Semitism?

In refrence to this passage, below, I question the accuracy of connecting the notions of a Zionist conspiracy using it to support anti-Semitism with left wing politics. The left wing is anti-zionist, sure, but they don't use such a possition to conflate it to support anti-Semitism, which the left has always been strongly opposed to. I havn't changed anything yet as I'd like to see what others say, if anyone defends this characterization. Thanks. Giovanni33 18:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"In a recent incarnation, extremist groups, such as Neo-Nazi parties and Islamist groups, claim that the aim of Zionism is global domination; they call this the Zionist conspiracy and use it to support anti-Semitism. This position is associated with fascism and Nazism, though increasingly, it is becoming a tendency within parts of the left as well.

I changed it to removed the assoc. of this possition with the left. If it is accurate and you have some examples, then by all means restore it. Thanks. Giovanni33 21:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, can you say what your problem is with the paragraph you changed, rather than deleting my edits? I'm pasting it below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Many analysts and Jewish groups believe there is a distinctly new form of late 20th century anti-Semitism, called the new anti-Semitism, which emanates from the Left, rather than the Right, borrowing language and concepts from anti-Zionism. Some of these analysts identify anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, arguing that anti-Zionism, "advocates denial of the right to self-determination of the Jewish people." (Matas 2005, p. 31)

Yes, you substancially changed the meaning of the passage, which I do not think is accurate. The original passage which I restored is:

"Some analysts and Jewish groups believe that there is a distinctly new form of late 20th century anti-Semitism, often called new anti-Semitism, which borrows language and concepts from anti-Zionism, but which attacks Jews as a group, rather than Zionism as a movement. A second group of observers controversially identify anti-Zionism itself with anti-Semitism, arguing that anti-Zionism "advocates denial of the right to self-determination of the Jewish people" (Matas 2005, p. 31). (Matas 2005, p. 31)

The changes you made, I dispute as not accurate. Please explain why you removed the original passage and changed the meaning substancially. The original version that stands is accurate as it only says that some anti-semitic groups have borrowed from the language and concepts of anti-Zionism from the left, but then athen have used this to attacks Jews as a group rather than political Zionism as a movement. This is the crossing over the line. It also correctly describes a conteroversial group that identifies anti-zionism itself with anti-Semitism. Your language and changes removes this important distinctions and understandings. Your change asserts that this this new anti-semitism emenates from the Left. This is a new assertion by you that I don't think is accurate; its certainly different than borrowing language and concepts. To say it emerges means from the left is to say that its source as a phenomenon is the Left. This is not accurate and you need to support this contention. Its not simply a re-wording its a major change in meaning.

Also, my edit which you reverted, above, you never provided an example. I have let that reversion stand, but I still want to see support, or I'll remove it again. Giovanni33 01:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That the new Anti-Semitism comes from the Left isn't a new assertion by Slim. That's what was in the article a year ago or so last time I recall when there was much discussion about it then. I thought this was resolved a long time ago. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't fully understand all your points, Giovanni, but beginning with whether the new anti-Semitism emanates from the Left, yes it does, almost by definition in fact. I can give you lots of sources, or else you can look at the sources already in New anti-Semitism. We could re-insert the word "controversially" if you have a source showing that it's controversial i.e. who regards it as controversial. Apart from those two points, was there anything else? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

And it's documented with several references in the second paragraph of the New anti-Semitism article...maybe that's also where I remember the discussion occuring. Maybe we just need to add those references to this article too. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC) LOL! I had an edit conflict and didn't realize I just repeated what Slim said... --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added four sources using the new footnote system but for some reason they're not working. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There is perhaps a subtle difference here but an important one for accuracy sake. The article on New Anti-Semitism only says it's associated with the left. This is accurate because of the adoption of the left's opposition to the policies of State of Isreal in its support of the Palestinian resistence, and is against nationalist movements like Zionism, as it is with other colonialist movements. But the anti-semitism comes to play when those that adopt the language in order to cross over the line and attack Jews, instead of the policies of a State or the politics of Zionism. This phenonmenon is not leftism simply because it borrows some of its language but not its purpose. The fringe possition that anti-zionism is itself Anti-semitism is controversial to say the least, and should be characterized accordingly as the original passage did, and as it is done on the main page aritcle. The article you reference it does this failry: ::::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_anti-Semitism#State_of_the_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_anti-Semitism#Criticism

The way the passage originally stood is accuate and acceptable to me. Also, I'm still waiting for support with examples of leftist groups that engage in the anti-semitism as described in the original section I mentioned above. Giovanni33 01:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I've changed "emanates from" to "is associated with," though I'm not sure I see the difference. It isn't just the adoption of language from the left. The new anti-Semitism comes from the left. Read any of the books about it.

For "controversially," you'll need a source. I've supplied four sources associating the new anti-Semitism with the left, and quoted one source who identifies anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, so please supply a source for the word "controversially." I didn't understand your other point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

ITYMTS, "is claimed to come from". Light emanates from the sun. That's a fact. The "new antisemitism" is claimed to come from the left by some rightists with an axe to grind. A trip to WP:NPOV would make it clear for all how to deal with claims: report the fact of the claim about a fact, not the fact that is claimed as though it were a fact. Grace Note 07:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The difference between the word "associated" and "emenates" is that the former merely purports some connection, not even a direct cause and effect, while the latter describes a formation directly from it, as in a emerges, germination, outgrowth, arises from, etc. That is conveyed by the word emerges. This is a POV, to be sure, but its far from a fact. The contrary POV is that the new anti-semitism is very much the old anti-semitism dressed in new clothing borrowed from the left. The clothes change but not the man. The possition the idenfities anti-zionism itself with anti-semitism is very controversial and I've provided sources which clearly state that. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_anti-Semitism#State_of_the_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_anti-Semitism#Criticism http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040202/klug Many writers even questioned whether there really is any new anti-Semitism, and see it as a ploy to deflect or stifle legitimate criticism of Israel. Notably we have Norman Finkelstein dedicates the first half of his book Beyond Chutzpah[5] to discussing claims of new anti-Semitism, arguing that they simply provide political cover to supporters of Israel. He advances similar arguments in The Holocaust Industry and other books. The best known proponent of such views is the Jewish scholar Noam Chomsky, who maintains that the Anti-Defamation League is viewing legitimate criticism of Israeli policies as anti-Semitism while turning a blind eye to blatant examples of traditional anti-Semitism. He documents this in some of his books, like "Necessary Illusions." Also, take a look at the Nation article by Klug I give above. Its eas to see that the view that anti-zionism is anti-semitism is a fringe view that is very controversial to say the least. That is why I supported the original text which diferenciated the two possitions describing this one as controverisal. Giovanni33 02:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked over the final changes and its acceptable now. The ony thing that is needed it to describe the second view as controversial. Otherwise, it should indicate that its a disputed view, and not widely held. Giovanni33 09:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

explaining antisemitism

wouldn't it be nice to get this article a section regarding causal, historical, ideological etc. efforts to actually explain the phenomenon 'antisemitism'? e.g. beginning with publications by moishe postone, professor of history at chicago university (http://history.uchicago.edu/faculty/postone.html)?

I think this would also be a positive step, explaining the reasons why people mistakenly gain anti-semitic views would help stifle any "no smoke without fire" arguments used by anti-semites.

no content change

In case anyone is concerned, my mass of edits here today contain no content change. I converted references to the new notes format, added a few wiki links and commas. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Religious anti-Semitism??

THere is a category called "Religious anti-Semitism", yet it only talks about Christianity. Shouldn't it be labelled "Anti-Semitism and the Christian world" in parallel to "Anti-Semitism and the Muslim world"; or the section to be labelled "Christian Anti-Semitism".172.175.0.149 00:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Good eye. Done. BTW you are talking about sections, Categories are something else. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Anthropology and racial anti-semitism

I've changed the phrase "anthropological ideas" to "early and misconceived evolutionary ideas", as the modern science of anthropology completely disregards the idea of race as having any genetic distinction, and as being a cultural construct. This is the concensus among biological anthropologists, biologists, and geneticists in the scholarly world; racial characteristics are simply dominant genetic traits that are usually adaptations to climate among early groups of humans, both related and unrelated. Sociologists and racially-related studies (such as African-American studies) are the only ones who still uphold the more archaic ideas regarding race, regarding these groups as fundamentally different from each other biologically in a profound way, when genetics has shown the opposite to be true(see gene flow, especially in relation to early population groups). While I realise that the discrimination of Jewish people is based upon these mistaken notions of early biologists and proto-anthropologists (and I think I've communicated that in the revised sentence), I don't want to misrepresent to casual readers and those unfamiliar with scientific disciplines what these disciplines actually have concluded. (One of the first things you're taught in a biological anthropology class is: "forget what you think you know about race. It's all in your mind, and in history books. We created race, it doesn't exist.")

Oh, and please stop reverting my edits. Someone who has this article on their watchlist has already done this, and it's annoying when the edit is a clarification of a misunderstood earlier edit. --signed manually; I'm not signed in-- Kaelus 05:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I reverted you. I saw an anon edit without an edit summary from an IP which I had blacklisted in Cryptoderk's tool (may not have been you, just someone from that IP) so I didn't think to look at the talk page. This was an edit that required some explanation so I would suggest that in the future you leave an edit summary, at the very least "See talk page", but that having been said, sorry. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Turkishdailynews reference that was added

I came here to post something in the talk page to realise that the anonymous user has added the Turkishdailynews articles regarding the Armenians. It should not be here for the following reasons: Turkishdailynews publish a series of anti-Armenian articles aimed at denying the Armenian genocide and making of the Armenians the beast of the world. It even actually has a section dedicated to 'Armenian issues' in which people like Sedat Laciner (a member of the Turkish government founded Institute of Armenian studies founded primarly to deny the Armenian genocide and heading the said Ankara-based International Strategic Research Organisation) who even wrote an entire book answering Egoyans move Ararat, continue the work of Turkaya Ataov in associating the Armenians with the NAZI.

Well, here was what I was going to post here, I already brought some of those references in the past and it was adviced to me to add them, but I haven't done so because I would have probably be accused again of anti-Turkism etc. So I bring it here and leave contributors of this article do whatever they think is best.

---

On December 15, 1941, the ship named “Struma” with 761 Jewish passengers escaping the NAZI invasion arrives in Istanbul and asks for the authorization to cross the Bosphorus. The ship had to wait until February 24, 1942, over a month of negotiations, Turkey denied access. The starving passagers were not fed, the Ship had to return and was torpedoed by a submarine.[1] One survivor. One day later, the then prime minister Refik Saydam, justifies his refusal to permit access by the following remarks: “Turkey cannot be the destination of undesirable refugees.” [2]

On November 11, 1942, Turkey impose the Capital Tax mainly directed against the Armenians, Greeks and Jews. The introduction of this tax was justified as follows: “Against those who profit from the hospitality offered by this country and become wealthy, while at the same time abrogate their responsibilities at this critical moment, the law will be applied with full force.” [3] Propositions against two three ethnic groups were made, for the Jews, it was said: “Stop all Jewish immigration, while provoking incidents within the country with the goal of creating a Jewish exodus, keep them away from all government activity, be it financial or economic.” [4]

In 2005, Hitlers book Mein Kampf has become a bestseller for months in Turkey [5] and according to a report published in three part antisemitism is raising in Turkish medias and that not only Mein Kampf has become a best seller but also The Protocols of Elders of Zion and The International Jew. [6]

[1] Wasserstein, Bernard: Their Own Fault; Attempts to shift the blame for the Holocaust. Times Literary Supplement (London) 1-7-94

[2] Hamit Bozarslan, Histoire de la Turquie contemporaine, Ed.de le Découverte, 2004, pp. 47-48

[3] Ridvan Akar, Askale Yolculari—Varlik Vergisi ve Çalisma Kamplari, Belge Uluslararasi Yayincilik, Istanbul, 1999 p. 5

[4] Ridvan Akar, Askale Yolculari—Varlik Vergisi ve Çalisma Kamplari, Belge Uluslararasi Yayincilik, Istanbul, 1999 pp. 186-187

[5] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4361733.stm

[6] http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP90005 http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP90405 http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP91605 Fad (ix) 22:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Robert Lindsay's edits

The latest barrage of edits by Robert Lindsay (talk · contribs) need attention. E.g. this edit [6] is totally wrong. Yevsektsiya was not a "Jewish state". Please see Yevsektsiya and Jewish Autonomous Oblast. I don't have time to deal with it right now. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to discuss my edits or are you just going to play Wiki-fascist serial reverter with me? Well?! That was profoundly rude to mass revert my major contribution! Get back in here and discuss with me, point by point, every single instance you disagree with, control freaks.

BTW, I do agree that the JAO was not a "state", although that is a technicality. Trivializing over technicalities is typical of intellectually dishonest converter-vandals like you. It was a Russian republic (within the Russian SSR) or territor if you will, which is more or less analogous to a state in the US.

I challenge you, right this minute, to get in here and defend every single one of your reversions, before I send this matter to arbitration!

Robert Lindsay 12:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC) (talk)

For the record, I didn't revert even once. May I suggest you get familiar with the WP:RULES and find another outlet for your emotional outbursts. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed Robert Lindsay's addition of the NPOV tag, as it has not been discussed on the talk page as required. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Paul diffenderfer's additions

User:Paul diffenderfer has made this change. It looks like original research to me. Thoughts? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

sorry, I was still writing and editing my insertion when you had seen it...thats why I had not yet referred to the primary sources in question. I believe that what I put there is certainly not orginal, but even only a too familiar and difficult reference to a very influential primary source. Please tweak what I wrote...I know there is more previously finished research along these lines, both ancient as well as from our century, which looks at Xeno-phobia resulting from 'national otherness' which results in ethnic-cleansing etc...this is all too common in our our world unfortunately... Paul diffenderfer 22:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but I'm not sure the Biblical era stuff could be considered under the same rubric as anti-Semitism. Sure, Jews were persecuted; Jews also persecuted, as you pointed out; pretty much every group tried to kill every other group. It never seemed to me like Pharaoh enslaved the Hebrews because they were Hebrews per se -- rather, they were available and weak. Further, the last paragraph really needs citing; I've never seen that Jew-haters really have ever needed excuses. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's give him some time to cleanup the section and provide some sources. Say, 5 days? At the end we can discuss which parts are relevant and which parts are not. Aucaman^Talk 00:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems we all agree that it is substandard in its current shape. Why not take this cleanup someplace else? Create a section at talk, or /temp subpage off this article, or off your user page and play there until ready. At the very least this section needs to be marked as OR. See WP:RS, WP:V. This is a good example how unsubstantiated claims may harm an article. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There are less sitations, and not even direct sitations to primary resources, in many of the paragraphs of this article. This does not seem to be the problem with what I wrote but rather the statement above "I've never seen that Jew-haters have ever needed excuses." If you guys are not interested in showing the imperfections on both sides of this hot issue then no amount of sitation will suffice you, even if it is a direct sitation of one one the most influencial books in Jewish history if not world history. If the Torah is not evidence of what beliefs have shaped the world's and the Jews opinoins of the Jewish people, both yesterday and today, and if this is "original research" simply to state what is written in that book, then almost everything written in Wiki-pedia would be "original research", after all I did not write the Torah. If you insist me to add another reference should I add a sitation which more directly relates to the race relations of the Jews, a sitation which shows a very early and extreme example of racism, and one whose character has indelibly shaped both Jewish and world history:

• Deuteronomy 13:6 | 6If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

7Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

8Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

9But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

This very same scripture was used in the USA in the hands of "Manifest Destiny" and "City on a Hill" to exterminate Native American races, it was used to destroy the religion of the Greeks who promoted democracy with their religion, and the list goes on and into the future so long as people wish to delete such sitations from their encyclodepias etc...

If you guys don't see how such things don't need any interpretation, or original research as you say, to conect them with race realtions and the Jewish history and present then there's no hope for discussion. Clean up my article, or help me to clean it up but don't hide it. Please consider... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul diffenderfer (talk • contribs) 01:41, April 8, 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter at all what our personal conclusions are. Since, as you say, the connections are obvious, it shouldn't be hard to find reliable sources backing you up. Then there are sentences like this: Even from the begining the Jewish state, Jewish here meaning strictly the children of Israel or Jacob, was misunderstood by its neighbors... "Misunderstood"? According to whom? And what's the meaning of "peculiar" here? It seems from that paragraph that you are using it in the sense of "curious" or "deviating from the norm"; while I always thought of its use in Biblical translations as meaning "particular, unique, specific". That's just a quick example. Now, if the paragraph said, "According to (reliable or notable source XYZ), the 'peculiar' nature of the Jewish faith, as described in Deut. 14-2, is the source of much historic anti-Semitism", then we wouldn't be having this conversation; it would be citing a reliable (or at least a notable) historic analysis. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the whole thing for now; it really needs some sourcing. As it stood, it was pure original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

A sitation concerning; the 'peculiarity' which associates with 'misunderstanding' in conection with race-relations in Jewish history.

Deuteronomy 32:21 They made me jealous by what is no god

and angered me with their worthless idols.

I will make them envious by those who are not a people;

I will make them angry by a nation that has no understanding.

22 For a fire has been kindled by my wrath,

one that burns to the realm of death [e] below.

It will devour the earth and its harvests

and set afire the foundations of the mountains.

23 "I will heap calamities upon them

and spend my arrows against them.

24 I will send wasting famine against them,

consuming pestilence and deadly plague;

I will send against them the fangs of wild beasts,

the venom of vipers that glide in the dust.

25 In the street the sword will make them childless;

in their homes terror will reign.

Young men and young women will perish,

infants and gray-haired men.

26 I said I would scatter them

and blot out their memory from mankind,

27 but I dreaded the taunt of the enemy,

lest the adversary misunderstand

and say, 'Our hand has triumphed;

the LORD has not done all this.' "

28 They are a nation without sense,

there is no discernment in them.

Here as well as in many many other places it is clear that there is a 'misunderstanding' in direct association with the 'peculiarity' of religion/culture which directly impacts national race-relations. There needs no scholarly source to reinterpret what is one-to-one relation within the primary resource and therefore the sitation of the primary resource is suficient and is not original. You guys seem to have no problem with the only source being the New Testament in later paragraphs in the same article. But it seems to me it your points view which cause you in one case to apply your rule and not in the other. Is the material I've sited so novel to you that you need a source for every word? Do you need a scholary to duplicate the conent above for you to see that these are significant facts concerning the history of anti-Semitism which is defined in this very article as "Anti-Semitism (alternatively spelled antisemitism) is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a 'religious', ethnic, or racial group, which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution." Do you believe you should present an such article without ever even addressing what the racist characteristics not only of other religions but also those of the main religion in question?? Where are your standards or consistency. Will yet more misrepresentation help reduce 'anti-Semitism'? Deal with the facts as they stand. Its not so mysterious where all hatred comes from if everyone would discuss their share. Do you guys wish to hide the facts of what is writen in the Torah?? As a pagan I'll stick to my Homer and admitt it flaws as well as beauties, the harms its caused as well as the good side by side, but it seems I can find no Jew or Christian who can do the same, and history, science and encyclopedias suffer as a result...Paul diffenderfer 17:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• You are mistaken as to motivations. There's nothing wrong with Torah as source, but interpretations of Torah must come from reliable sources, not your own opinion of what is obvious. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

And this is why you removed the quotations, which are, in themselves relavent, as well?? You do not hold this standard conistently throughout the article, there is therefore something influencing your judgment other than the rule.Paul diffenderfer 17:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm a bit confused. Which quotations did I remove? I just looked over my edits and I see no such removal; are you perhaps confusing me with somebody else? At any rate, if you think something else is bad/poorly documented/poorly sourced, please either correct it or mention it here, so we can indeed be consistant in the right direction rather than (as you seem to want) in the wrong one. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• By the Way I just found something scarey. The guy above who just willy-nilly removed my insert, Jayjg, has on his user page the following text: Barnstar of the Elders of Wikipedia for Spirited Defense of the Mysterious Cabal which Rules Wikipedia, the Media, International Finance, and the Garment District, this 27th of Sivan, 5765 - from Gzuckier 5 July 2005 03:33 Shameless. This Jayjg person should at least hide such statements as they bring shame to the idea that Wikipedia values facts and 'open'-mindedness. This Jayjg should have no wonder why others may dislike him or his 'mysterious' 'ruling' group. Sir Jayjg your strange user page claim has confirmed all my suspicions about this article's dialogue up till now. You can continue to hide your racist literature under the viel of sacred religion and in secret just like your enemies do, and you can continue to falsy parade as good 'Athenians' loving freedom and equality but you only fool fools, in the end the good will triumph because they and their forms of government are the only ones who can keep this world from flying apart. and I was not even trying to attack you or your kind in my insert...Paul diffenderfer 17:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there you go. If we discuss our control of world finance, the media, and Wikipedia openly, he doesn't like it; but clearly if we "continue to hide your racist literature under the viel of sacred religion and in secret just like your enemies do" he wouldn't approve either. What is a cabal of elders to do? Gzuckier 17:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think somebody needs their irony meter recalibrated. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Try the values of Democracy Mister Cabal, the truth is that we all share blood if we go back far enough, Jew Non-Jew, Christian non-christian, etc... are only clubs and artifical societies we have put on us thinking we strengthen and protect ourselves in this way, but we all borrow ideas and stories from eachother, since we all are brothers and siters by nature then why is all your control and even secrecy necessary except because we all have gone wrong, what a taggled web we weave. Thats it for me and Wikipedia though, I'll just stick with my Classical literature and my programming manuals and wait for the next Renaissance where even the religion of the ancient world returns with its equality, messiness thats true, but spontenaity etc...as the Greeks used to say anyways 'the most important laws can't be written down and are uninforcable; those of kindness, hospitality'. Then that will never do for people that need written rules to control, and need to control because they're overcome with fear. Thanks and Good-bye see you on the other sidePaul diffenderfer 17:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Darn, I was trying to keep my membership in the cabal a secret. What was it that gave me away? Was it the large barnstar referring to it on my User: page? I knew I should never have placed it there! Jayjg ^(talk) 17:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

On the presentation of opinions

Okay, no more reverting. Consider the following versions:

Similarly, in the Middle East, anti-Zionist propaganda frequently adopts the terminology and symbols of the Holocaust to demonize Israel and its leaders. This rhetoric often crosses the line separating the legitimate criticism of Israel and its policies to become anti-Semitic vilification posing as legitimate political commentary. At the same time, Holocaust denial and Holocaust minimization efforts find increasingly overt acceptance as sanctioned historical discourse in a number of Middle Eastern countries.

The problem of anti-Semitism is not only significant in Europe and in the Middle East, but there are also worrying expressions of it elsewhere. For example, in Pakistan, a country without a Jewish community, anti-Semitic sentiment fanned by anti-Semitic articles in the press is widespread. This reflects the more recent phenomenon of anti-Semitism appearing in countries where historically or currently there are few or even no Jews.

vs.

Similarly, in the Middle East, anti-Zionist propaganda frequently adopts the terminology and symbols of the Holocaust to disparage Israel and its leaders. Some Jews feel that much of this rhetoric crosses the line between criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitism. Holocaust denial and Holocaust minimization efforts find increasingly overt acceptance as sanctioned historical discourse in a number of Middle Eastern countries. Even countries like Pakistan, that are without a sizable Jewish community, recently also are showing signs of widespread anti-Sematism.

To me, the problem with the first version is that it adopts the point of view of a person worried about antisemitism. While I am a person worried about antisemitism, I think Wikipedia should present statements about people's views rather than taking on those views as its own. Expressions such as "This rhetoric often crosses the line..." make it sound as if there exists a specific, determinable line between criticism of Israel and antisemitic views, and that Wikipedia knows where that line is. That is, this expression purports to lecture people on the meaning of their own views.

Likewise, in the second paragraph, using terms such as "the problem of anti-Semitism" and "worrying expressions" gives an air of moralistic lecturing to the article. The claim that antisemitism is a worrying problem is one which many people wholeheartedly agree with. However, Wikipedia does not hold this opinion (because Wikipedia doesn't hold opinions). When we are writing with Wikipedia's voice about matters social and political, we need to hew carefully to neutrality. This means that even when we personally despise a specific view (such as antisemitism) we do not call that view a "problem".

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an ethical or moral tract. It is worthy of note that when we describe ideologies and beliefs that almost everyone in the world regards as evil -- such as, say, Nazism -- we do not put the word "evil" into Wikipedia's mouth. (No, really. The article on Nazism does not say that Nazism is evil. It presents what Nazis believe and do, and allows the reader to conclude the obvious.)

When we present an opinion (such as "antisemitism is worrying" or "antisemitism is a problem"), we do it best when we attribute that view to specific sources. When we describe a fact (such as "antisemitic violence has risen in Europe") we describe it neutrally, rather than saying, e.g., "antisemitic violence has risen worryingly in Europe". --FOo 18:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The instant someone changes text to introduce weasel word phrases like "Some Jews feel that much of", and spell "Anti-Semitism" "Anti-Sematism", they lose all credibility. Not to mention the fact that banned editors (in this case User:Zephram Stark are simply not allowed to edit, and their edits are reverted without consideration to the content. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I had no idea the edit was by a banned user sock. I don't follow user misbehaviour that closely, and I don't have sock telepathy either. I agree with you that edits by banned users should be reverted, although of course if those edits make improvements which some nonbanned user wants to keep, that should be permitted.

I agree with you that weasel expressions are unsavory -- especially erroneous ones, such as claiming that only Jews have the concern described. Likewise, typos suck -- although typos do not indicate malice.

However, my objection regarding the opinions being expressed in Wikipedia's name still stands. It is simply a violation of Wikipedia's neutral stance to enter into an article a claim that some social phenomenon is "worrying" or a "problem" without ascribing that opinion to someone. --FOo 02:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Fubar, I support your latest edit because I think it was an improvement of the article. Thank you! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

My vote (having just turned up on a talk page I watch but never edit) is absolutely number 2. It "crosses the line"... What line? I didn't know we were empowered to decide. Marskell 22:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Middle East

Shouldn't there be an article titled Anti-Semitism in the Middle East or Anti-Semitism in the Muslim World? Within Islamic countries, anti-Semitism is not just specific to Arabs. There's a great deal of anti-Semitism in Iran and probably other places like Pakistan. Any ideas about how we should go about organizing these? Aucaman^Talk 19:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You do know that there is an article Islam and anti-Semitism, right? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

No, obviously s/he doesn't. It was a fair question. Marskell 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that article should focus on anti-semitism caused by Islam or anti-Semitism done in the name of Islam. The problem is that a large part of anti-Semitism in the Muslim World actually comes from secular forces and has nothing to do with Islam per se. That's why I'm proposing making at least one of the two articles mentioned above. Aucaman^Talk 00:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you give more details as to what exactly you have in mind? Also, how will you diffrentiatie between religous and secular forces?Bless sins 10:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm looking at a quote from a front page article in the 1952 issue of Pan-Iranism: "Arise, workers oppressed by the chains of the Jewish capitalist, and free yourselves." I'm trying to figure out where such statements belong. This article is already pretty long, so I was thinking of adding it to one of the subarticles. But this has nothing to do with Islam or the Arab World (Iran is not part of the Arab World), so I think there needs to be article that looks at anti-Semitism in places other than the Arab World. Aucaman^Talk 23:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it really notable enough to have a seperate article on it? -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 00:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes anti-Semitism in places other than the Arab World is notable enough to have its own article, but that's not exactly what I was saying. Aucaman^Talk 00:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What were you saying then? -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 00:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should start Socialist movement and anti-Semitism or Leftist anti-Semitism (which is not exactly the same as Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism where the latter redirects). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to divide this up by ideology then Nationalism and anti-Semitism is probably more appropriate. But I think it would be better to divide things up regionally. Aucaman^Talk 01:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I like your Nationalism and anti-Semitism idea. In this we could create sections about different regions/countries. I don't think creating an article based on Middle East would be appropriate, because then we would have to cover mullah inspired anti-semtism, which is already covered in Islam and anti-Semitism.Bless sins 21:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

the Crimea -> Crimea

Please, remove the definite article. It must be Crimea, not the Crimea.

Arabs are semites.

Righ? --85.29.75.16 13:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right, but since anti-Semitism exclusively targets Jews, not Arabs, it's not really relevant. Unmitigated Success 13:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Arabic, like Hebrew, is a semitic language. "Anti-semitism" nevertheless does not mean hatred of all people who speak a semitic language. It means hatred of Jews. (Similarly, an Anglophile is not someone who loves anyone who speaks English). Slrubenstein | Talk 14:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't drive in my driveway, I don't park on the Parkway, I have to pay a toll to get on the freeway, and I can't put out a fire with inflammable clothing. Likewise, antiSemites are not people who hate Semites. Words that are in common use have meanings and Wikipedia is not the place for a crusade to change such meanings to what they "should" be.Gzuckier 17:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the current etymology section of the article deals with this well enough. 85.29.75.16, did you read it before you posted? If you thought it was confusing, can you let us know why? Thanks,TheronJ 19:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

19th century scientific theories

Pseudo-scientific theories concerning race, civilization, and "progress" had become quite widespread in Europe in the second half of the 19th century

Is "pseudo-scientific" a legitimate description of the now discredited 19th century racial theories? Or were they just wrong science (i.e., acceptable with the scientific context of the 19th C, but not now)? Perhaps we might just want to remove the word adjective (whether pseudo-scientific or scientific) altogether; we could clarify with, perhaps, "Now discredited theories concerning..." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I reverted that change thinking it was vanalism, I should have assumed good faith. I've thought about what you wrote and looked into the article on pseudo-science, and I'm starting to think that in fact scientific would be a better description than pseudo-scientific (although the article should then have the "Now discredited theories concerning..." you suggested). I read a book by Stephen Jay Gould about scientific racism called the mismeasure of man (although it didn't deal with anti-Semitism if I remember right). Apparently, these scientific theories were made by otherwise respectable scientists, who actually did other valuable things (such as Broca, a surgeon), and that although they were flawed, the errors weren't blatant, but subtle, unconscious mistakes, difficult to grasp in a context of widespread racism. In fact, says the author, for all we know, some of the stuff we do today is flawed in the same way. I also found this synopsis of a book on http://www.fpp.co.uk/StMartinsPress/MacDonald1998.html, saying there were efforts at the beginning of the century to make "such ideas academically and intellectually disreputable", suggesting that at some point they were reputable.Unmitigated Success 11:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

anti-Semitism does not conform to scholarly usage

There is no such thing as "Semitism," and in German it's 'Antisemitismus.' "ANTI-SEMITISM spelled with a hyphen" does not "conform to scholarly usage." [[7]], says Robert Michael, Prof. European History, UMASS Dartmouth. Regards,Doright 06:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• On the other hand, "anti-semitism" is FAR more prevelant, at least as measured by Google hits; 13.3 million to 2.6. What German does is irrelevant; German puts together words differently from English. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Jp, that's an interesting point. However, 'Anti-semitism' is not more prevelant among scholars. Scholarly usage calls for 'antisemitism.' Furthermore, 'Anti-semitism' erroneously implies the validity of the category Semite. This results in perpetuating anti-Jew absurdities like, "Arabs can not be anti-Semites because they are semites too." Also, this misuse of the term anti-semitism gives the anti-Jews an undeserved victory by supporting the notion that there is an actual referent, "Semitism," that can be opposed. That, in my view, is an antisemitic bias that Wikipedia ought not support. Do you insist upon B.C. and A.D. because they are also more prevalent, despite the fact that among scholars B.C.E. and C.E. are more often preferred?Doright 07:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Professor Shmuel Almog of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem also points out the importance of this error. Please respond to his arguments made against 'anti-Semitism' and in favor of 'antisemitism.'[[8]] Also, I'm pretty sure one will be hard pressed to find even a single scholar that argues 'anti-Semitism' is to be preferred over 'antisemitism.' Regards, Doright 07:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I stay completely out of the BC/AD argument; my feeling is that Wikipedia is descrptive, not prescriptive. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
      • That’s admirable. However, I’m at a loss to see how your comment is cogent or addresses any of the issues raised by the cited scholars. By the way, I too enjoy apple pie.Doright 17:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Whatever. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people

Vote They are attempting to close the +cat AGAIN, please vote to KEEP.

Neutrality

This article portrays anti-semititism as evil. Personally, I agree, but its a bias, fair or not. Kashami 21:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• What would you recommend? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue it as being biased, beyond holding the bias of upholding equality. You can make the same arguement for anything.

GA pending failed

GA pending on these modifications (change the first 2):

1. ...a number of authorities..., like whom for example?
2. Please add the external inline link to the reference section as an footnote or in an external links section.
3. Need to reference almost all subsections, or else it sounds like original research.

Wonderful article to read, and almost NPOV in the way to describe and not take a POV-oriented view on the subject.

Drop me a line on GAnomination page or on my talk page when its modified. Lincher 23:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No user tried to change the article in a 2 day time period which shows clearly no intention to bring the article neither to the GA status or the FA status. Sorry, the article failed the GA for the modifications above. Lincher 21:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Impressive article. The concept of New Antisemitism is worrying though - perhaps the section on this topic could outline criticisms of the departure from the concept of 'old antisemitism'. The US State Department's definition of antisemitism seems plain and unfussy - why elaborate?--Shtove 19:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Shakespeare

Does The Merchant of Venice deserve a mention? Perhaps in a Renaissance sub-section (separate from Reformation)?--Shtove 19:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr.

The following quotation from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was recently posted. Some have argued that it is a fake. In my understanding, a similar quotation, from Dr. King's remarks at Harvard University, is generally thought to be legitimate. Others may be more familiar with the controversy than I am, but it may make more sense to use the Harvard quote if the authenticity of this version is in doubt.

"In Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter To An Anti-Zionist Friend," he says: '.. You declare, my friend; that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist'. And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of G-d's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews -- this is G-d's own truth.'"' Klmarcus

• Well, we can't use the hoax version. The debunking research is pretty serious, and all one would need would be the issue of Saturday Review containing the alleged letter. That King equated anti-Z with anti-S could on its own is interesting, but I'm not sure where it fits in the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What About Arabs?

Come on. Arabs are semites to. Look up the correct defintion of semite. Arabs speak a semetic language. In this case why do jews have to hog up this term when Arabs are jews? Maybe it has to do with Jewish racists themselves thinking they represent the semetic race only and that other races are inferior perhaps? This article needs to mention Arabs. Zachorious 22:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a proper concern, but not expressed in good faith. The article addresses this at para 5 here. A formal etymology should also be included.--Shtove 23:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't go anywhere near the article with that kind of attitude. This matter is also addressed in the paragraph Arabs are Semites on this talk page. Unmitigated Success 06:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please remember to remain civil. The matter is discussed in the article. "Antisemitism" relates to "Semites" (or speakers of Semitic languages) in the same way that "lesbian" relates to people from the island of Lesbos. In other words, it's a linguistic anomaly-- the literal translation doesn't equate direcly to its meaning. If it helps, when you see "antisemitism", imagine you're seeing "anti-Jewish" (or Judeophobia).--Leflyman^Talk 08:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Literature on anti-Semitism

Moving this section recently added by 160.39.240.61 (talk · contribs) to talk: In James Joyce's epic Ulysses, the second chapter (aka the Nestor chapter) ends with the anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, pro-colonial and cruel headmaster, Mr. Deasy, running after the young teacher, Stephen Daedalous. The headmaster breathlessly asks Stephen, "Ireland, they say, has the honour of being the only country which never persecuted the Jews....And do you know why?" When Stephen asks why, the headmaster replies, "Because she never let them in." While the headmaster's comments indicate that the Irish had prevented Jewish immigration, this was not so; Ireland had never had formal policies against Jewish immigration, but the lack of Jewish immigrants (as well as the constant emigration) is explained by the constant poverty faced by the island in the centuries before the Celtic Tiger. In fact, for centuries, Hebrew remained one of the most popular languages to learn in Ireland, due to both the numbers of priests and nuns that came from Ireland and the strong religious devotion of the Irish people as a whole (Hebrew would have been used to study the Old Testament in its original form).

Ulysses deals mostly with the Jewish Leopold Bloom's observations as he walks around his native Dublin, so Mr. Deasy's comment is ironic in that sense. Another great irony of Mr. Deasy's anti-semitism is that Mr. Deasy is depicted as money-grubbing and greedy, which is a common misleading stereotype about the Jewish people against whom he rails. - This article is already over 100k. Literature on anti-Semitism or Antisemitism in fiction is whole another topic and if/when an article on it is created, this one may have a summary and a link, but this is not it. BTW, does Anti-Semitism#Evangelical perspectives on anti-Semitism belong in the article? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Dodgy intro

I think there is a lot of good stuff in the article, but the intro is worrying. It reads as though there are three separate, and equally significant phenomena: 'anti-judaism', 'racial anti-semitism', and 'new anti-semitism'.

As in fact the section on definitions further down makes clear, there is no such clear cut separation between 'racial' and 'religious' anti-semitism - the intro contradicts this more considered and accurate approach. The intro as it stands seems to be saying that pogroms, blood libels and expulsions before the 19th century were the result of theological disputes, which is absurd.

'New anti-semitism' is a controversial and disputed idea. It shouldn't be represented as a fact, and certainly not as on a par with well attested forms of anti-semitism. I looked at the four citations given - these are all rather partisan, not particularly scholarly sources. Eg. a Canadian Liberal party politico, and an article in the Guardian that actually doesn't mention the term but has one off-the-cuff quote about anti-semitism and the left from Gerry Gable, a highly controversial figure in UK anti-fascism. The disputed opinions of a few recent commentators, often with an axe to grind against the left, are not equal to the decades of scholarly research into 'mainstream' notions of anti-semitism.Bengalski 10:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Oi concur.--Shtove 22:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Taxonomy

"In Toward a Definition of Antisemitism, Langmuir outlined a conceptual framework that differentiated between medieval anti-Judaism, in which the Jew was hated by Christians because he was a Jew (an adherent to a rival religion with competing truth-claims), and medieval anti-Semitism, in which the Jew became an unreal, demonic, invented creature, the product of Christian mythmakers (a child-killer, a poisoner of wells and, consequently, responsible for the Black Death), Dickson said. Langmuir's second book offered a general theoretical overview of medieval anti-Semitism." [[9]]

--Doright 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)