Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

---

"Epithetology"

This is an article about antisemitism, not about how the term is used in political rhetoric. This is discussed in quite a bit of detail in the article on New antisemitism and doesn't belong here. --Leifern 19:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Scholars of antisemitism should be quoted here, not political opportunists. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Leifern for your explanations and using the talk page. Your action is well-noted. No comment on Jayjg's POV. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And after all the discussions, User:Aminz chose to jostle the same strawman arguments into the intro, next to New antisemitism paragraph. Who needs NPOV when we talk about those pesky Jews? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I read these discussions. I added the new introduction of New Antisemitism here(which was agreed upon after lots of discussion). I doubt that the Jewish POV is downplayed here Humus sapiens. --Aminz 02:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Only after I had to RV your POV edit. I do not enjoy RVs, and I won't always be there to uphold NPOV for you. I don't think the new addition "proponents vs. critics" belongs in the intro either, but I won't RV right now. And BTW, there is no such thing as "Jewish POV" - Jews are free to hold opinions across the entire political spectrum and do not have a secret cabal of Elders. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I reformulated that sentence based on my understanding of discussion here. And please avoid ironic language. --Aminz 05:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about antisemitism so it should cover all uses of the term (it does mention the propaganda term "new antisemitism"), but if this article isn't suitable, which article is? // Liftarn

No, it's not about the "term" antisemitism, it's about the phenomenon of antisemitism. And new antisemitism, whether you believe it is new or not, is a subset of the phenomenon. --Leifern 12:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

While the missuse of the term antisemitism as a smear tactic may be central to "new antisemitism", the sources says nothing about "new" so it really doesn't belong there. The best would probably be to have it in another article, but as an article of it's own it would be both stubby and deleted on sight. So, any ideas? // Liftarn

This seems to be an intractable problem right now - the topic of political rhetoric. The perspective you're trying to find a home for inevitably leads to a pissing contest: "what you're saying is antisemitic" .... "no it isn't, and you're saying that just to make me shut up" .... "no, and you're saying that to duck the accusation." See what I mean? I think this needs to be discussed in principle before we start writing articles about it. --Leifern 12:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% but cannot and am happy to try but am fearful contest will just be relocated.--BozMo talk 12:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Anybody there? // Liftarn

Yes, it's a problem, but it must be possible to solve in some way. // Liftarn

Well, what about New antisemitism? There's a fair bit of WP:OWN (combined with a large dose of WP:IDONTLIKEIT) on this article and in the end its a bit arbitrary of course...--BozMo talk 07:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Technically that would probably be correct, but wouldn't that be WP:OR since the sources says nothing about the "new" part. There are major WP:OWN issues on this article. // Liftarn

Sometimes you have to accept that the specific POV you are trying to push really isn't appropriate anywhere in an encyclopedia. You've been trying this for a year now, without any success. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You make it sound like I have done it constantly during a full year. The lack off success is more due to uncomprising POV pushers who claims WP:OWNership of the article rather than the addition itself lacking merit. // Liftarn

You have done it regularly for a year now, on half a dozen different articles. The lack of success was due to resistance to POV pushing of material that lacked merit. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the lack of success more has to do with WP:OWNership and that some editors don't like it. a) it is not POV pushing b) it has merit c) it is sourced d) it is notable. // Liftarn

The consensus is the exact opposite. Accept it and move on. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) Liftarn wants to find a place for the idea that accusations of antisemitism are misused to silence criticism of Israel and is trying to insert it in various articles on, strictly speaking, unrelated articles. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that articles about political rhetoric are very difficult to write, make NPOV, and keep stable. The reason for this is that they typically dwell on people's mindsets. When Abraham Foxman (for example) charges various people with antisemitism, there is every reason to believe that he is sincere and in any event impossible to know what is going on in his mind. I think that Wikipedia should focus on facts and specific allegations that at least can be verified at some point. I'm not saying that rhetoric should remain unexamined, but the articles about them should be constructed very carefully.

The article on New antisemitism examines the issue whether acts and speech that hurt Jews as a people have taken on a new form through hostility to Israel. There are legitimate points of view on both sides of the issue, and both are represented more or less fairly (depending on the day of the week) in the article. But the article focuses on effects (which can be measured) rather than intent (which can't). As far as I know, nobody has tried to find out whether charges of antisemitism has had the effect of diminishing criticism of Israel, but every indication I can observe indicates that it hasn't. Perhaps if there were solid references that examined the question rather than make the allegation, we could have an article. Otherwise, it'll just be a list of quotes at best and a depiction of a pissing contest at worst. --Leifern 12:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We could look at Islamophobia#Criticism for guidance. Also notice that Islamophobia mentions ctiticism and possible missuse already in the intro text. I don't think that much would be suitable here and it would be better off in it's own article, but I don't see any chance for such an article surviving the day. // Liftarn

Whatever happens in that article is not particularly relevant to this article; for one thing, Antisemitism is a phenomenon that is at least 2,000 years old. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hatred (as in "Jew hatred", the accepted EU and USA State Dept definition) is not the same as a phobia (e.g. "Islamophobia") or mockery. Hatred is a phobia so extreme as to be coupled with an action according to Princeton U's Wordnet 3.0; this makes a really useful workable definition. It's tempting to classify mockery or slander as antisemitism, but it mitigates its usefulness. Hoserjoe 05:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, so is islamophobia (almost 2000 anyway) even if the term is quite recent. Since they deal with a simmilar subject it is a good idea to compare the articles for ideas. // Liftarn

No, it's a good idea to write this article in accordance with policies, as it has been, not compare it to other articles. You've been trying to insert this material for a year now, and no-one agrees with its insertion. Either you accept consensus, or the issue of your behavior will have to be dealt with. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea. If you have a specific set of polices that says that well sourced, relevant material should be excluded just because some people how claim ownership of the article don't like it then please give a link so I can look into it. // Liftarn

The material is not relevant to this article, and continual and false imputation of "ownership" of this article are a violation of WP:CIVIL. The only issue here is your disruptive editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a touched a nerve there. Pointing out WP:OWNership where it is obvious can't possibly be a violation of WP:CIVIL. Again I ask you to give links to relevant policies that you base your unwillingness to include relevant material on. // Liftarn

I think it's generally recommended on Wikipedia to avoid touching nerves. Makes for a better article, and all that.Gzuckier 15:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point, but how would you reccomend that we move on to get these views into this article (or somewhere appropiate)? // Liftarn

To move on, stop violating WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT. These views aren't appropriate here or anywhere else. Wikipedia is not a random collection of extremists whining about their hurt feelings when they are called on their extremist views. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, those violent antisemitic extremists like Jimmy Carter, Michael Lerner (rabbi), Richard Cohen (journalist), John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt? Please stay calm and rational. Thay are appropiate and well sourced views from reasonable people working in relevant fields. I agree this is probably not the best place for them, but unless someone suggests a better place it's where it will be added. // Liftarn

(outdented) .... and then deleted in due course. It is you who are insisting on including this content and should figure out a reasonable place to put it. This is all about political rhetoric, assertions that can't be proven, and which will find counter-assertions, and so on. --Leifern 08:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My first choice was in antisemite (ephitet), but that got nuked on spurious grounds. I have also tried here and in racism with no better luck. So, come with a suggestion. // Liftarn

I don't have one - I can't think of a good place to put this content, because I think it is spurious. In political debates, people accuse each other of bad intentions all the time. --Leifern 11:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Including by making false accusations of anti-semitism you mean? At the moment I don't think we have reached NPOV on the issue; unless you restrict the article to proven anti-semitism you have to have stuff about false allegations, surely? --BozMo talk 11:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you know they are false. Also, please note, the material used to support it almost always consists of unverified claims; that is, we don't have some reliable source saying "X is an antisemite", but rather, we have various people claiming they have been (or will be) called antisemites by unnamed individuals. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and we have articles like fascist (epithet) and islamophobia is almost entierly about the possible/alleged missuse of the term. // Liftarn

Any term can be misused, and many can be used as epithets. The term "racist" is far more often abused than "antisemite", yet we don't have a "Racist (epithet)" article. For that matter, we don't have an Apartheid (epithet) article, which is where the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article should be moved. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

We do have the article race card that covers that. As for the second suggestion it is covered in allegations of apartheid. Now that we have covered that straw man perheps we can get back to the subject. OK? // Liftarn

It has already been covered in multiple ways. See also my response to BozMo above. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked at your handwaving and I don't see how that changes anything. We have multiple reliable sources saying the term "antisemite" is being missused for political purposes. This is an important issue and we can't just ignore it because you don't like it. // Liftarn

Again, this article is about antisemitism, not about people alleging that various unnamed individuals have called them an antisemite because of their extreme views. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The subject of antisemitism also includes the missuse of the term for political purposes. And there are no extreme views involved, people promote such views are pedophiles who strangle kittens (just kidding). // Liftarn

Open any good encyclopedia or dictionary and you will see that the subject of antisemitism includes prejudice or hostility against Jews. Any term may be misused or abused, but this article is not about that. As a matter of fact this article included so much relevant and encyclopedic material that it had to be spun off into a number of subarticles. Description of alleged "hurt feelings" of deranged politicians or activists does not belong here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that your feelings got hurt, but it's valid contens and it should be included. // Liftarn

Trolling won't get you anywhere. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Blanking won't get you anywhere. Please talk instead of engaging in vandalism. // Liftarn

Please avoid further violations of WP:POINT, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, and WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't call the kettle black. Can you please stay on topic and work towards a resolution. // Liftarn

The situation is resolved. Now you are just disrupting. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not fair to him, Jayjg. If you feel that the false use of a term shouldn't be in an article why are you fighting the last comma here and completely ignoring the Islamophobia article? --BozMo talk 10:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting) I don't see it that way. You have blanked valid and wells ourced content. You motivations I can onlys peculate about, but my instinct tells me it has nothing to do with improving the article. // Liftarn

It was poorly sourced, and not relevant to this article. As for your edits, whenever they are about Jewish-related topics, they are all intended to either demonize Israel or its supporters, or downplay antisemitism. This is more of the same. I leave it to others to speculate about your motivations. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It was not "poorly sourced" that is utterly false. It had a long list of reliable sources. It is also false that I downplay antisemitism. It is a serious matter that certainly shouldn't be downplayed. As for Israel-related subject I do have tried to make some articles more balanced (with various levels of success). // Liftarn

Of course it was poorly sourced. It was mostly individuals claiming they had been accused of antisemitism by unnamed sources, or not even that they had been accused, but that they would likely be accused. That's not sourcing, that's innuendo. As for your Israel and Jewish-related topics, they only add negative information about Israel, or attempt to downplay antisemitism. It is never the other way, so your claims of attempting balance are specious. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeating a falshood does not make it true. They were reliable sources from scolars in relevant fields (Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, and the head of Columbia's Middle East Institute, Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and a professor of international affairs at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government) as well as several journalists (including a four time Pulitzer winner). There is enough pro-Israel bias on Wikiedia (probably due to US centrism) so there is hardly any point in adding more bias in that direction. If the scale is tipping one way it is best to put more weigh on the other side to get balance. I also notice that you are attempting your own little smear campaign here. As far as I know I haven't edited much in any "Jewish-related topics" at all (apart from this article). I probably have done more editing on topics relating to Christianity and Sikhism. You are a bit more carefull than HS, but it still the same tactic. // Liftarn

Again, if someone claims they have been, or will be, called an antisemite, but does not provide any specifics about who did, or is planning to do it, then it is a poorly sourced claim - and that's on top of the point that they are ascribing motives to these unnamed individuals, and that they are not scholars of antisemitism or the use of the term antisemite. Regarding the rest, the bottom line is still clear; regardless of your farfetched justifications, the fact remains whenever your edits are about Jewish-related topics, they are all intended to either demonize Israel or its supporters, or downplay antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If a scolar in a relevant field (for instance Political Science) say the term is being missused as political smear tactic and we have a WP:RS for it then it's a good source for the claim. Regardless of your ad hominem attacks you can not keep denying that it is well sourced and I don't think making an article more well balanced could be called "demonize Israel" unless you are a pedophilic kittenstrangler. // Liftarn

Why would that be a "related field"? In addition, you still haven't actually responded to the issue; none of these claims are specific in any way, they just make unattributed allegations, so it's still poorly sourced. On top of that, the article is about actual Antisemitism, not the vague allegations that it is used as an epithet. And finally, your last sentence makes no sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

To repeat from above: If you feel that the false use of a term shouldn't be in an article why are you fighting the last comma here and completely ignoring the Islamophobia article? --BozMo talk 14:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't edit the Islamophobia article; I don't know the topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Liftarn -- I think some of your edits are giving undue weight to misuse of the term. Bus stop 14:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think two or three short sentences in a lon article can be described as "undue weight". I could cut it down to two or even one sentence if that would make you happy. // Liftarn

Given the vague and self-serving nature of the sources, and the fact that the article isn't about that anyway, any weight is undue. You simply won't find the claims you are advancing in any real encyclopedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you bus stop, they are: but the total exclusion of the topic doesn't seem right to me either given the other articles on discrimination we have in WP. --BozMo talk 14:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to put it in the race card article where it seems a more appropiate, but it still gets deleted. // Liftarn

I have explained to you before, the notion that Jews are a "race" is itself racist. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And I have explained to you before, the very idea that there exists different human races is itself racist. However, racicm and allegations of racism still exists. Racism can be based on ethnicity, culture, skin tone or even religion. However, can we get back on topic now? // Liftarn

I didn't see any of even your poor sources describing it as a "race card". As for the other issues, they've been explained at length. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You dance around and desperatly try to avoid the issue so I wouldn't call it "explained at length". More like "avoided at all costs". As for the sources repeating your strange idea that they are somewhat "poor" that doesn't change the fact thet they are rock solid. // Liftarn

As explained, they are not subject matter experts, and they make vague and typically self-serving claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break one

(Resetting). Jay, you are quite right, the Jews are of course not a "race". Virtually all reputable scholars agree that "race" is a meaningless construct. Unfortunately, not everyone is convinced of that fact. Racism and the race card are still with us. And while they are around, so are anti-racists and race equality policies. Itsmejudith 15:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In any event, inserting this poorly sourced and non-encyclopedic material into the Race card article adds the additional problem of original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Why so? It is defined as "that someone has falsely accused another person of being a racist in order to gain some sort of advantage" and that fits perfectly. If you have a betetr suggestion then I suggest you bring it forward instead of just siting and sying "no, no, no" all the time. According to several reliable sources people have been called antisemites for questioning Israeli actions. You have disputed its addition. How do you think we should state this fact? // Liftarn

A better suggestion is for you to reread this section and comply with WP policies and guidelines mentioned above. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you refering to actual WP policies and guidelines rather than imaginary? If you are refering to real ones perhaps you can point out the relevant material. Please? Some examples (and counterexamples). WP:POINT does not apply (if so, point out how). It does mention "If you think someone unjustifiably removed your additions" (that seems to be the case here), but the suggested action is "do find a source for your additions" (already done that). Wikipedia:Disruptive editing says "notable minority opinions are welcome when attributable to reliable sources" and that is the case here (well,e xcept that they are obviously not welcome). Did I miss anything? // Liftarn

None of your quotes is about the subject of antisemitism (which is hostility or prejudice against Jews), and none of your quotes comes from a scholar of the subject of antisemitism. Instead, they come from political activists. What's next, David Duke and Mel Gibson whining about their hurt feelings? The polemics (of which one side you are trying to add) is already better covered in New antisemitism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

They are from scolars of politics and they speak about the use of the antisemite smear in politics so they are talking within their field. Also notice that I don't write that is is, but that it "has been claimed". It is a "notable minority opinion" (or perhaps not minority, it's hard to tell) supported by reliable, published sources. But Ok, perhaps I'll file a report at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard so we can settle that. But keep in mind that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (whatever you feels the truth to be). // Liftarn

The people in question have self-servingly claimed to be called antisemites, not racists, by unnamed sources. They are not scholars of antisemitism, and they have not even provided any evidence that anyone notable has called them an antisemite - or indeed, that anyone at all has. These claims don't meet the threshold of verifiability. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they haven't. Try reading the sources. // Liftarn

In summary: "Everybody is afraid to speak out for fear of being called antisemitic, except of course, for my brave self, thank you thank you". Ooh I got another one: "People are afraid to talk about the Jews. Everybody says so" Gzuckier 13:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have.

• Scott Handleman makes vague claims about "Partisans of Israel" in a polemic work.
• Alexander Cockburn and Jeffery St. Clair make the same claim about "Apologists for Israel's repression of Palestinians" in that same polemic work.
• Paul Ari makes the claim that "Finkelstein exposes the nastiness of smearing the label of anti-Semitism on Israel's critics" without actually naming anyone who has done so.
• Michael Lerner blames "the Jewish establishment and media" for criticism - he doesn't actually say they make the accusation - and then shifts to the claim that "many people become fearful that they too will be labeled 'anti-Semitic'".
• In an opinion piece on The Guardian website, Adam Shatz claims that "non-Jewish liberals who cannot afford to be tarred as anti-Semites" are afraid of "the Israel lobby".
• Jimmy Carter claims that, after accusing Israel of apartheid, he was called an "anti-Semite". He does not name his accuser(s).
• Mearsheimer and Walt claim that "Anyone who criticizes Israeli actions... stands a good chance of getting labeled an anti-Semite." Again, some amorphous unnamed force.

As I pointed out, this is all innuendo, in some case pre-emptive. Exactly who has been doing this antisemite-calling? Is there some notable person or group who has done it, and can they be quoted? Has there been a scholarly analysis of this alleged phenonemon? The answers are "unknown", "no", "no", and "no". Jayjg ^(talk) 13:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Scott Handleman says (and this is the relevant part) "..often make false accusations of anti-Semitism to silence Israel’s critics." (misuse of the term to silence critics) in a published book (i.e. a reliable source).
• Alexander Cockburn and Jeffery St. Clair says "toss the word “anti-Semite” at any critic of what Zionism has meant in practice" (again misuse of the term to silence critics) in the preface to the same published book.
• Paul Ari does not need to name anyone, name calling and finger pointing is not required
• Michael Lerner (rabbi) ("Oh, that horrible extremist antisemite!") says the misuse of the term "antisemite" may be used to to silence critics.
• Adam Shatz writes in a widley circulated newspaper (i.e. a reliable source) that fear of being called an antisemite silence critics.
• Jimmy Carter doesn't drop any names. Not needed anyway.
• Mearsheimer and Walt doesn't go pointing fingers in a scolary work.

I don't think finger pointing is necessary to estabilsh that the term is being misused as a way to silence critics. Who has been doing this antisemite-calling? It doesn't matter. That is not the issue. Is there some notable person or group who has done it, and can they be quoted? Possiblt, but it's irrelevant. Has there been a scholarly analysis of this alleged phenonemon? Yes, see the list above. It includes books and articles by various experts. Keep in mind that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If it is published by a reliable source then it may be used in an article. You can't just go around making your own rules to suit your own interests. For instance the artile says "In the first half of the twentieth century, in the USA, Jews were discriminated against in employment, access to residential and resort areas, membership in clubs and organizations, and in tightened quotas on Jewish enrollment and teaching positions in colleges and universities.", but I would never dream of demanding to know the names of the Jews who were discrimanated, a full list of residential and resort areas that denied them access, what clubs and organizations and so on befor accepting it. Not to mention how long the article of the Holocause would be if it was necessary to list all 10 million killed as well as a full list of the killers. // Liftarn

• Scott Handelman doesn't name anyone.
• Alexander Cockburn and Jeffery St. Clair don't name anyone.
• Paul Ari doesn't name anyone.
• Michael Lerner (rabbi) doesn't name anyone.
• Adam Shatz doesn't name anyone in the "Comment is Free" online section of The Guardian website.
• Jimmy Carter doesn't name anyone.
• Mearsheimer and Walt had no trouble naming names when it came to their main accusations, but can't seem to find a source for this pre-emptive prediction.

In summary, no actual instances have been cited, much less from notable individuals, and there has been no "scholarly analysis" of the alleged phenomenon, since none of the sources used are scholars of antisemitism, and in any event they don't "analyze" it at all, but rather make vague typically self-serving claims about it. As has been explained to you before, being published in a reliable source is only one of the hurdles material must clear before being included in an encyclopedia, much less a particular article. If there really are "books by various experts" on the topic, perhaps you should include the material in the articles on those books. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Now you are just making things up. Name dropping is as far as know not required by any Wikipedia policy or guidline (prove me wrong). This sudden demand of names is a mere strawman. They are (at least some of them) scolars of politics and this is an issue of politics. Since you never bother to quote any policy or guideline I suspect you simply make things up as you go along. // Liftarn

Vague self-serving claims are not "scholarly analysis", despite the hand-waving, and the claim that this is an "issue of politics" and therefore "scholars of politics" can comment on it is circular - there is no evidence that this is an "issue of politics" except from those who make the claims in the first place. Moreover, most of the sources are not even "scholars of politics". Regarding policy, "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." is one relevant quote. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, i see no matter of reason can convince you. I will atke a break from the article for a while. // Liftarn

Reason would indeed convince me, but clearly the exact opposite will not. And I hope your "break" is not more of the same old pattern, a hope that you can sneak the material back in unnoticed at some later date, as you have done at least a half dozen times in the past. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Since this article is clearly tending toward aggressive WP:POV content, that is, an article written from a Jewish perspective, and it's being defended by some very determined WP:OWNers, perhaps room could be made for other related information that may offend the rather obvious Jewish sensitivities being displayed here by one or two contributors? After all, the term is an etymological kludge with zero legal standing anywhere in the world, but it's obviously being hammered into a piece of twisted steely junk by some here. The present situation is a biased and offensive POV article that is completely useless to any non-Jewish person interested in the subject. 66.183.87.254 23:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

New Testament

Jay, if many Christian sources think the NT is full of anti-Judaism then can you add them to the article so we don't mess about making and reverting changes to a section title. At the moment the references are mainly primary sources but of course there is an enormous body of secondary work on NT criticism. Itsmejudith 23:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's one to start: Removing Anti-Jewish Polemic from our Christian Lectionaries: A Proposal. You could also try [http://www.amazon.com/Antisemitism-New-Testament-Lillian-Freudmann/dp/0819192945/ Antisemitism in the New Testament] or [http://www.amazon.com/Removing-Anti-Judaism-Testament-Howard-Borowsky/dp/B000E7RX54/ Removing the Anti-Judaism from the New Testament]. This is also worth reading. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I found these links all interesting but it is obviously an extremely complex and contested field. It will be hard work to represent all the current scholarly views fairly in this article. The Pharisee article seemed to me to be informative and a good start. I will see what a search of the academic journals yields. Itsmejudith 08:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have searched for academic sources and found the following:

Books

• Norman A. Beck, Mature Christianity: the recognition and repudiation of the anti-Jewish polemic of the New Testament, Selinsgrove : Susquehanna University Press ; London : Associated University Presses, c1985. ISBN 0941664031

• Norman A. Beck, , Mature Christianity: the recognition and repudiation of the anti-Jewish polemic of the New Testament, revised version, with a prologue and introduction by Christopher M. Leighton. New York : American Interfaith Institute/World Alliance : Crossroad, c1994. ISBN 0824513584

• Paula Fredriksen and Adele Reinhartz, editors, Jesus, Judaism, and Christian anti-Judaism : reading the New Testament after the Holocaust. Louisville, KY ; London : Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. ISBN 0664223281

• John S. Kloppenborg with John W. Marshall (eds.) Apocalypticism, anti-semitism and the historical Jesus : subtexts in criticism, Journal for the study of the New Testament. 275 London : T & T Clark International, c 2005. ISBN 0567084280

• Rosemary Radford Ruether, Theological anti-Semitism in the New Testament, New York : Commission on Interfaith Activities, 197-?. Reprint. from: The Christian century, 14 February 1968, pp.191-196.

• Samuel Sandmel, Anti-Semitism in the New Testament? Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1978. ISBN 0800605217

Articles

• D. Marguerat, "Is the New Testament Anti-Jewish – Matthew and the Acts of the Apostles used as Examples", Revue Theologique de Louvain, 26 (2): 145-164 1995

• L. T. Johnson, "The New Testament Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic", Journal of Biblical Literature, 108 (3): 419-441 FAL 1989

• A. Reinhartz, "The New Testament and Anti-Judaism, a Literary-Critical Approach", Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 25 (4): 524-537 FAL 1988

• L. Schottroff, "Anti-Judaism in the New Testament", Concilium 175: 53-59 1984

Quite a lot to be getting along with for the time being. Itsmejudith 22:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan

Hollywood always portayed KKK as antisemitic but this aspect doesn't seem to be mentioned in that article or this one. If true for the sake of accuracy it would be worth adding (I mean KKK is one of the biggest deeply ingrained bit of US culture there is) even though it is off the current agenda of trying to stress religious hatred. --BozMo talk 06:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would be worth mentioning. Maybe under the Christianity and antisemitism section. We'd need to source it first though.--Sefringle 07:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not the best source but in episode three of John Safran vs God John Safran tries to join the KKK. // Liftarn

Basis of Definition of anti-semitism.

Does anyone know how the word anti-semitism came to only be defined as a hatred/predjudice of Jews? For as described by the Merriam Webster Dictionary and every other dictionary I have used, a Semite is a member of a people who speak a semitic language (Phoenician, Arabic, Hebrew, etc...). LogicRevealsTruth 07:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, LogicRevealsTruth, and congratulations about your very first edit. Just in case you overlooked this in the myriad of boxes at the top of this page, here it is especially for you:

Logic doesn't always reveal the truth when it comes to language, you see... ;) --Thorsten1 14:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

We know that you're trying valiantly to defend the use of the term "antisemitism" as a good term, but it's still etymologically retarded. Many heroic Jews have tried to defend this term since it's popularization by the nazi Wilhelm Marr eons ago. But's it's still a useless and irritating term. It doesn't matter that Jews want to save the term and give it renewed life, it's still a defective term promoted by Nazi apologists for their own purposes, and it still proves to be a confusing and weak starting point for any useful discussion about religious hatred. I agree with the various submitters: the simple term "Jew Hatred" would be much more useful than the defective "antisemitism". Hoserjoe 18:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm personally bothered by the use of "inflammable" to mean "flammable" as I consider it dangerous to misunderstand, but the English language is what it is and Wikipedia does not have improving it as a mission statement. Gzuckier 18:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Gzukier, I can appreciate your POV, and that's why I use "explosive" instead of "inflammable." The English language is so flexible and creative in coming up with accurate and focused terminology that foreigners - even Russians - immediately seize and apply all our new English terms. I personally enjoy the clarity of "Jew Hatred" because it employs the accuracy of the word "hatred, noun, the emotion of intense dislike; a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action"[1] The prefix "anti" merely suggests an attitude, and we can't go about prosecuting defective attitudes. There's always somebody being irrritated by Jews or Catholics or Democrats, and it weakens our position to be continually flailing away at people who are simply irritated or miserable. The entire world is never going to love the Jews, in spite of all their accomplishments, but we can all certainly live with them as neighbours. Hatred, on the other hand, is a concrete precursor to quarrelsome, destructive, and even murderous, behaviour. That's what we're concerned about. Like all good words, it focuses our attention where it ought to be. Hoserjoe

"Inflammable" doesn't mean "explosive"; they are not synonyms. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree actually, some usage is incorrect; the term is incorrectly applied both to non-Jewish semites and when applied to any opposition to a position with a Jewish content. Both dilute and undermine a serious content. How WP should deal with notable incorrect usage I am not personally convinced about. --BozMo talk 21:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Curious about the use of the phrase racial antisemitism in the article; is this proper? Jews really are not a uniform race, are they? Would it be possible to remove the term from the article and still remain true to the purpose of this very real issue? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "uniform race" - biologically, there are no uniform races and historically the word race has meant and been used in different ways. I do not know what the word "race" is in Hebrew or if the concept existed in the Bible or in the Rabbinic period - but during those two formative periods of Jewish history Jews clearly believed all of themselves to be connected by common descent from Abraham. In fact, this is still a central belief in Judaism. Be that as it may, a good deal of anti-Semitic literature explicitly treats the Jews as a race. this is significant historically because anti-Semitic hatred is not affected by what the Jew believes. By way of contrast, in the Middle Ages the Catholic Church was often militantly anti-Judaism, and there were often considerable legal restrictions against what Jews could do. But Jews who converted to Catholicism in good faith were no longer subject to those restrictions and were often welcomed into Christian society. So I'd say the concept of race is very relevant to the study of anti-Semitism. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read antiseimitic writings that treated the Jewish people as a race, but I had always made the assumption that the accusation was more a reflection of ignorance of the accusers than reality.

I concur with you that being descendents of Abraham was/is significant within Judaism, but I have never felt that the Jewish people promoted they are a specfic race, but that they are a people. Also, as has already been stated there are other descendents of Abraham/semitic peoples. I may be splitting hairs. None of my questions should be interpreted as a desire to lesson the importance of antisemitism, but promoting a racial component to actions that are based solely upon beliefs seems a stretch and weakens the value of the condemnation.

When I try to think in broader terms to understand this inclusion of race, I view the white race. This is in line with the different races of the world. If we break it down to subsets we finally get to the Simitic peoples, but they are hardly just Hebrews. The only unifiying characteristic of this group known as Jews is belief; is there something else that I have missed? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

All of these are beliefs, and I would never say "just a belief" given how many people have lived, killed, and died for beliefs. The question is, what do people believe? If you are using the specifically English word "race," no, I do not think Jews ever promoted this idea - Jews instead speak as you suggest of being a nation and a people, although this nationhood and peoplehood has to do with the presumption of being biologically related. I think that when Jews identify themselves as part of a Jewish race they are doing so because they are speaking in English not Hebrew and using English words the way other English-speakers do. I know that in Roman times Jews were referred to as a race, although what the Romans thought races are was different from many people today. I know my parents when talking about the different races where they lived would talk about Blacks, Whites, and Jews so they clearly thought of Jews as a different race. Then again in the 1800s Irish were not thought of as White either. As Irish assimmilate in the US they become White and the same may be true for Jews. I think Disraeli thought of Jews as a race, but I am not absolutely certain. I suspect that many German Jews in the 1920s did not think of themselves as a race. Until they had no choice - beliefs become very powerful indeed when backed up by other beliefs called "laws" (i don't mean natural laws, which are probabalistic descriptions, I mean human laws, which are prescriptions or proscriptions, my point is that human inventions are not trivial things). As to descendents of Abraham, it is true that Jews recognize that Arabs too are descended from Abraham and thus are sort of cousins but - to go back to beliefs - partake in the covenant with God because they are descended from Abraham. But the vast majority of Christians (except Arab Christians) are not descended from Abraham and thus do not partake in the covenant God made with Abraham (the descendents of Jewish converts to Christianity do not count because in converting they renounced their part of the coventant. I am of course speaking of Jewish beliefs). By the way, some racists may believe that Blacks and Whites do not share an ancestor. But no matter how racist a person is, if they believe in either (1) the theory of evolution or (2) a literal reading of the Bible, then they believe that people of different races have a common ancestor. creatures of different species have a common ancestor - cockroaches and humans have a common ancestor. So common ancestry is not an argument against people making distinctions basesd on descent, they just make the cut-off earlier rather than later (i.e. so-called Semites and non-Semites are all descended from Adam, but only Semites are descended from Shem; Jews and Arabs are descended from Abraham, but only Jews are descended from Isaac - I mean, if you go by the Bible) Slrubenstein | Talk 09:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Methinks you are straining excessively to forge a definition of antisemitism, but you're being sabotaged by weak fundamentals. When trying to figure out a negative opinion, you're asking only the people being slandered instead of the slanderers. In this case, the biggest groups of Jew haters ("antisemites")are groups who are verifiably articulate about their reasons for their hatred of Jews. For those folks, it's not a matter of chromosomal likes and dislikes; their hatred arises from the fact that Jews won't submit. They become enraged at the perceived disrespect. There's not a hint of racism in their hatred. It doesn't matter if a Jew is blond or brunette or arian or oriental - if the Jew (especially Zionists) won't submit, the war is on. We all accept that Jews aren't into submission, and the rest of us can mostly live with that. But some can't, thereby creating the problem we see before us. It's a lot easier to help fix a problem if we agree on the root of the problem. Hoserjoe 16:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The talk page isn't supposed to be a forum for our own points of view on the topic. FWIW the above seems to me overly simplistic. We are dealing with an irrational hatred, that must have a range of different causes in different individuals. Also, demonstrably, antisemitism has taken different forms at different times. Nazi antisemitism was inextricably mixed with racism, surely that is agreed by all. Itsmejudith 09:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki talk is directed talk to improve the article. It's neither random nor pointless. It's a useful forum for clarifying the direction of research. It just strikes me that clear knowledge of the roots of antisemitism is not presented in this article. The whole topic is muddled. It appears that "irrational hatred" is only a small part of antisemitism. However, modern antisemitism is a totally rational hatred of a group by other people who freely offer their reasons. It's different from nazi antisemitism. If you think that antisemitism is "irrational", you're living in a fantasy. The article spends an embarrassing amount of space putting "Christian antisemitism" and "Islamic antisemitism" on the same level. Get a grip - Christians are the best friends Jews will ever have. Only here and there is there any awareness that maybe some other enormous sinister force is at work; consider Saudi Arabia's official dream:"the Muslims are promised victory over the Jews in the end". That is, Jews must submit eventually. Benny Morris says it: "...the Jew is obliged to submit..." Bernard Lewis quotes the medieval muslim poet Abu Ishaq: "They have violated our covenant with them" (by refusing to submit). You see, there exists a contract (covenant) for the Jews to submit to the muslim community, and the "disrespectful Jews" are continuing to ignore the contract. There's real, documented reasons for antisemitism, and most of the contributors are ignoring the trail of evidence. If I were grading this article, it would get a D for confusion and lack of understanding. Hoserjoe 07:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Hoserjoe I am sure your opinions will be given all the consideration they deserve. Albion moonlight 08:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't give me credit for these opinions. Hitler may have been the guy who really brought antisemitism into focus, but it was because he admired Islam, not because he had some unique mysterious unexplained "Hitlerian" brain-fart. He wanted the Islamic solution to Germany's problems. Consider Hitler, speaking to Albert Speer: "You see, its been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity." – Hitler Quoted by Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich, pg. 115. Or this gem: "Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers – already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews – so gutless a thing was Christianity! – then we should in all probability have been converted to mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world" - Hitler quoted in "Hitler's Table Talk 1941- 1944 His Private Conversations". The roots and definition of antisemitism looks pretty obvious from a quick search of Hitler/Mohammed rantings: Mohammedanism wants the Jews to submit, and Hitler wants the Jews out of the way to make room for Islam. The Jews (and Christians) were in the way of his Mohammed warrior fantasy. Antisemitism starts with these two entangled fantasies (Hitler and the Mohammedans); the article needs to address this. Otherwise it's just academic hot air. Hoserjoe 18:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoser, you are making a synthesis of what Hitler statements and ignoring context. It is fails Wikipedia policy: See original research. If you want something like this, you will need an reputable reference to include it. I find your premise completely lacking. Based on your logic you would also have to say that Hitler's primary interest would be Shintoism. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but I was pointing out a "different point of view obtained from secondary sources". This is one purpose of a Wikipedia Talk page. The references are gladly included for others to investigate and verify. If you think the references given are not reputable, please tell us why. Hoserjoe 07:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway Joe good luck trying to convince people that you are correct. It seems pretty far fetched to me as well.: Albion moonlight 07:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you may be right. It's a frustrating topic and if I think about it too much I get a headache. Hoserjoe 04:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

History Additions

Most of the recent history additions is a repeat of what is already stated in the "antisemitism in the Christian world" section. Someone should move some of the information there and delete the duplicate stuff. I also created the article Antisemitism in Europe (Middle Ages) several months ago to deal with the history section, per WP:SS. --sefringle^Talk 22:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that there is too much proliferation of articles and thus the potential for POV-forking. Sefringle, could you please check that anything you think should be included by way of history of antisemitism is covered in the History of antisemitism article, thanks. Itsmejudith 09:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be. The recent additions seem to have been copy-pasted from History of antisemitism to here.--Sefringle^Talk 23:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"The Jewish religion forbids Jews to bow down to any person or god other than the Creator. Isolated incidents of persecution against the Jews were recorded in the first century..."

Are there any objections to this being changed to their Creator?

This is about a specific groups view of Creator and is not a universally accepted belief nor fact. I just think it makes the reading more accurate and less triggering of others with different ideas about and creations for their Creator. Thanks. Cyberius III 06:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My advice is to go for it. If someone objects they can change it back. But thanks for asking none the less. :Albion moonlight 06:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes and I think your idea that it will be less triggering to say their creator is a sound one. :Albion moonlight 06:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight 06:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Albion moonlight.

I am also interested in the Ban on Kosher food topic.

It seems to be squashed between two Paragraphs, New and 21st Century Antisemitism, which incriminates it immediately and then completely by the content which seems to disregard the Scandinavians lead in humane treatment for humans, esp. Jews during the wars, but for many other peoples, like Iraqis presently, which extends naturally to animals and an inherent sensitivity and empathy they have for the suffering of others. PETA certainly isn't out to destroy Jews any more than anyone who dares eat animal flesh. In their short game, they seek smaller victories like better living conditions and more humane slaughtering techniques which appeals to more people every year. So my interest would be to open this up to a fairer objective reading, or at least suspension of judgment by moving it to another section titled, "Possible Antisemitic Policies?".

I am also concerned by this important topics lack of inclusion of Jews, who number many, who would be and often are considered antisemitic or self-hating by virtue of their beliefs about the policies and practices of Israel and/or of "Jewish" organizations like AIPAC. This would be important because criticism of "Jews" is slightly delegitimized by my reading here. It presents a somewhat Them versus Us story which is not accurate in reality and reinforces the false belief of a Jewish unified front, which then lends a hand to the conspiracy theorist types. So my interest would be to contribute different perspectives and examples of great debates and dispute within "Jewish" communities that cast a different light on what should or shouldn't be antisemitism and who gets to decide.

Thanks. Cyberius III 07:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki has an article on Self-hating Jews. Perhaps you could link them. But before you do that or anything major I suggest that you create a a new section on this page that is head lined with word such as "a major proposal " and state what you would like to do. I noticed that you are new to wikipedia and so I wonder if you are aware of wiki policy. Original research (for example) is discouraged, so I have to wonder about how you would go about making any of the points that you made in your above statements. How would you go about sourcing it ? This does not mean that that there is no available sources it only means to beg the question.

I have done very little editing myself but Once again allow me to suggest that you make these suggestions in new a section on this talk page. My own experience as a Jew leads me to believe that we do have a united front in spite of all our diversities and or differences. :Albion moonlight 08:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia. And I certainly need to get up to speed on these policies before I make blunders and create any havoc on these pages- esp. since I am attracted to the most emotionally sensitive ones. My experience is the opposite of yours. I have seen many Jewish voices diverge but in the dominant media only the strongest and most influential ones heard. Usually the NYC and European secular voice, certainly not the Jews of darker and minority persuasion as well as the Orthodox community. I've been present to strong protestation of Israeli policy by Orthodox Jews, certainly the more authentic and genuine of the religion that most Jews have actually only keep a cultural affiliation with while adopting religious practices of Buddhism and other Asian philosophies. In Israel like here, there are huge numbers of people unhappy with the way things are there, just like here in the US. Bush certainly isn't the voice of all Americans even though his blundering speeches represent us and embarrass us all. I like the idea of starting a new thread and in the mean time will study more wiki rules. Thanks again Albion moonlight for the feedback. Cyberius III 17:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of putting a wiki welcome mat on your discussion page. Feel free to delete it but you may find it very useful: Albion moonlight 00:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Secondary antisemitism (outline)

“ The Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz. ” — Zvi Rex, quoted in: Henryk M. Broder's Der Ewige Antisemit

I recently read an online article featuring that quote from Zvi Rex, an Israeli psychologist. It is frequently used in German journalistic publications and related to the notion of a so-called "secondary antisemitism", which is explained as being not in spite of but because of Auschwitz. I wasn't sure where this could fit in and was pointed here. Please give me your opinions and/or use this material as you see fit. I used this article as my principal source. —AldeBaer 19:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: If anything like a consensus emerges that this would be a good addition, I'd take it upon me to come up with better sources. If there are any obvious errors in my proposal, by all means edit it, that's what I put it here for. —AldeBaer 21:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Secondary antisemitism

Theodor W. Adorno, in a speech titled "Was bedeutet: Aufarbeitung der Vergangenheit" (pubished in his 1963 book "Eingriffe. Neun kritische Modelle.") mentioned the idiocy of the fairly popular German post-war notion to associate and therefore causally link Jews with the Holocaust as an uncoped-with part of German history. According to Adorno's critique, a widespread opinion had manifested in post-war Germany according to which Jews were culpable in the Holocaust.[2] (in German)

One aspect involved in the formation of that notion appears to be the rehabilitation of many lower- and even several higher-ranking Third Reich officials and officers regardless of and in fact deliberately ignoring their partly considerable individual contributions to Nazi Germany's crimes. Several controversies ensued early in post-World War II Germany, e.g. when Konrad Adenauer favoured Hans Globke as secretary of state although the latter had formulated the emergency legislation that gave Hitler unlimited dictatorial powers. However, according to Adorno, parts of the German public never acknowledged these events and instead formed the notion of Jewish guilt in the Holocaust.

Initially, members of the Frankfurt school called this a "Schuldabwehrantisemitismus", an antisemitism motivated by a deflection of guilt. The term secondary antisemitism was coined by Philipp Gessler in his 2004 book, "Der neue Antisemitismus" ("The new antisemitism") [3] (in German). It is frequently explained as being antisemitism motivated by (as opposed to despite of) Auschwitz (the most commonly used pars pro toto for reference to the Holocaust). One concise and vastly popular formulation, first quoted in Henryk M. Broder's 1986 book "Der Ewige Antisemit" ("The Eternal Antisemite"), stems from Zvi Rex, an Israeli psychologist, who made the observation that "The Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz."[4][5]

Comments

The above post raises a lot of questions that need to be considered separately. Let's look at the sources mentioned.

1) Theodore Adorno. Very notable and important writer on many subjects: views worth summarising here, as well as any responses that are available.

2) Gessler. Would seem to be a reliable source. His work should be mentioned in the new antisemitism article, possibly here too.

3) Broder. A journalist, possibly writing polemically. Could well be a reliable source, may need balancing if there are opposing views.

4) Zvi Rex. Not enough information here to determine whether he can or should be a direct source.

5) Websites shoa.de, likud.nl. Not reliable sources. Points should be traced back to the original writers.

A lot of work for someone to add all this to the article, but could be well worth it. Itsmejudith 20:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I agree on the sources; Rex, as far as I know, is non-notable except for that quote. He is however frequently being mentioned along. —AldeBaer 21:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me a quote by Leo Tolstoy, which was not not about Jews/antisemites. If there is a consensus that this content is worthy of WP (I think so), may I suggest that a new article to be created and a link added to the ==See also== section here. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with creating an article, just wasn't sure whether it was sufficient as a seperate subject. —AldeBaer 15:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've created the article at Secondary antisemitism. —AldeBaer (c) 13:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This is such a shallow and empty concept that it's a huge embarrassment for contributors trying to sort this topic out. It's difficult enough trying to find order in this hopeless topic without "secondary" levels of silliness. I suggest that this entire addled concept ("secondary antisemitism") be scrubbed entirely. Send it somewhere else, please! Hoserjoe 16:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Foxman as a source

The point is not whether Foxman is an extremist or not - I personally don't know anyway - but whether an internet reference authored by him is a good source for the effect of passion plays. Obviously, it isn't. Passion plays of different kinds took place in different parts of Europe over centuries. We would need to consult books by various historians in order to cover the issue properly. Itsmejudith 16:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, he is A source. He doesn't have to be the only source, obviously. Gzuckier 16:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Does he have any particular expertise in European history? Has he written any books or articles on the subject? We all know from our general reading that the passion plays were sometimes associated with antisemitism. That doesn't mean that our summations of the topic are worth citing. Itsmejudith 20:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He's one of many sources in that section, some Christian, which all say the same thing. And the ADL has been monitoring and writing about antisemitism for a century now. The material is properly attributed, and from a reliable source regarding antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A very quick search of the academic sources throws up the following:

Bert, Norman A, Book Review: "The Bible as Theatre"; "Oberammergau: The Troubling Story of the World's Most Famous Passion Play", Theatre Journal 55:4 [December 2003] p. 740-742

Bert (Texas Tech University)reviews OBERAMMERGAU: THE TROUBLING STORY OF THE WORLD'S MOST FAMOUS PASSION PLAY. By James S. Shapiro. New York: Vintage Books, 2001 (for interest he also reviews THE BIBLE AS THEATRE. By Shimon Levy. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 2000)

Once every ten years since the seventeenth century, the Bavarian village of Oberammergau has staged a pageant depicting the last week of Jesus Christ's life. Beginning in the nineteenth century, the play became a major tourist event that drew thousands of pilgrims from all over the world and especially from the United States. But during the second half of the twentieth century, the play drew increasing criticism as an expression and stimulant of anti-Semitism. As the 2000 production drew near, the questions and controversy heated up: how would the play interpret the story of Jesus' death, and how would that interpretation affect the relationship between Jews and (nominally Christian) Gentiles? James Shapiro chronicles this controversy in his Oberammergau: The Troubling Story of the World's Most Famous Passion Play. The interplay of politics, economics, art, religion, tradition, and change makes for a great story, and Shapiro tells it with grace and passion.

While he gives a comprehensive overview of the pageant's history as well as penetrating insights into the life of the producing village, Shapiro focuses primarily on Jewish issues in the play. Chief among these questions, given the tendency throughout history for Passion plays to stimulate anti-Semitic feelings and actions, is whether a good Passion play is even possible. Questions contributing to this primary problem include to what extent Jesus and his disciples should be portrayed as Jews instead of prototypical Christians. And can the tableaux vivants of earlier biblical events be presented in this context without implying that the Old Testament is only valid as a precursor of Christianity? And, above all, who should be held responsible for Jesus' death? For hundreds of years, the pageant had placed the bloodguilt directly on the heads of all first-century Jews and, by extension, all Jews of all time. Oberammergau's whole-hearted acceptance of Nazism during the World War II era further exacerbated these issues.

Given the bitterness of the controversy, Shapiro-himself a Jew-is to be praised for his even-handed, sensitive treatment of the story he tells. His writing style strikes a good balance between scholarly precision and objectivism on the one hand and journalistic engagement and interest on the other. He apparently spent considerable time in Oberammergau, interviewed all the principal players in the drama behind the drama, and even found himself offering his services as a consultant who helped "Jesus" learn to correctly intone the Seder prayers at the Last Supper. As a result, the story he tells comes across as a deeply human tale, full of ambiguities, paradoxes, and the efforts of men and women of good will and deep convictions attempting to arrive at a satisfactory solution.

Do you not agree that Shapiro's book is the kind of source that we should be using in preference to an article by a political commentator that we can find in Google? Itsmejudith 20:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What is Shapiro's background and expertise? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

See James S. Shapiro. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Impressive. He certainly looks like he'd be a very good source. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. I show that a book has been reviewed favourably in a scholarly journal. Jay's not satisfied with that but is satisfied with a Wikipedia biog. Itsmejudith 06:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What's interesting about it? You provided a good review of the book; Jay asked what the author's credentials were; Wikipedia, as it turned out, showed those credentials, which speak much louder regarding a the value of a source than a single book review can. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I let Jay get under my skin (again). I think there's still an underlying difference of opinion about what makes a reliable source, but we don't need to go into it now. Itsmejudith 07:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems the sum of the two works well. Some people have great academic credentials and are total nutcases; some have limited credentials but are highly considered anyway. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I "got under your skin"; I certainly wasn't trying to. Jpgordon's comments are spot-on. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

internet forum screenshot

There is plenty of imagery and history to the subject. As some of this article's content was/is being moved to sub-articles, let's try to prevent deterioration of its quality. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What specificly are you talking about?--Sefringle^Talk 18:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make it clear. That was about Image:Hatecropped.jpg. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Now if only there was some imagery of antisemitism in the islamic world, we could complete this article.--Sefringle^Talk 21:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps something from here: [6]? --BozMo talk 09:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

EUMC

Link is to a draft and is broken... --BozMo talk 12:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Help from Anitsemitism Editors

The article on the occult writer Alice Bailey has become an editorial warzone verging on a reversion war.

The reason for this edit war is that Alice bailey has frequently been accused of antisemitism and more wide-ranging racism. Her defenders wish to limit or remove all references to her atisemitism and racism.

(Full disclosure: I am one of the editors involved in the dispute. I do not sign my name. I am Jewish. I am an occultist. I am not a follower of Alice Bailey in any way, shape, manner, or form. I wish to retain brief and sourced mentions of Alice Bailey's antisemitism and racism on the Alice Bailey page.)

The history of the Alice Bailey page is long and tangled, and it demonstrates a problem of balance between focussing on Bailey's bio, her religious and social theories, and summarizing critisicm of her theories. We all agree that the criticism section should be relatively brief, but HOW brief is one of the issues we are struggling with.

In discussing this with other editors, the suggestion has been made that a great deal of the research that has uncovered her antisemitism and racism should be spun off into a broader article to be titled "Occult writers and antisemitism.

Originally it was my idea to ask editors here to go to the Alice Bailey talk/discussion page and read the section that propses why an "Occult writers and antisemitism" needs to be written, pick up the list proposing a few of the authors who might be included -- and to plea for someone from this section to write the article. However, that section of the Alice Bailey Talk page was deleted in its entirety by an editor named Sethie, who, one supposes, hoped in this way to eliminate the topic completely. I have re-uploaded the section, but have no belief that Sethie will not remove it again, hence i am now going to copy it in its entirety here. Please forgive me if it seems that you are entering a conversation in mid-stream -- you are. A far fuller understanding of the request for this article to be written can be found by reading the entire Alice Bailey Talk page.

Here is the material that Sethie deleted (and may well delete again). Thank you for your consideration:

Jews as "residue", Bailey as anti-Zionist

THIS ENTIRE SECTION OF THE TALK PAGE WAS DELETED BY SETHIE. I have reinstated it as it relates directly to quotes that were sourced and then repudiated within the article, and it proposes a way around the current impasse by asking others to help create an article on "Occult writers and antisemitism" as a way to retain some of the material that editors have tried to include on the Bailey page. Sethie, i consider your deletion of this discussion section to be vandalism. You owe me an apology, and you need to stop engaging in this sort of disruptive behaviour. If it happens again, there will be no alternative but for me to seek redress against you as a vandal. DO NOT DO THIS AGAIN.

Thanks, Kwork, for the link to the downloadable texts. Using an html editor, one can perform multi-document searches, and thus the quotation on Jews as "residue" was quite easy to find. (I use bbedit, a Macintosh html editor and recommend it highly for performing complex inter-file searches on all manner of text files, not merely html documents.)

Here is what is found in "Rays and Initiation" (rays1008.html)

The Jews, as a product of the humanity of the previous 
solar system, and as constituting the incarnating 
residue from that solar system..."

This is probably the source of the twisted quote made by David Green, which rbridge seems to have correctly identified as not occuring in Bailey's writings in that form. Therefore, that quotation, and Green as a source, should not be considered accuate.

However, in this document one can find much other interesting material that relates to the "Criticism" section.

This bit refers to Jewish Zionism as "a triangle of evil" -- a snappy phrase well worthy of quotation (rays1156.html):

These Forces of Evil work through a
triangle of evil, one point of which is to be found in the
Zionist Movement in the United States, another in central
Europe, and the third in Palestine. Palestine is no longer a
Holy Land and should not be so regarded.

Later in that section, Bailey also uses the cute term "Zionist Dictators."

Also in "Rays and Initiations" we find a direct statement by Bailey that counters the Lucis Trust's statement that she thought of Jews as "a state of consciousness" (rays1156.html):

The Jews (who are not a nation but a religious group)

Looking through the "Rays and Initians" text, i get the distinct impression that were Bailey to be alive now, she would very likely be allied with the White Supremicist anti-Jewish hate movement. Her texts are certainly fully in line with those published by modern hate-groups that promote a conspiracy theory involving the so-called Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG), and also with groups that disseminate anti-Zionist World Trade Center conspiracy theories.

I am not the one to do so, but i certainly agree with Kwork that someone should write an article for the antisemitism section on the topic of Occult writers and antisemitism, a piece including not only Alice Bailey, but also occult authors such as Julius Evola, Mircea Eliade, Carl Gustav Jung, Benjamin Creme, and others -- and that would complement the current Wikipedia articles:

Antisemitism around the world

Arabs and antisemitism

Christianity and antisemitism

Islam and antisemitism

Nation of Islam and antisemitism

Universities and antisemitism

Anti-globalization and antisemitism

After posting this message here, i will go over to the talk page there and propose this idea to the writers working on the topic of antisemitism in general.

My only response to the above is: any and ALL EXPERINCED wikipedia editors are welcome at the Alice Bailey page. ESPECIALLY Jewish people and people very sensitive to Anti-semitism who ALSO follow and believe in wikipedia guidelines.

We have a few editors who cry "Anti-Semite-conspiracy!" everytime a wiki guideline is quoted, so your prescence would be greatly helpful. Sethie 04:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to state that the Alice Bailey article is (IMHO) far from being a warzone -- in fact, thanks to the efforts of a nameless editor (whom I suspect added the above), a very good compromise looks to be looming on the horizon.

While I certainly won't discourage any editors from taking a look at the page to see if they can help, I would ask any who do so to please be gentle -- some editors have been working very hard (some would say "obsessing") for quite some time over a small section of this article, and movement seems to be finally taking place. Any heavy-handed intervention now is likely to be contentious and counterproductive. Thanks for your help, and thanks in advance to any of you who choose to contribute to Talk: Alice Bailey. Eaglizard 11:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I just read the Alice Bailey article and I couldn't help but notice that she is being treated as an alleged antisemitic. Why on earth would you anyone think that her antisemitism should be played down or that we should be gentle for the sake of editors who have been working hard to play down the racism of a dead historical crackpot ?? If I am missing something here then please feel free to set me straight. Perhaps that article needs a serious shake up. Ms Bailey is dead so wiki blp does not apply. So what is the big deal about calling a racist anti-semitic a racist anti-semitic ? Albion moonlight 14:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Could the above discussion please be continued on the talk page of the relevant article, rather than here? This page is for discussing improvements to this article. Thanks. Itsmejudith 14:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Parenthetically, I'd like to assert that this is exactly the kind of attitude that makes discussion of antisemitism so damned volatile in the first place. I doubt Albion had ever even heard of Alice Bailey before this; now, he knows without question she was both a racist and "crackpot". Assuming he's never read even one of her books, I must assume he draws this conclusion because: someone else said so. And thus the circle of hatred continues... BTW, and just for a teeny bit of soapboxing, here's a simple quote from one of Bailey's books:

"The growing anti-Semitic feeling in the world is inexcusable in the sight of God and man."

I promise, the context shows she means just what it says: "antisemitism is a Bad Thing". Just FYI. (And yes, this has been meant to be about "antisemitism", not about Alice Bailey.) Eaglizard 16:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eaglizard, you really get around, and it takes a lot of chutzpah to come here, after fighting to prevent any mention of Alice Bailey's antisemitism, and then say those who get involved are "soapboxing". Indeed, Bailey's writing contain a lot of antisemitism, and it would be better if her current followers would admit it. But they will not. As a Jew who was at one time involved with her teaching, and left it over that and other problems, I know what is in the books. Also, your claim that no one who is not familiar with her books in depth is in a position to criticize them, is both worrying and problematic. The whole purpose of Wikipedia is to supply information on subjects to individuals who have limits to what they can read....in this case 24 volumns of Alice Bailey's books.

Particularly now, with a RfC in progress for the Alice Bailey article, I invite anyone interested to take a look and comment. Kwork 22:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

mr.gavine, I just have a question, what is the meaning of the patch of the Star with the upside down hebrew on it and where can I find proof of what it means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.gavine (talk • contribs) 20:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

buchanan as anti-semite

In the following quote there is no logical manner in one reaches the conclusion that Buchanan is an anti-semite

In the context of the first US-Iraq war, on September 15, 1990 Pat Buchanan appeared on the McLaughlin Group and said that "there are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East - the Israeli defense ministry and its 'amen corner' in the United States." He also said, "The Israelis want this war desperately because they want the United States to destroy the Iraqi war machine. They want us to finish them off. They don't care about our relations with the Arab world." When he delivered a keynote address at the 1992 Republican National Convention, known as the culture war speech, he described "a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America".

To be critical of Israeli policy is not synonymous with being anti-semitic, just like being critical of Saddam's policy is not synonymous with being anti-Arab. Without context "religious war" and the "amen corner" could refer to the religious right just as much as Jews. Either the reference to Buchanan should be removed or a valid form of substantiation should be established. To put my own statements in context, I don't care for Buchanan and I believe he could possibly be an anti-semite but the conclusions drawn from these quotes are misleading and set a bad precedent for proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theadolescent (talk • contribs) 04:35, August 24, 2007 (UTC) --Jason 04:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Google Buchanan"s name with the advanced search addition of antisemitism and see what you find. That might help you understand why he is pegged as an anti-semite . Albion moonlight 05:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are defensible WP:BLP reasons to call him an antisemite, they should be cited. Criticism of Israeli policies is not one of them. The implication is defamatory. --FOo 15:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Buchanan is a well-known anti-Semite, but not because of his criticisms of Israel as such and the above quote is not the best example. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where this articles directly accuses him of being antisemitic. But even if it did or does, this article is not a BLP. Albion moonlight 16:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Talking points as proof

The following citation does not provide proof of anything outside of one person's personal opinion:

Israeli Ambassador Shimon Stein warned in October 2006 that Jews in Germany feel increasingly "unsafe," stating that they "are not able to live a normal Jewish life" and that heavy security surrounds most synagogues or Jewish community centers.

This statement establishes nothing and should be removed. Many people claim many things, especially politicians, but that does not establish proof of Anti-semitism in Germany. --Jason 04:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It establishes the opinion of Shimon Stein, and based on his status as ambassador, it is pretty relevant. Sefringle^Talk 00:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ambassador Stein's statement adds nothing to an already extremely confused article. I vote to delete it. 16:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoserjoe (talk • contribs)

Request for article on Anitsemitism and Occultism

As the material posted above on Alice Bailey indicates, there is quite a bit of interest in the subject of antisemitism among the ranks of occultists and esotericists, many of whom propose cosmological reasons for their racist views. The Alice Bailey page and its Talk:Alice Baley adjunct page continue to be editorial warzones, where Bailey's latter-day supporters try fiercely to delete all mention of her antisemitism ... and that's why my message is appearing here as well as there.

What follows is a partial reprint from the Talk:Alice Bailey page and a sincere call for the creation of an article that will contribute a great deal of information to Wikipedia, and in the process may also help to break the log-jam at the Alice Bailey page.

Thanks for your consideration:

I would like to see if there is any interest in the development of a wide-ranging article on the generality of antisemitism in occultism and esotericism -- intended as a complement to a long series of articles already at Wikipedia that deal with antisemitism in certain places and during certain historical priods. My specific interest is antisemitism among 19th, 20th, and 21st century occultists.

As background to this topic, it helps if you know that there have been mentions made by biographers and scholars who deal with occultists and esotericists of the open antisemitism to be found in the works of Alice Bailey, Papus (Gerard Encausse), Aleister Crowley, Julius Evola, Mircea Eliade, Dennis Wheatley, and a number of other such authors, particularly during the pre World War Two period of the 20th century. Some of these occultists and esotericists ultimately opposed Nazi policies, others did not. (Evola and Eliade actually participated in pro-fascist political activites.) Regardless of where they stood once the hostilities of World War Two broke out, these writers had obviously added fuel to the fire of antisemiticm by continually distinguishing Jews from other people in a negative and critical way. Bailey was unusual among these writers in that she continued to speak cruelly and critically about the Jews even after the fall of Hitler and the founding of the nation of Israel, referring to Jewish hopes for a national identity as "a triangle of terror" and using other inflammatory hate-speech against them. As several scholars have since pointed out, Bailey's writings against the Jews tinged and coloured a great deal of subsequent New Age and Neopagan thinking. References to her influence on both the latent and open antisemitism of the Neopagan and New Age movements have appeared in discussions on the Talk:Alice Bailey page, notably in citations from the writings of Dr. Victor Shnirelman, Monica Sjoo, and Rabbi Jonasson Gershom.

I feel that if an article on "Antisemitism and Occultism" were to be developed in conjunction with the other antisemitism articles already at Wikipedia, a great deal of pressure would be taken off of the Bailey biography page, reducing edit-war conflicts among the editors there. For instance, were that article to be established, we could then create a "main article" tag under the Criticism heading that would direct readers to the "Antisemitism and Occultism" article, where longer quotes (from Baily and her critics) could be presented without distaction from the biographical material on the Bailey page.

I hope that someone will undertake to start such an article, but since my work is not generally in the Judaism or antisemism sections, it seems like an imposition for me to begin the piece. The Judaism and antisemitism section is well-attended by its own membership and although the proposed article could surely use help from editors who work daily in the fields of occultism and esotericism, my thought is that it would best be started under their editorial direction, using one of their templates.

For starters, and to bring people up to speed on the subject, here are a few sub-heads already within Wikipedia that deal with this topic in the biographies of occultists and esotericists:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papus#1901:_Antisemitic_writings
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mircea_Eliade#Controversy:_anti-Semitism_and_links_with_the_Iron_Guard
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola#Racism
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley#Racism
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Wheatley#Politics
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Bailey#Criticism

Please pass this request along to anyone you know who is editing in the fields of Judaism, Jewish History, or Antisemitism. Thank you.

Nameless Date Stamp 18:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Supersessionism

I have just changed the template on the Supersessionism article to make it part of project antisemitism, which I think is correct. It is an interesting article, but could use some work and improving. I hope everyone takes a look. Kwork 12:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Theological differences unnecessarily are anti-Semitic by nature. Although antisemitism might arise from those differences I don't think that in this case project template is justified. Especially then link between supersessionism and antisemitism is not established in the article itself. M0RD00R 13:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

When I was in school, we were not taught the concept used in this article, religious anti-Smitism. We were instead taught to distinguish between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. Jews certainly consider supersessionism to be Anti-Jewish (or, following the use in this article, religious anti-Semitism). Of course Christians do not necessarily see it this way, but then again NPOV does not mean an absense of view, it means representing multiple views. We just need to be specific that it is Jews who mostly see supesessionism as anti-jewish. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to dual templates. There seems no doubt that it should have the Antisemitism template. Kwork 13:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

M0RD00R has reverted my change a second time. I would appreciate additional views to resolve the issue, rather than engage in reverts. Kwork 16:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I didn't, but I agree with revert. Article as it is now does not justify the template. M0RD00R 17:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see how supersessionism in and of itself is implicitly antisemitic. I can see how it might lead to antisemitic views, but that's not enough to warrant the antisemitic template. As a Jew from Texas, I have many supersessionist acquaintances who, if you asked them, would probably assert that I'll eventually go to Hell, but who have never demonstrated any prejudice or hostility towards me. --ubiquity 14:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In spite of your herculean effort to reach out, you're still stuck in paranoia. Why would any of your acquaintances think that you'll "eventually go to hell"? They are not saying so; It's you that is carrying the burden of suspicion. That kind of confused paranoia is throughout this article. If someone believes that Jesus (a Jewish rabbi, for crying out loud) is the doorway to heaven, that doesn't indicate antisemitic thinking! 16:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoserjoe (talk • contribs)

Well no, it's not paranoia because, first of all, it's not delusional — during discussion several Christian friends of mine have told me, in the kindest possible tones, that they believe I will go to hell if I don't accept Jesus as my savior — and second, I don't feel threatened or persecuted because of this. It's just a difference in beliefs. You may have missed my point. I totally agree that such differences do not indicate antisemitism, and that I particularly do not think that supersessionism is necessarily an antisemitic idea. There are also Jews who, though they don't say I will "go to Hell", believe I have no part in the life to come because I refuse to give up cheeseburgers (and yes, they've told me this, I'm not guessing). I don't feel persecuted by them either. As for the tone of the article, I did not contribute to it so I will not comment. I was merely attempting to provide an additional viewpoint, as Kwork requested. To make myself totally clear, I was arguing against the idea that the antisemitism template should be added to the page on supersessionism --ubiquity 19:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

At some point the supersessionism article had the Christianity template place on it. But even on its own talk page there is discussion that it does not discuss Christianity. It has the wrong template on it, but rather than fight over that, I will create a new article. Kwork 15:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:"The Protocols"

There's a new sheriff template in town (which speaks for itself).

However, it needs some expert technical assistance as to its Wiki sysntax.

For one thing, the "v. d. e." redirects to another template {{Antisemitism}}.

Can someone help out?

Thanks. --Ludvikus 04:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. I guess. M0RD00R 10:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead paragraph: Holocaust

I have changed the text "Adolf Hitler's Holocaust" to "the Holocaust of Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany". It's a minor change, but I think it's important.

There is no doubt that Hitler desired and ordered the "cleansing" of Germany from Jews. But calling the Holocaust "Hitler's" is, I think, a little disingenuous. Hermann Goering was arguable the driving force between the "final solution". Concentration camps were the brainchild of Heinrich Himmler. The Wannsee Conference was chaired by Reinhard Heydrich. To call the Holocaust "Hitler's" is to implicitly downplay or even deny these men's "contributions", as it were, to the Holocaust -- which are arguably even more significant than Hitler's own.

I recognize this was probably not the intention of whoever wrote this sentence. It's not a big point, but it's one I thought worthy of attention.

Cheers. - Che Nuevara 18:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Somebody should probably delete the first section of the article, labelled 'majority opinion?'. Well, just read it for yourselves. I do hope no innocents have read it as truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.13.40.7 (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Roman attitudes towards the Jews

I've added a couple of references here to Edward Gibbon and The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, with online links so anyone following in my steps should have minimal difficulty finding the quotations selected. Gibbon himself supplies a footnote to the horrid cruelties inflicted by the Jews; I've thought a bit about adding it in the interests of balance, but decided against.--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Useful, thanks. I'm copying it into History of antisemitism as a preliminary to drastically shortening the historical section in this article, with a direction to the History article as a Main Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmejudith (talk • contribs) 09:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ha - many thanks for yours. I also added a note to the citation of Dion Cassius concerning the emperor Tiberius' expulsion of the Jews from Rome. If one turns up that reference (and I've added an online link) it seems highly doubtful that the expulsion was motivated by anti-semitism. (ie. the quotation selected is taken out of context, and someone has indulged in some original research.) In any case, the Jews seem to have returned afterwards; see Gibbon (same citation): By the general indulgence of Polytheism, and by the mild temper of Antoninus Pius, the Jews were restored to their ancient privileges, and once more obtained the permission of circumcising their children, with the easy restraint that they should never confer on any foreign proselyte that distinguishing mark of the Hebrew race ^{[footnote in original]}. The numerous remains of that people, though they were still excluded from the precincts of Jerusalem, were permitted to form and to maintain considerable establishments both in Italy and in the provinces, to acquire the freedom of Rome, to enjoy municipal honours, and to obtain at the same time an exemption from the burdensome and expensive offices of society. Perhaps, slightly facetiously, we should add the Romans' well-known persecution of a Jewish sect to this article?!--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Roman attitudes towards the Jews (2)

The sentence "Moreover, Jews were attacked mainly in the cities [in the Bar Kchba revolt] for issues relating to Jewish financial and intellectual success." is not referenced, seems anachronistic and probably is incorrect. According to Cassius Dio, the Roman historian who described the revolt, 580,000 Jews were killed, 50 fortified towns and 985 villages were razed, which certainly indicates that the country side was thoroughly ravaged by the Romans. Romans were rarely very concerned about the intellectual achievements of their victims. I suggest dropping it unless a reference can be provided. RFB —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems like an interpretation, probably from a source, but since we do not know the source it can't stay in. Itsmejudith 20:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Dalit Voice

Editors might like to have a look at the above article, about a political magazine that is mainly about Indian caste discrimination but has also published articles that are antisemitic by virtually any reading. I have been trying for a long time to keep the article neutral. Today an editor (who I strongly suspect to be a sockpuppet of an editor banned for POV-pushing) accused me of "whitewashing" not only on that page but on this page too. I was furious. A look-over by some uninvolved editors who are used to keeping a cool head while dealing with heated controversies would be very welcome. Itsmejudith 20:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"The Jewish Race"

Could somebody with more expertise in this field please stop by Talk:It (novel) 1#Stan and explain why the term "the Jewish race" is offensive and incorrect? I can't seem to get through to these guys that there is no "Jewish race." --Orange Mike 14:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the current text of the section acceptable to you? My view is that "race" doesn't exist as a category anyway but "racism" and "racial persecution" nevertheless do, because they attack perceived characteristics of people which may or may not reflect actual characteristics. They are fundamentally irrational. But not everyone agrees with that. Itsmejudith 20:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A "Causes" Section ?

A phenomenon of this size must have some kind of theory on cause. On the whole, I personally find the issue of antisemitism (and discrimination in general) to be alien and incomprehensible. I greatly appreciate the fact that articles like this exist, but while digging through the facts I find that while I know more about issue, I comprehend it's causes less. Is it simply not possible to have a NPOV cause section? Is it too philosophical a question? Are there not any scientific theories on the causes of this kind of thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.228.215 (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

None that have garnered widespread support. Some blame the victims; some the Catholic Church; theories vary, none approaches consensus. --Orange Mike 19:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you will find a plethora of reasoning to support why discrimination exists. It is a complex issue without a single reason to support the motivations of all people. However, I find it difficult to believe that each of us have not experienced that differences exist and we like to "hang" with those who are like ourselves. This is a broad ranging subject from the meaning and purpose of nation states to individual group identity; they are all very strong influences that may result in negative responses by individuals. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

---The cause and a reference to Jean-Paul Sartre's book "Anti-Semite" is not noted nor disscussed. His book is entirly about the source and Cause of This Phenomenon of hate. Ace ofgabriel (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

External link

I deleted this link, newly added to the list of external links. I don't think it complies with Wikipedia's policies on external links. Furthermore, it doesn't provide the reader with any further information on antisemitism. Looks like a vanity link. --Steven J. Anderson 04:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

agree. there has to be more reliable sources on the topic than that one. Yahel Guhan 06:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

See also

What is this:

• Baron Roman von Ungern-Sternberg (known as Mad Baron, notorious by his antisemism, however he was not a racist as he liked "mongolian race" and claimed him self as Khan)

doing in the see also list? Is there some particular reason for listing this one individual antisemite in "See also" and no other? And what has his affection for the "mongolian race" to do with this article? I suggest we delete. --Steven J. Anderson 08:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Waited a few days and deleted. --Steven J. Anderson 21:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing James Carroll quote from the head matter

I removed this quote: According to James Carroll, "Jews accounted for 10% of the total population of the Roman Empire. By that ratio, if other factors had not intervened, there would be 200 million Jews in the world today, instead of something like 13 million."

The Carroll mathematics are meaningless extrapolation. They not only assume that Jewishness is inherited, but that no major conversions would have taken place, either from or to Judaism. The figures sound impressive, but are demographically unsupportable. It's bad science fiction. --Orange Mike 16:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Figures on "Jewish control" of financial world and media

The other day I heard someone make an offhand comment like, "Did you know that Wall Street takes Good Friday off? That must have started before it was 80% Jewish!"

I told the person that I didn't think Wall Street was "80% Jewish". It would be astounding if it were true, and I think it is remarkable that people think that it's true if it's not. So I tried to find some information on Wikipedia on the subject. Couldn't find anything except a footnote in the article about Merrill Lynch saying that in 1970 Wall Street was "still split between the 'Jewish' and the 'WASP' firms."

I don't know if this falls under the scope of antisemitism, because the comment was not really against the Jews. But shouldn't Wikipedia have some information about to what extent the allegations of Jewish control of the financial world and the media are true or false?

I realize that one cannot make simple statements like "X percent of the people on Wall Street are Jews", because it depends on who is a Jew and on whether you count the cleaning ladies! But what could be said in this article or another?

EricK (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Jewish lobby? // Liftarn (talk)

Inclusion of references to Anti-Islamic articles such as the one at http://www.india-forum.com/essay/18/1/Deeds-of-the-Bahmanid-Sultans

The same author Hauma Hamiddha posts at http://manollasa.blogspot.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekanetra (talk • contribs) 05:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Israel

The opening sentence includes the phrase "unfounded criticism of the State of Israel" because antisemitism sometimes manifests this way. It does not claim that all criticism of Israel is either antisemitic or unfounded, only that one form of antisemitism is such unfounded criticism. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There has been extensive discussion of this idea. Notable viewpoints include the following:

• "Most criticism of Israel is disguised antisemitism."
• "Most criticism of Israel is in good faith but occasionally the mark is overstepped and it becomes antisemitic."
• "The idea that criticism of Israel is antisemitic is a red herring used by Israel and its supporters to try and silence critics."

as well as variants of these and every gradation in between. The article needs to explain the basis of the discussion using good sources, bearing in mind that the New antisemitism article goes into considerable detail about the question. It will be very difficult to do justice to the complexities of the debate in the lead, let alone within the first sentence. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I wondered about that sentence myself. Criticism of the state of Israel, founded or unfounded, is just that, criticism of Israel. If someone attacks Israel because of its Jewish roots and population, then that is Anti-semitism and not truly criticism of the State (as it attacks the people on grounds of religion and not the country, regardless of whether it has been disguised as such). Man from the Ministry (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of nationalism and the nation-state, for example, is not antisemitic, even though it includes Israel. Criticism of Israel's right to be a nation-state, alone, is. For example, if one were to criticize France and the French as being jingoistic, overly involved with French history, with a stilted idea of the importance of France versus other nations, overly proud of their heritage, etc., unwilling to see the point of view of other countries and George Bush's war on terror, for instance; without noting that similar arguments of self-involvement apply to the United States and pretty much every country on earth, one would certainly be correctly construed as having a bias against the French. Similarly, if one takes the time and effort to enumerate Israel's faults typical of any Westernized capitalist nation-state in the 21st century as though it were the only country on earth with these problems, it's de facto evidence of bias. On the opposite end of the scale, if one characterizes America, for instance, as a bunch of ignorant rightwing cowboys overly obsessed with their crypto-homophobia and paranoia of Moslems and Arabs, without noting that that represents the current administration rather than the entire population, one can be correctly construed to have a bias; similarly, if one construed Israel as a bunch of Arab haters who want nothing other than to take over the West Bank, ignoring the fact that the previous administration took the opposite approach, one can be assumed to have an antiIsrael bias. That still leaves, of course, the scope of things which are characteristic of all or the vast majority of Israelis, and not of other countries/people, open for criticism without argument of bias. As is true of all countries. Gzuckier (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

One could envision questioning "Israel's right to be a nation-state" as currently construed, without being antisemitic, just antitheocratic. The argument would be based on a rejection of the concept of a state based on religious principles or with rights that fall preferentially to those practicing particularly religions (eg exemptions to the armed service). Of course, the same argument would apply to other theocracies. This argument is complicated by the complex definition of "theocracy," which many Israelis would say does not apply to their state.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not for us to decide what is anti Semitic versus non anti Semitic criticism of Israel. To do so violates NOR and NPOV. It is for us only to document what others have labeled anti Semitic criticism of Israel, or disputes over what is anti Semitic criticism of Israel. Let us keep it simple. Or, why overcomplicate things when doing so would only violate our policies and be useless anyway? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I originally argued in favor of including the disputed text, but now I'm not so sure. Although it's clear to me that antisemitism can take the form of unfounded criticism of Israel, this is such a small portion of the article, I'm not sure it warrants mention in the lead. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the label anti-Semite

The article lacks a criticism section; like any other controversial label, it is the object of much and perhaps deserved criticism.

One (perhaps obvious) criticism that I would suggest is that the label tends to elevate a Jew to the status of "god" or "super-human" and the rest of people, by default, to "mere mortal" or "sub-human." Maybe this is why some folks think that the label is, "beyond criticism." Barkmoss (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I honestly have no idea what you mean. But this is irrelevant. You seem to be forwarding your own views. This is a bad way to improve an article as it necessarily violates NOR and NPOV. The contents of an article should be an accurate account of notable views drawn from verifiable and reliable sources. The sections of an article should reflect this as well. In other words, we do not decide that there ought to be a "criticisms" section and then try to guess what would fill it. We research the topic. I am sure there is a good deal of research by sociologists, historians, and psychologists, as well as research in media studies, on anti-Semitism. What are the notable views expressed in this body of literature? Do any of these notable views criticize the lable (whatever that might mean)? If so, by all means let´s create an appropriate section for it. But first, demonstrate to me that there is a notable view about this in reliable verifiable sources. if you cannot do this, we are wasting time. Do you want a list of major journals in sociology, history, psychology, and media studies as a starting point for research on an encyclopedia topic, or do you already know the major sources? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are in denial, albeit, a very wordy sort of denial. In any event, anyone of high position (including academic) who criticizes the label: gets labeled, their career ruined, violently attacked, fined and/or thrown in jail! So, don't lecture me about "sources," particularly over such trite objections and if you aren't familiar with the mentioned persecutions of victims of the label "anti-Semite," then you haven't been following the headlines in Europe or you are in denial (remember, rationalizing that they deserve to be persecuted is a form of denial). So, the victims of this label and their "co-victims," need a voice in this article and all articles where the label is used, until the day when the World will be safe from the label, "anti-Semitic." Barkmoss (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I still do not know what you mean, "criticizes the label." If you are saying that anti-Semites are victims, well, booh'hoo, I save my sympathies for real victims. But again, this is a tangent, as are your hysterics about making "the World" "safe" from the words "anti-Semitic" (since I am not anti-Semitic, the words do not scare me). Wikipedia policies are hardly "trite." You don´t want to waste words? Let´s stick to the point: the question is not whether Wikipedia´s policies are trite, but whether your sob'story is trite. If what you are saying is true then it should be very easy for you to provide a verifiable, reliable sources substantiating that this is a notable point of view. If you cannot provide such a source, then it is you who are in denial. In short, put up, or shut up. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sirubenstein, especially since reliable sources are a matter of opinion. I have been watching this article long enough to know that a consensus for the edits being suggested is unlikely.: Danny Weintraub  : Albion moonlight (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of demonstrating the clear, long-term consensus on this, I will add my endorsement to Slrubenstein and Albion moonlight's position. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We have been over this before, those who WP:OWN this article doesn't want that even if some have argued that the charge of antisemitism is being misused as a way to silence criticism of Israel. After Jimmy Carter published his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid he was labelled an antisemite.

Rashid Khalidi, a Director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University and a target of Campus Watch says:

"This noxious campaign is intended to silence such perfectly legitimate criticism, by tarring it with the brush of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, truly loathsome charges. They reveal the lengths that these people apparently feel impelled to go to in order to silence a true debate on campus."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Liftarn (talk • contribs)

Their is a huge difference between ownership and consensus. Read this up on wiki policy and try to put your own pov aside for at least a minute. I abhor Israeli foreign policy but what you are asking in terms of the definition of antisemitism is for us to go against wiki consensus.

Everyone should feel free to try and change consensus but like I said I doubt that consensus is going to change. Everyone is entitled to there opinion, Even those who disagree with you.: Albion moonlight (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC) : Albion moonlight (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Suely, the examples given above are not criticisms of the term anti-Semitism but criticisms of its misapplication. Surely, defenders of Khalid and Carter agree anti-Semitism is wrong, but that Khalid and Carter are not anti-Semites. There is something very strange about this ... it is as if we used the case of Hurricane Carter as the basis for a section "criticisms of the label murderer." Many people are accused of crimes and are found innocent, but these cases are never used to "criticize" the crime. It seems like the cases of Khalid and Carter are best dealt with in articles on Khalid and Carder, in which perhaps there could be a section on debates over whether the person is or is not an anti-Semite. But this is not a "criticism of the label anti-Semitism." Slrubenstein | Talk 12:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you of course but I also consider it somewhat insulting to be accused of owning an article. People need too try and stay as cool as they can when they are discussing these issues. I want to try to hear them out on this or any other page as long as there is a semblance of civility.

Oh and by the way I edited my previous edit and am now of the mind that you responded to the former as opposed to the latter. : Anyway be well and happy Holidays to every one. : Danny W : Albion moonlight (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think Slrubenstein omits a few essential points. It is mostly true (despite some definitional issues) that the criticisms proffered are not criticisms of the term anti-semitism but it's misapplication. Issues here concern rather the moral responsibility entailed in applying the term, which is surely part of the overall phenomenon of the discourse of anti-semitism. You cannot separate theory from practice so neatly as Rubinstein suggests without doing damage to reality. Besides the above citation concerning Khalid and Carter, several prominent historians have decried the increasing missapplication of "anti-semitic" labelling suggesting that the phenomenon goes well beyond mere isolated cases. Historian Avi Shlaim has commented about the current tendency of labelling thusly: "we must be very careful to separate questions of anti-Semitism from critique of Israel. I am critical of Israel as a scholar, and anti-Semitism just doesn't come into it. My view is that the blind supporters of Israel -- and there are many of them in America, in particular -- use the charge of anti-Semitism to try and silence legitimate criticism of Israeli practices. I regard this as moral blackmail. Israel has no immunity to criticism, moral immunity to criticism, because of the Holocaust." This is a reflection on the phenomena of anti-semitism as a discourse, and cannot be easily dissociated from itBernardL (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC

It sounds to me as you are still suggesting that we place Ideals above consensus and that is not likely to happen any time soon. The moral blackmail you are referring too runs rampant and is a systemic part of the human condition. This article is not an essay it is a reflection of consensus here at wikipedia. Words such as bigotry and or insular behavior could easily replace the word antisemitism in my book but this is not my book. It is an encyclopedia. Why not take these arguments to pages such as the ones Sirubensten suggested ?  : Albion moonlight (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps BernardL is saying that in addition to there being a discourse of anti-Semites there is also a discourse of "anti-Semitism" in the Foucauldian sex in whcih discourse is productive of knowldge and it objects i.e. there is a discourse that not only produces an image of "the Jew" (which this article focuses on) but another discourse that is emerging that produces an image of "the anti-Semite," or, more specifically, that the discourse of "the anti-Semite" has changed in recent years to include acts and actors that previously would not have been considered anti-Semitic, or that others today do not consider anti-Semitic. My question then is, is such a claim - a Foucauldian analysis of discourses o anti-Semitism - OR? Certainly if there are verifiable and reliable studies, say in peer-reviewed and notabel academic journals, this may be something we could include in this or at least some article. But we need to be sure it fulfils NPOV's threshold of notability, and is verifiable, and not OR. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus does not = Reality. Consensus is controlled by groups, who's interests often do not include objectivity. Hence, consensus is unreliable. Consider the extreme subjectivity employed by White Nationalists who regard Jews as non-White; they are wrong. I can tell that by looking at Jews objectively; without White Nationalist, Christian Nationalist, German Nationalist, Pro-Semitic, Republican, Democrat, Feminist or Zionist "goggles."

Anti-Semitism is a meaningless term: most "Jews" in America are not of Semitic origin (picture Alan Greenspan) and most "Jews" in Israel are not of Semitic origin (picture Ariel Sharon). Semites should not have their features: fleshy face, skin color, big ears that stick out, a "hooked" nose and charming smile (o.k. maybe that last one...lol). To further illustrate the great divide between reality and consensus: most Palestinians are of Semitic origin and look like it! (Remember, the exception does not prove the rule). Be nice! Barkmoss (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Barkmoss... did you just say that Jews have fleshy faces, big ears that stick out, and a hooked nose? What are you, a Crusader? Maybe you should read the article you're commenting on; you may find some of it very familiar. Now, if you don't mind, I'm off to steal Aryan wives, drink Christian children's blood, and attend my Elders of Zion meeting. Jeztah (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"Device in argumentation"

I've removed this recent insertion to the Talk: page for discussion:

Accusations of antisemitism also represent a device in argumentation. A recent example is the claim that "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" is antisemitic.

According to whom do "accusations of antisemitism" represent a "device in argumentation"? Which expert, reliable sources make this claim, and use the "Israeli Lobby" paper/book as an example of such? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

On what logical basis do you request a source from the writer? Barkmoss (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy requires that claims that are disputed or likely to be disputed must be sourced. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, good judgment must be used to apply that standard. Barkmoss (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just so. That's why it's been deleted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it would have been deleted even if it was sourced. // Liftarn (talk)

Yes, Liftarn, I agree that even if a source were found for that claim, it would very likely violate other Wikipedia policies and still likely be deleted as a consequence. The lack of a reliable source is only the most obvious reason not to have it here, not the only one. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused: the original comment seems valid and would no more need a source than the claim that the term "racism" is often used as a device in argumentation. Please, tell me honestly that this isn't just bias towards people who use the term as a "device" and don't want anybody saying so! Remember, Wikipedia needs objectivity and that requires impartiality, particularly on the part of those entrusted with administration. Barkmoss (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Try reading WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOTE and WP:WEIGHT and maybe you'll feel a little less confused. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have browsed those and like I said, it obviously requires good judgment to apply that standard and this example seems to be one of poor judgment. While some people might challenge that the charge of anti-Semitism is used as a device in argumentation, most or at least lots of people know that it is (lol). This claim is no different than the claims: abortion is murder; abortion is not murder. Obviously, the encyclopedia should not take a side in a controversy, by insisting that one of those claims needs "a source" in order to be published, while the other does not. (If you aren't following my logic, I'll spell it out for you: claiming that anti-Semitism is not used as a device in argumentation is a controversial claim as well. However, both positions are widely held. So, both should be reported, in an article about anti-Semitism, by an impartial encyclopedia). Barkmoss (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If you aren't familiar with "argumentative devices," then I would direct you to the Wikipedia article on the book, "Attacking Faulty Reasoning." The fifth of the five fallacy categories:

"Fallacies that violate the rebuttal criterion. The rebuttal criterion requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument or the position it supports and to the strongest arguments for viable alternative positions. Fallacies such as red herring, straw man, and poisoning the well fail to meet this criterion because they attack the arguer rather than the argument or use argumentative devices that divert attention away from the issue at stake." Barkmoss (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

O.k., so what the writer should have meant when "he" said that the accusation of anti-Semitism is often used as an argumentative device, is that the accusation is often used as a diversion/diversionary tactic.

1.) We see that diversionary tactics exist.

2.) We see the accusation of anti-Semitism being often employed.

3.) We see that challenged and we see it defended with denial and demands for "proof."

4.) We logically conclude that the accusation is "fishy." Hence, we conclude that it is being employed as a diversion or an "argumentative device." Barkmoss (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Claim that the world is missing 187 million Jews

The statement:

"According to James Carroll, "Jews accounted for 10% of the total population of the Roman Empire. By that ratio, if other factors such as pogroms and conversions had not intervened, there would be 200 million Jews in the world today, instead of something like 13 million.""

is highly misleading. Is it fair to make similar remarks about pagans or speakers of Celtic languages? Clearly the vast drop in the Jewish population is due to the cultural assimilation that would inevitably occur as its population dispersed through Europe and the Middle East and became a religious and cultural minority. Its particularly misleading to claim pogroms had any part in this. For pogroms to have any significant effect on the Jewish mortality rate at all, they would have to have been incredibly severe, at a similar rate to a country at war for 2 millennia. Woscafrench (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with Carroll's reasoning, but your logic is unconvincing. Pogroms and conversions are part of the very process of dispersion and assimilation you're talking about! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I barely skimmed the article but that did stick out. Your remedies are: a) find a reliable source that questions Carroll's assertion or makes some contrary assertion; b) find other reliable sources of information about large die-offs of Jews. My guess is the Black Plagues over the centuries probably killed many (before the pogroms blaming Jews which also killed many); c) find out if there's a problem with it under Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, including the tutorial. Or just to feel better, find estimates of how many pagans, celtic speakers, Irish (2 million died in famine), Africans, Native Americans, Ukrainians, Chinese, etc would be alive if religious persecution and colonialism and communism hadn't killed them off and put reliably sourced factoids or speculations in the appropriate articles.

Carol Moore 19:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

The quote is very weak, especially for the lead section. It's highly speculative, of course; I'd suggest that if it belongs in the article at all, it belongs down somewhere under "Hypothetical effects of antisemitism over the ages" or something like that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is highly speculative and if we were to take his claim literally, suspect. But I wonder if he meant for us to take it literally. I think he may be using hyperbole (in a form that looks like speculation) to make a valid point: most forms of violence (one could include any genocide, and not limit this to Jews) has effects not only in the present but in the future as well. The definition of genocide explicitly acknowledges that those groups which may be victims of genocide do not just exist at one point in time, or even for the duration of one life-time. By definitition they are multi-generational, and the crie of genocide involves not only violence directed against a specific group of people at a specific time but the way this violence does damage (cultural or biological) to the trans-generational continuity of the group. I am suggesting that when we think about victims of violence (and it need not be mass murder, it could be systematic stigmatization and persecution), we too often focus on the individual direct victims of violence. We pay less attention to the way that neighbors and family members may also be traumatized by the violence (this is not my own view, it is being argued by the "victims' rights movement" and is a central theme of Toni Morrison's Beloved). Is it possible that Carrol is using hyperbole to force us to think about the long term consequences of oppression, of the fact that persecution of Jews is not just the persecution of individual Jews but of the group, and that this group extends not only in space but in time, and damage can have long-lasting effects? Maybe he is just chalenging our imaginations. I do not know because i have read several essays by him but not this particular one and i have to ask people who have read this particular work whether my reading is plausible in context. I would not ask that the article give my interpretation (I know, NOR). I am asking whether we are doing the quote justice if we include it in a way that suggests that it should only be taken literally, or not at all? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on the book (constantine's sword) in which this claim is made says that the book is contraversial. If you wish to keep such an odd comment in the first section then the fact that the author or book is contraversial should be added, to avoid the impression that this is a consensus summary. Personally I think this quote massively weakens the strength of the article. Broadly there is plenty of mainstream consensus on the importance of anti-semitism and quoting silly stats in the first paragraph undermines the gravitas of the whole thing. And the claim itself is too simplistic even to bother arguing over.--BozMo talk 12:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion does not have to be argument. I certainly am not arguing for anything except that quotes need to be understood in their context. I certainly do not think I said anything about keeping the quote in the first paragraph. Carrol's book may be controversial (you need to ask, to whom? Why?) but it is certainly notable. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved it from the lede to the "Ancient world" subsection of "History"; made the most sense. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sixteenth Century

I am not a historian. If I offend you, pls AGF. Middle Ages and Wikitionary put the cut off for the Middle Ages in the sixteenth century, which makes me think there should be a section on that century as well. Particularly given the historical influence of On the Jews and Their Lies on antisemitism and its being written by an important founder of the Protestant Reformation, an oft-stated end to the Middle Ages, it seems to be a very important century in this vein. Modern Lutheranism has excised such antisemitism and the Lutheran Church has been a shining part of my life but I feel not including such a tract would be historical revisionism. I am keen to hear your views before making such an edit. --Thecurran (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

4.1.4 19th and 20th century (Catholicism)

I think at least a sentence on the Holocasut should be included here as some of the Nazi justification of the Holocaust came from Christian Religious Antisemitism. For just one of the many examples, see On the Jews and Their Lies#The Nazis. To say it was completely racially based also ignores the genocide of the Roma (Romani people) and Slavs but the diplomacy with Arabs.

BTW, why have the parenthetical "(Catholicism)", when this section has references to Christians in general and also to other Christian groups?

It also seems to me that modern Passion Plays that involve the whole congregation and don't specifically lay blame on Jews lay the blame on all of humanity, I don't see that here, but it may well be out-of-scope. --Thecurran (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You make some very interesting points, Thecurran. I'm not sure I agree with all of them but could you add them to History of antisemitism in the first instance, or raise them for discussion on the talk page for that article. The World Trade Centre bombings if they are to be included on any of these related pages should probably be on New antisemitism. You/we need to put our mind to good sources for these points asap. 22:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion shows why antisemitism as a topic is on a par with "global warming". It's a shallow, immature topic, and is so loosely defined that anything can be included as having antisemitic content. There is no relation between what some people feel is antisemitism, and what has actually happened on the ground. For example: where is the discussion of Islamic antisemitism? Or Bosnian muslim Nazi SS units? Or Gazan antisemitism? "Christian Religious Antisemitism"? Good grief! Give your heads a shake! Digger Dan 03:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.129.40 (talk)

Antisemitism#United States

I felt that the events surrounding the World Trade Center bombings on September 11th, 2001, spread antisemitism as well as hatred of Israelis, Americans, Westerners, Muslims, and Arabs throughout the world. In Australia, some of our temples still have security guards even for simple Shabbatot that barely meet minyan, Muslim newspapers have advertised American DVDs revealing the "American conspiracy" behind the attack, and I've seen e-mails concerning the "Jewish conspiracy" behind the attack that have chain-mailed through every continent bar Antarctica containing ridiculous claims like "no Jews died" or "all Jews were warned". I also saw American interests attacked and so many mosques attacked that out of fear my friends barely left the house, not even for Jumu'ah. Anyhow, back on topic I think the World Trade Center Bombings deserve a mention in this subsection. --Thecurran (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Judeophobia?

The name of the article at the beginning gives alternate spellings for antisemitism, then says it's also known as "judeophobia". Has anyone ever heard this term used by a reliable source and if so can he or she cite it? I've never heard that term. Furthermore, judeophobia means fear of Jews, whch is really not the same thing as antisemitism. I don't think we generally instill fear. Hatred in some, sure, but fear? I've heard people say they don't like Jews but I'm quite sure I've never heard anyone say they're scared of Jews. If there is no cite within a few days I'm going to remove the term.RockStarSheister (talk) 07:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[7], [8], [9] are just a few of the easiest to find. The title of a book published by Harvard University Press and an article at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs seem pretty solid to me. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, there are treatment options available as well! Boodlesthecat (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Jan T. Gross

The article on Jan T. Gross could do with a bit more attention. Some introduction:

• The Killing After the Killing Washington Post
• Chasing Away the Memory of Guilt: The End of Jewish Life in Poland H-Net review of Fear
• "Polish criminal investigation into the book Fear" by European Jewish Press
• Poland's willing executioners (Jan T Gross's unflinching account of anti-Semitic atrocities in the war, Neighbors, has awakened a nation to its systematically hidden and falsified past)
• I Remember : The Shoah Foundation’s Attempt to Address Poland’s Complicated Past
• [http://www.amazon.com/Fear-Anti-Semitism-Poland-After-Auschwitz/dp/0812967461/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-4554827-0993745?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193433409&sr=8-1 Review of "Fear"](amazon)

--Stor stark7 ^Talk 19:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Those elinks can be found in JTG external link section. They are relevant here, but as Jacurek noted below - we don't probably need to link to many reviews of "Fear" in here. Due weight and so on.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What's with you and that obsession with Jan Gross ? We all know him and his work. There is no need to post endless reviews of his books. How many other reviews of "Fear" will you dig up ? Gross is one of many Holocaust historians but not necessarily the best one. If all you read is Gross then you have a lot of reading ahead of you to get a better picture of the events in post war Poland. Please don't be offended but I think it is enough of him already.--Jacurek (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

All I try is to bring more attention to the article on Gross from the wider community interested in antisemitism topics. As this article points out; quote: Jan T Gross's unflinching account of anti-Semitic atrocities in the war, Neighbors, has awakened a nation to its systematically hidden and falsified past.[10].

What alarms me is seeing that when checking the edit history[11] of the article it seems it is almost exclusively nationals from that particular nation mentioned above that have been editing the article lately, for example adding to the external links section [12].

For the sake of balance and NPOV I would like to see some western editors looking into it and not just editors from a certain Eastern European state where history writing/teaching has been (until very recently?) systematically falsified.

I write this since I think I see the same type of POW pushing in relation to Polish crimes against other ethnic groups, as shown in for example Talk:Bloody Sunday (1939). It seems that to some it is always the victims fault they became victims[13], the perpetrators apparently according to some never really did anything wrong.... --Stor stark7 ^Talk 18:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

These comments are completely out of place here. They should be posted at the Jan T. Gross article, or possibly at WP:WikiProject Jewish history. This page is only for discussion of improvements to the associated article, Antisemitism. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Should Antisemitism be broken out into its own Wikiproject?

For anyone who is interested there is discussion of eliminating WikipediaProjectAntisemitism here [[14]] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Baroness Orczy

Sorry, this is not directly related to the contents of this article, but I thought it might be of interest to the editors here. I just removed the claim "From a passage in her famed Scarlet Pimpernel it is apparent that she was a virulent anti-semite." from Emma Orczy as it was not cited. One can not leave possibly defamatory claims without citation. It also sounds like original research to me . --Thehalfone (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. There is an obvious scene where the Scarlet Pimpernel disguises himself as a stereotyped Jew but nothing which in my view justifies that kind of claim. --BozMo talk 15:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

History - 21st century

...the new medium http://www.holywesternempire.org/page2.html --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Jewish deicide

Please comment in Talk:Jewish deicide#Proceeding further. - Mukadderat (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

History of antisemitism in the United States

Please take a look at History of antisemitism in the United States which I have expanded significantly in the past week or so. Please provide feedback on the talk page. In particular, take a look at User:CasualObserver'48's justification for putting the NPOV tag on the article. I don't think the article warranted an NPOV tag when he added it and I don't think it warrants it now. CasualObserver'48 does make a valid point that antisemitism has been weaker in the U.S. than it was in Europe and I have made some effort to address that it in the lead. Perhaps more discussion of the point is needed but I still don't think that makes the article POV.

--Richard (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Jealousy as cause

I think this should be included. There have been much written on the subject and I think it may be notable enough to be included.

endtimepilgrim.org/antisem.htm Myth and Madness: The Psychodynamics of Antisemitism www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008289.html

and countless others...

I think both the historical and current key element of jealousy as the root cause of antisemitism should be included.

"It has been said that the main reason we hate others is because they have something special that we don't have, but desperately and jealously desire to possess."

When you think about this is at the heart of most hatred: The dumb hating the smart. The unattractives hating the beautiful. Poor hating the rich. Ignorant hating the knowledgeable...Jealousy, and it's natural heir: Hatred, is a common theme throughout history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.215.199 (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there's a lot of good stuff here on manifestations of antisemitism, but not the main reasons why ordinary people might have been swayed by it. Most of us Europeans weren't literate until a couple of generations ago. Oh dear, we were often anti-islamic as well, and very anti-each-other until 1945.86.42.194.153 (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

The first sentence of the article reads:

Antisemitism (alternatively spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism, also known as judeophobia) is prejudice and hostility toward Jews as a religious, racial, or ethnic group.

Because, as far as I know, Jews constitute a religious and ethnic group -- but are not a race -- I would like to remove the word "race" from this sentence. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• While I agree with you that Judaism is certainly not a race, I think that it is mentioned in the opening because historically a lot of antisemitism has been based on the (mistaken) assertion that it is a race - notably in Nazi Germany. So, while I would object to the Judaism article referring to Judaism as a race, I think it makes sense that it stay in the anti-semitism article. Does that make sense? Dawn Bard (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense; but, because many people who read this article will already have the assumption that Judaism is a race, there is considerable chance of further strengthening their misconception. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not saying that Jews are a race. We're saying that some antisemites believe them to be. --FOo (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough. It seems that the commonly-mentioned concept of a Chosen race was wrongly conflated by anti-semites from the original teaching of being God's "chosen people". Can some expert say if "people" had the same import as "race" in early Hebrew? My understanding is that it did not.86.42.219.131 (talk) 04:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ChristlichSozial Poster.JPG

The image Image:ChristlichSozial Poster.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Reasons???

Very long article - but hard to find reasons for anti-semitism. It's everywhere in the world - but why???? Please do a new sections: Reasons for anti-semtism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.159.150 (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Al-Husayni

Why is Al-Husayni's picture being put in this article? there is no consensus between sources that Al-Husayni was anti-Semitic. Please check this. Imad marie (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Many historians see him as antisemitic, including Morris. That's good enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is no consensus, then bring sources from both points of view. I think the majority will say he was typically anti-semitic for his time, but minority views should also be referenced so that researchers can consider if they are cranks, or not.86.42.219.131 (talk) 04:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Our policy does not require a consensus of sources, only a notable source. I have no doubt that many scholars consider him to have been anti-Semetic, although some may consider him simply to have been pro-Nazi at a time when he viewed the british as occupiers and Jews as the tools of the British. If someone has a reliable source from a notable and appropriate scholar I would have no objection to adding that to a footnote (the larger discussion belongs in the article on al-Husayni). My problem is that there is no actual discussion of al-Husayni in the article itself. I think it would help a lot of the article explained who al Husayni was and who considers him anti-Semitic and why; this can be done with just two sentences and would strengthen the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Summarising the history sections

History of antisemitism is now a fairly comprehensive article and I think it would be of benefit to this article if the sections covered there were shortened here. I'm going to make a start but will shortly be off on a break, so if I don't get very far, that's why. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Paley" :
  • Paley, Susan and Koesters, Adrian Gibbons, eds. ""A Viewer's Guide to Contemporary Passion Plays"" (PDF). (74.4 KB), accessed March 12, 2006.
  • Paley, Susan and Koesters, Adrian Gibbons, eds. "A Viewer's Guide to Contemporary Passion Plays", accessed March 12, 2006.

DumZiBoT (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Missing Definitions

This article doesn't make any mention of the theory, or definition of antisemitism, employed by the leading 19th century Zionists. Their views are just as important as Wilhelm Marr's.

Judah Leib Pinsker's 'Auto-Emancipation' is hosted on Wikisource:Auto-Emancipation He explained that anti-semitism is the result of an incurable hereditary condition:

'Judeophobia is a psychic aberration. As a psychic aberration it is hereditary, and as a disease transmitted for two thousand years it is incurable.' ... 'In this way have Judaism and Anti-Semitism passed for centuries through history as inseparable companions.'... ...'Having analyzed Judeophobia as an hereditary form of demonopathy, peculiar to the human race, and having represented Anti-Semitism as proceeding from an inherited aberration of the human mind, we must draw the important conclusion that we must give' up contending against these hostile impulses as we must against every other inherited predisposition.'

Theodor Herzl's 'Der Judenstaat' utilized the same logic, i.e. the inevitability of antisemitism, to justify his advocacy of a state of cultural, ethnic, religious, and racial separation:

'The Jewish question persists wherever Jews live in appreciable numbers. Wherever it does not exist, it is brought in together with Jewish immigrants. We are naturally drawn into those places where we are not persecuted, and our appearance there gives rise to persecution. This is the case, and will inevitably be so, everywhere, even in highly civilised countries - see, for instance, France - so long as the Jewish question is not solved on the political level. The unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America.'... ...'important experiments in colonization have been made, though on the mistaken principle of a gradual infiltration of Jews. An infiltration is bound to end badly. It continues till the inevitable moment when the native population feels itself threatened, and forces the government to stop a further influx of Jews. Immigration is consequently futile unless we have the sovereign right to continue such immigration.'

harlan (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Why refer all pictures displayed to German antisemitism

Is it a mere coincidence that all pictures displayed in the article refer to German antisemitsm? However, that appears somehow strange as the phaenomen of antisemitsm was ever since very popular in all European countries and not only in Germany. One must even say that, especially in the early 18th century, Germany was one of the countries who treated its Jewish people very well. I therefore would like to propose to install a broader variety of pictures of European antisemitsm.

ps: for the avoidance of any doubt, I do not want to deny Germany`s horrible crimes under the Nazi regime but this article should give a broad idea of antisemitsm in general and, hence, it should be displayed as broad as possible

Thx for your response(s) in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.236.241.230 (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Errors in the "Etymology" section of the main article

I wish to point out a number of errors in the "etymology" section to whomever it is has control of the main article.

Yesterday I made some additions to the section, to correct the errors, but they seem to have been removed.

The errors relate specifically to the role of Wilhelm Marr in the coining of the German word "Antisemitismus", of which the English "anti-Semitism" or "Antisemitism" is a translation.

In the first place, Marr's pamphlet "Der Sieg des Judentums ueber das Germanentum" first appeared in 1873. Over the next six years, it was republished 12 times, the last publication occurring in 1879.

Marr does not use the word "Antisemitismus" in the pamphlet, but he does use the word "Semitismus" several times, interchangeably with "Judentum". It is apparent that "Semitismus" has the same two meanings as "Judentum", firstly the Jews as a collective, eg Jewry, and secondly the quality of being Jewish, jewishness, or the Jewish spirit or being. Marr uses the word "Semitismus" in the text of his pamphlet in both senses at different times.

When the German word "Antisemtismus" first appeared in print, whether coined by Marr or someone else, it is evident that it was intended to denote the opposite of, or opposition to, the "Semitismus" referred to by Marr in his pamphlet. Thus, its original meaning was "opposition to the Jews as a group" or "opposition to Jewishness, to the Jewish spirit".

The above points are important to an understanding of the origin of the term "Antisemtismus" and its original meaning. I request that these points be included in the "Etymology" section of the main article.

The statement that Marr used the term "Judenhass" to give a scientific basis to his theories is in fact incorrect. The word "Judenhass" does occur in the article, but Marr uses it in an historical way to describe emotional reactions to Jews, which he himself actually rejects, and does not endorse. He does attempt to give an explanation of why Jews have been hated over the centuries.

For discussion. Michael mills (talk) 06:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Vichy regime

What about France and it's collaboration with Nazi Germany by getting rid of their own Jewish citizens? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.107.198 (talk) 09:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)