Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism

I don't understand why this page exists. It seems to be almost an exact copy of the Wikipedia article Anti-Semitism. RK

It's a selection of the bits of that article relating to the causes of anti-Semitism. There's obviously a lot more that can be said about anti-Semitism than merely how it is caused. My idea was that this entry could focus in on the question of what causes anti-Semitism, allowing the anti-Semitism entry to focus on other issues, such as consequences of anti-Semitism, actions taken to combat anti-Semitism, and differences in anti-Semitism around the world. In a similar way the Christianity and anti-Semitism article avoids the need for either article to spend pages disecting the responsibility and reaction of Christianity. I'll add to this entry later as well. Martin

Footnote

The footnote didn't seem to work, even though Jayjg did what it says to do in Wikipedia:Cite sources, so I've changed it to the author and date in parenthesis after the sentence. If anyone can work out how to make the footnote thing function, by all means change it back. SlimVirgin 21:17, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean it didn't work? It worked fine for me. Also, you lost the page numbers, p. 118, pp. 210-216. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then it must be my browser. All I could see was {{fnb/1}} at the bottom and nothing in the text, though I could see it when I edited the page. But if it's showing up right for you, I'll revert. Sorry. SlimVirgin 21:29, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. El_C 03:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying the reference. You always come up with very good academic references. Sorry about the footnote confusion. I'm using the latest Mac operating system and currently using the latest Netscape, but I don't see these footnotes for some reason, though I can see them on other pages. It's all part of the fun of being a Mac user. ;-) SlimVirgin 03:30, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

And thanks to both of you just for being yourselves. ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, you think different, I see. :p El_C 03:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chip Berlet Chart

To any interested editors - there is a conversation currently occurring on the Chip Berlet talk page regarding the appropriateness of including Mr. Berlet's chart on this page. Berlet is a highly partisan political source, and as such it is contended that using his material for purposes other than to represent his personal opinions is inappropriate per WP:RS - "Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution. An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group." Factual and POV problems within the chart have also raised the issue of whether it rises to the level of encyclopedia-quality material for this article. Interested persons are invited to view the discussion here and to post any thoughts relating to its presence in this article under this message on the current talk page. Thanks! Rangerdude 07:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

By "extreme political website," we mean groups like Stormfront, not PRA. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:34, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

That's an arbitrary attempt to define a wikipedia guideline that makes no such specification. Your own personal definition of what constitutes "extreme" is of no determinant value. Wikipedia's provisions on source reliability are specific, however, in its application to "Partisan political and religious sources," which are discouraged in their own right. Berlet is indisputably a partisan political source, and PRA is very reasonably defined as hailing from the left wing extreme of the political spectrum. That indicates a better source should probably be used instead. Rangerdude 09:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

My comment on the chart is on Talk:Chip Berlet (diff). El_C 08:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

El C - thanks for your comments on this subject. I disagree wholly in your characterization of Berlet as a "scholarly" opinion though. I do not see any scholarly credentials affiliated with Chip Berlet's name. I am unaware that he has any higher degrees or academic accredation in any social science field, and his major institutional affiliations are all with partisan political groups. As such his description is of no more credibility than your average run of the mill political activist, or perhaps an op-ed commentator at most. It's certainly not the product of an accredited political scientist, sociologist, or historian though, and as I have noted on the other talk page this circumstance shows in the simplistic and erronious nature of the chart. Both the unaccredited and undistinguished nature of the chart and the fact that it hails from an extremely partisan political source make it unencyclopedic for this particular article. In my view, the chart belongs as nothing more than a representation of Chip Berlet's personal opinions on the article about Chip Berlet. In the case of this article, we should seek a substitute or alternative and additional material on the subject of antisemitism from an accredited scholarly source with more neutral, or at least less partisan, political leanings. Rangerdude 09:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Response in the section bellow. El_C 22:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The Chart is published on the PRA website. I claim no scholarly credentials, but I write for scholarly and academic publications, and have been through peer review in a sociology journal. I also do peer review of articles for a socioloy journal. I write chapters in academic books, lecture in college classooms, and have been invited to present papers at the conferences of the American Sociological Association and International Sociological Association. Of course, Rangerdude knows all this, since he just edited my Wiki page bio to include more criticism of my work. So unless you want to argue that Eric Hoffer was just a dockworker with a POV attitude problem, please back off.--Cberlet 13:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The above editor is reminded of both Wikipedia's autobiography policy and a general tendency of other editors to frown upon persons who promote their own material here. A quick review of Mr. Berlet's published work reveals that the majority of his material that has been published outside of his own outfit at PRA appears in the form of Op-Ed submissions to various newspapers and contributions to highly partisan political magazines on the far left such as Mother Jones, the SPLC's Intelligence Report, and High Times. His "lectures" at college campuses appear to individual guest visits and presentations to various university classrooms and campus activism seminars - a qualification that could also be claimed by such illustrious "scholarly" speakers as Jane Fonda, Michael Moore, and Jesse Jackson. A review of his biography also produces no evidence that Mr. Berlet holds any scholarly qualifications from an accredited institution of higher learning. Indeed, I can find no evidence that he even possesses so much as bachelor's degree - or any form of higher education for that matter - except for a 3 year stint at the University of Denver in the 1970's, from which he did not graduate. I find no evidence of him ever holding a regular faculty position at an accredited university or even a high school for that matter. His claimed "peer review" contribution to an academic journal appears to consist of a single article in a publication calling itself "The Politics of Social Inequality Volume 9" - an obscure narrow-focus journal of no mainstream distinction that appears to be devoted entirely to minority and homosexual political causes on the political left. In short, I have yet to see anything indicating that Mr. Berlet has any genuine recognized scholarly credentials or anything establishing him as a recognized academic expert on the subject of anti-semitism. As such, and in light of his political partisanship, his chart simply does not rise to the level of source reliability required for this encyclopedia. Rangerdude 20:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Berlet is a noted researcher and journalist on the topic. -Willmcw 20:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

He's also an extreme political partisan (see WP:RS) and has no demonstrated scholarly credentials on the topic. Treating him as anything more than a partisan political activist with an interest in this particular issue (and representing his work as opinions to that end accordingly) is inappropriate per the reliable sources provisions mentioned above. Rangerdude 20:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

He writes for scholarly journals, as well as articles that other journalists read to learn about this stuff. He's highly regarded. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:03, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Of which political party is he an "extreme political partisan"? Can we only quote material in Wikipedia from Ph.D.s? Neither of those criticisms seem to be relevant here. -Willmcw 21:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Slim - I've only seen one allegedly "peer reviewed" journal article to his name (discussed above), and it isn't much of one at that. Please provide evidence of accredited scholarly credentials such as a degree or an academic position. Otherwise he is nothing more than an opinionated activist. Rangerdude 21:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

He's an investigative journalist working for a research organization that is much used by other journalists, and you can find a list of some of his articles on Chip Berlet. Chip and PRA are both the kind of source regarded as reputable and credible for Wikipedia articles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:55, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

He is also an unabashed apologist for leftist political ideology (not that there's anything wrong with that, per se). Checking out his work in the Boston Globe should quell any doubts. Since he's a fellow WP editor, I'll just say that, while he's a good editor here, quoting his outside works as though he were an impartial observer of political or sociological phenomena is a mischaracterization of his work. Tomer ^TALK 03:18, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Scholarly citations

I have ~5 minutes so I must be brief. A small sample where Chip Berlet is cited in scholarly sources:

• Social Movements: Changing Paradigms, M Edelman - anthro.annualreviews.org Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001. 30:285–317 Copyright c 2001 by Annual Reviews. -- http://anthro.annualreviews.org/cgi/reprint/30/1/285

• Marketing the Marriage ‘Solution’: Misplaced Simplicity in the Politics of Fatherhood. 2001 -… S Coltrane - Sociological Perspectives, Volume 44, Number 4, pages 387–418. -- http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sop.2001.44.4.387

• The social construction of the divorce “problem”: Morality, child victims, and the politics of Gender … S Coltrane, M Adams - Family Relations, 2003 -- http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111%252Fj.1741-3729.2003.00363.x

• The Social Psychology of Hatred ER Harrington - Journal of Hate Studies -- http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/againsthate/journal3/GHS110.pdf

• Making Sense of a World Transformed: The Christian Right Post-September 11 Duane M. Oldfield Associate Professor of Political Science Knox College (Rutgers University Press, c2005) -- http://apsaproceedings.cup.org/Site/papers/033/033001OldfieldDu.pdf

• Rush, Newspeak and Fascism: An Exegesis, D Neiwert - readthistome.com -- http://www.readthistome.com/Rush_Newspeak_Fascism.pdf

• Anti-Gay Politics Online: A Study of Sexuality and Stigma on National Websites JM Irvine - Sexuality Research and Social Policy Journal of NSRC, 2005 - Journal of NSRC Sexuality Research and Social Policy, Vol. 2, Issue 1, pp. 1-74, online ISSN 1553-6610. -- http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/srsp.2005.2.1.3

• The Concept that came out of the Cold: The Progressive Historicization of Generic Fascism and its New Relevance to Teaching 20 the Century History, PR Griffin, GL Campus - ah.brookes.ac.uk -- http://ah.brookes.ac.uk/history/staff/griffin/historycompass.pdf

• Brief History of the Unorganized Militia, C Courts, P Identity - Berkeley Planning Journal, 11 (1996): 26-48 -- http://www-dcrp.ced.berkeley.edu/bpj/pdf/11-Zook.pdf

• Militias at the Millenium:. A Test of Smelser's Theory of Collective Behavior SC Weeber, DG Rodeheaver - The Sociological Quarterly, Volume 44, Number 2, pages 181–204. The Midwest Sociological Society. -- http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/tsq.2003.44.2.181

• RD Lipschutz - The Myth of Ethnic Conflict, 1999 - University of California eScholarship Repositories -- http://repositories.cdlib.org

• Holiness Codes and Holy Homosexuals: Interpreting Gay and Lesbian Christian Subculture. H Hendershot - Camera Obscura, 2001 -- http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/camera_obscura/v015/15.3hendershot.pdf

• Tradition Never Goes Out of Style: The Role of Tradition in Women’s Naming Practices, E Sutter, The Communication Review, 57, 7:57–87, 2004 -- http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/index/UN230KF10588NFUH.pdf

I'm seeing many fold more citations, but I'm writing in hatse; largely copied this from a shcolarly database, sorry if the format appears odd. El_C 22:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

El_C - thanks for the links, but political activist groups like Chip Berlet's are "cited" all the time by academics, be they liberal or conservative. That doesn't make them academically accredited scholars though. Nor does being quoted in an article on "gender studies" make one an expert in the history of anti-semitism. Rangerdude 23:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

RD, are you saying that we can't quote non-scholars on Wikipedia articles? I don't understand the criteria you are asserting. Are academic credentials the only test of expertise? Thanks, -Willmcw 23:18, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Your repeated straw man misconstructions of my request aside, all I am saying is that we should follow WP:RS. WP:RS explicitly discourages the use of partisan political sources on wikipedia for anything other than representing their opinions. Mr. Berlet is indisputably a partisan political source, and as he has no scholarly accredation that especially merits the use of his material on this page, his chart should be removed on the grounds that it is a partisan political source discouraged by WP:RS, or altered in a manner to reflect the fact that it represents only his opinion. Rangerdude 23:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

What counts as reputable?

WP:RS does not require scholarly credentials. Can you point to exactly what part of that guideline you are referring to? And of which political party is he an "extreme political partisan"? Thanks, -Willmcw 23:45, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

"partisan n. A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea." - American Heritage Dictionary. Rangerdude 05:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Glad to help, Rangerdude. Note that these citations pertain to Chip Berlet's works. El_C 00:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

RD, WP:RS is just a guideline. The policy page that talks about sources is Wikipedia:No original research. Chip is an investigative journalist used by other journalists for their research, and is highly regarded as such. I've also seen him around Wikipedia making a real effort (in a few cases, more of an effort that I would have made) to be fair to people he disagrees with politically. He's definitely a credible source for WP and has been used as such in several articles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:00, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Slim - And as a general rule guidelines should be followed. Simply stating but "I'm friends with that author and consider him to be a good guy" is not sufficient as a basis to disregard a guideline when his material clearly contradicts it. Once again you are reminded to set aside your biasing personal allegiances with other editors where they conflict with matters of article content. Rangerdude 05:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

RD, which part of the guideline are you referring to exactly? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

The one I quoted previously: "Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution. An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group." Mr. Berlet is a partisan political source. Rangerdude 06:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I, however, challenge that the use of the term extreme is... well, extreme and misdirected here. El_C 06:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to disagree on that. Everything I've read about Mr. Berlet indicates that he hails from the far left of the political spectrum placing his politics well outside the mainstream, hence my consideration of him as an extreme source. I'd imagine that this understanding of the word "extreme" is fairly common and if considered along side the full distribution of political opinions in the public at large, Mr. Berlet would fall squarely on the tail, a good distance removed from the centerpoint and the population's mean. While I suppose a person sharing his perspective, or perhaps having a different concept of the term, may dispute his extremity it is still difficult to argue that Berlet is not a partisan political source, which is also discouraged. In either case it is a safe characterization that Mr. Berlet is very far removed from being a neutral source, thus his use here should be governed by due caution. One solution to this problem could be adding wording that indicates that the chart is an opinion of Mr. Berlet, himself a controversial source. Rangerdude 07:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

PRA is not the kind of organization any of our guidelines is trying to stop us from using, and I'm certain of this because I've been involved in drafting a lot of the information about sources and original research. That sentence was added to make sure websites like the one run by Stormfront, which is a political movement, not a research organization, could only be used as primary sources about themselves. But PRA is a research group and Berlet is a published journalist and author. WP:NOR is policy so what it says about sourcing takes precedence over guidelines. WP:NOR#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication? says: "A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable". For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in a Socialist Workers' Party magazine to publish a statement about President Bush being gay." This clearly doesn't have in mind the type of research group Chip works for. You may find PRA extreme, but it's not a political or religious group, party, or movement. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:12, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Once again, Slim you are not the arbiter of which "extreme" groups WP's guidelines apply to or not. Whether you drafted other WP information on original research or not is irrelevant, as the issue here is only what the guidelines do and do not say. If it was added to exclude only Stormfront-style groups it should've said so. But it does not - it says only "extreme political sources" without any special qualifications or exemptions, and that means sources on both the far right and far left. PRA and Berlet are very reasonably categorized as hailing from the far left, and while they are entitled to take that view, wikipedia should also treat them with caution as the guideline directs both of extreme sources AND of any partisan source. And you say that PRA - as in Political Research Associates - is not a political group? Please. PRA is as political as they come and about as far left as they get where liberal thinktanks are concerned. Dressing it up denials of its strong leftist bent and pseudo-academic attributes is fooling nobody. PRA is loved among the far left and despised among persons in both the middle and the right for a reason, and that reason is the strong tilt of its political leanings. Curiously your example of the Socialist Worker's Party does little to help your case as Mr. Berlet's own biography proudly states that he has worked on behalf of this very same extremist group! Rangerdude 07:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm clearly getting nowhere here, so I'll stop now. I've told you that Wikipedia:Reliable sources is a guideline, not policy, and that WP:NOR is policy and therefore takes priority. As you said yourself, it's what the page actually says that matters, and WP:NOR actually says nothing that would exclude Chip or PRA, and I don't think you'll find much support in Wikipedia for your argument. If we were to exclude all sources who showed political leanings, we'd be decimated overnight. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:46, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Slim - Nothing you've quoted from NOR contradicts what I've quoted from WP:RS. In fact the section you cite giving the Socialist Worker's Party as an example of an extreme source actually seems to solidify my case against Mr. Berlet, as his biography openly boasts that he has done work with that group! If the Socialist Workers Party is not a reputable source as the section you quote states, would not the same be true of political activists who openly and proudly align with the Socialist Workers Party and dozens of other equally extremist organizations? Are you truly so blinded by your personal biases that you cannot even see how your own example applies against what you purport? I would hate to think as much, but my experience with you tells me that personal allegiances to other editors run strong in your decisions here, leaving me to conclude that this must be the case. Rangerdude 21:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems we are at an impass, Rangerdude. I still feel you are missing the point and thrust of my argument. The way I see it, following Wikipedia policy, you need to bring forward some evidence demonstrating that the "scholarly community" (or significant portions therein) views him as such. You can't simply decide that they do, seemingly on a whim. That, in my opinion, counts as original research. The caution notice you outline needs to be based on something a lot more concerete, more representative of pertinent branches of social-scientific, modern academia (as opposed to intereditorially, here on the wiki). El_C 07:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

El C - I believe you've got the burden of proof reversed in this situation. The way I see it that burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that Mr. Berlet's material rises to the level of reputability and scholarship necessary to justify its inclusion in an encyclopedia. That he is a partisan political source is difficult to dispute, and the way that guideline reads seems to imply that some extraordinary characteristic about Mr. Berlet would have to exist to justify including him in spite it. Showing him to be a credentialed expert of high reputation, for example, might suffice, yet as this discussion has revealed Mr. Berlet has absolutely no scholarly credentials such as a degree from an accredited university - not even a common bachelor's degree - and holds no position of recognized expertise or authority in the fields that pertain to this article. The most anybody's been able to show about him is a single purportedly "peer reviewed" article in an obscure narrow-focused political journal, dozens of political rants in PRA's in-house publications and other political publications on the far left that share PRA's views, and a couple of second source references to those same political articles. In terms of establishing scholarly credentials, that sort of stuff is truly grasping at straws. Rangerdude 21:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. Cberlet's material has clearly been shown to be encyclopedic, and you have completely failed in showing it is not. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Then answer me this, Jayjg: (1) What degrees from an accredited institution of higher education does he hold pertaining to this field or any other? (2) What accredited university, college, or even grade school for that matter does he hold a teaching or other scholarly position at?, and (3) Which well recognized and accredited experts on the subject of anti-semitism consider him to be among their peers in this field? If he is the great scholarly "expert" you and others purport him to be, then answering these three questions should be no difficulty for you. Rangerdude 23:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

His work has been quoted in encyclopedic sources; that's all that is required. The rest of your questions are red herrings. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

That Rangerdude is engaging in a false and biased personal attack on me and my published work is precisely why I have asked for mediation regarding this page and his actions.See this page I note that you began this unprincipled campaign after you lost an attempt to have me sanctioned. I have never claimed to have academic credentials, but I do claim that my work has been published in numerous scholarly journals and books. I also have published articles and op-eds in several mainstream daily newspapers. See: Selected list of publications. My work on antisemitism has been published internationally. Please stop this abusive and nasty series of attacks. Please note my responses below defending my work.--Cberlet 22:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Cberlet is once again reminded of the provisions of WP:AUTO. As Wikipedia strongly discourages its contributers from participation in edits to off-site and biographical material pertaining to themselves, I will also ask again that he refrain from attempting to control the course of edits that qualify as such. Furthermore, Cberlet is reminded that critiques of his off-site identity made during a discussion of edits pertaining directly to the wikipedia article about that off-site identity and its work are not "personal attacks" in any reasonable sense, as all are directly pertinent to the content of the relevant articles and the process of determining what should and should not be contained in each. Among the reasons that wikipedia strongly discourages contributers from participating in edits of autobiographical material is its propensity to misconstrue the editing process of the same as a personal dispute. Rangerdude 23:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:AUTO is a guideline, not a policy, Cberlet has not violated it, and it relates directly to articles about the authors or works they have written, not other articles, and certainly not Talk: pages. Furthermore, none of the other editors here are Cberlet. Your focus on Chip is both repetitive and personal at this point. Please desist. Oh, and I've made my position on this clear, I won't be repeating myself regardless of how many lengthy and repetitive responses you present. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I never claimed WP:AUTO was anything other than a guideline, Jayjg, so please do not accuse me of having done so. Guidelines nevertheless should be abided by, and I am indeed contending that Cberlet has violated this one as he has been continuously inserting himself into the editing process on material about and by him with exactly the results that WP:AUTO seeks to avoid, namely "prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy, and neutrality of material on subjects in which (he is) personally involved." As for your position, whether you participate further in this discussion is not my concern. I've read your contribution, found it to be lacking in substance, and stated my disagreement. I do find it curious that the same clique of usual suspects - e.g. yourself, Willmcw, SlimVirgin, and Cberlet - always tend to pop up and regurgitate the same lines in defense of each other when one or more of your contributions are scrutinized by persons differing from a mutual POV held among you. This is just a suggestion, but your opinions would carry more weight with editors outside the aforementioned group if they weren't always predictably made in support of it and its members regardless of the circumstances or facts. Rangerdude 23:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Well, as long as you aren't engaging in ad hominem arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Nah. Try constructive criticism. Rangerdude 23:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude, I agree with Jayjg on reputability having been established, and I'm afraid that (and this is an extension of our hitherto impass) I still view the burden of proof as falling on you, as per notices of extermism, etc. Also, I challenge that you cannot claim WP:AUTO in this case because, as mentioned elsewhere, I was the one who inserted the chart into this article, after securing permission from Cberlet. Note that my request to release the chart was the first instance in which I have ever spoken to Cberlet. El_C 23:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The direction of the burden of proof should be determined by the logical principles of proof itself, and those principles reflect on the impossibility of proving a negative. In assigning the proof burden to me, you are effectively asking me to prove the negative that "Chip Berlet's material should not be included in this article," which is of course an impossible standard to meet. Properly construed, the burden of proof is always an affirmative rather than a negative and the corrollary affirmative in this case is a demonstration that "Chip Berlet's material should be included in this article." As WP guidelines and policies establish criteria for inclusion, they are what we have to go by in judging whether this burden has been met or not. At the present WP:RS indicates Chip Berlet should probably not be used, absent other justification, because he is a partisan political source. The other justification given so far has been the suggestion that Chip Berlet is a scholarly source despite his partisanship, but as noted above I find that contention wholly unconvincing based upon his lack of normal and standard signifiers of scholarly reputation (e.g. a degree or faculty position). Rangerdude 00:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude, I, as well, am against the notion whereby one is made to prove a negative (very much so), but I have provided sources and my argument is that you have yet, for example, to expose concretely how this or that source I (rather randomally) cited (or otherwise) view him as being unscholarly or extreme; meaning, qualifying him within their own citations as such. Moreover, I don't believe scholarly needs be related to tenure in or direct affiliation with (any specific body/ies in) academia, and that Wikipedia policy gravitates toward the interdisciplinary in its approach. The way I see it is that I (and others) have provided sources and now you seem to be requesting that myself (or others) draw out of these clear statements which say "he is not extreme / unscholarly," whereas my own position advances the notion that, having reached this point, citationally, it is, in fact, up to you now to draw the qualification (that is, out of these or any other citations) that he is, as you claim, unscholarly, etc. El_C 00:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

El C - Chip Berlet's partisanship is readily evidenced in his own biography. He is a political activist who works for a far left wing think tank that specializes in "studying" the political right. He also writes political editorials for publications on the far left such as Mother Jones and the Southern Poverty Law Center's magazine, most of which center around making allegations of "racism" and "anti-semitism" against well known conservative writers, think tanks, and activist groups. All of that combined makes him a partisan political source, which means WP:RS's stipulations kick in. Nor do I have to prove that he is "unscholarly" (="not scholarly" = proving a negative, which can't be done) as that defies the burden of proof's realm of what is possible. As you have contended that his material is sufficiently scholarly though, you do have to demonstrate that affirmative. I've suggested several different reasonable and widely accepted criteria that tend to exhibit scholarly credentials - things such as a degree or a university affiliation, and I'm open to other similar examples. But thus far the best you've offered are a single cite to an obscure allegedly peer-reviewed journal issue that seems to be focused on "gender identity" politics rather than anti-semitism plus a handful of equally obscure references to articles by other people who have mentioned Chip Berlet in a footnote. As I stated to another editor in this discussion, if Chip Berlet were truly the reputable scholarly source on anti-semitism that many of you are claiming he is you wouldn't have near this trouble in producing clear and convincing evidence of his credentials and you wouldn't be throwing out obscure footnote cites to him on largely unrelated subject matters. Rangerdude 03:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude, it appears we are yet again at an impass. My point is that someone whom you claim is this "disputed" would not be simply noted per se., without such qualifications, and I'm not at all certain the Journals mentioned should be held in such low regard in that sense, nor that they are "unrelated" (at any rate, it was a smaple). As for being scholarly or not, and what is or is not the negative, I challenge, depends on the given frame of reference. I further maintain that reputability has has been established here already and that, therefore, the hihterto negative of proving he isn't then becomes a positive — you argue that it hasn't been established and that it, therefore, remains a negative. Just so we're clear on this dialectic / relationality / interchangability, etc., at least, without which, I maintain much of the argument becomes reduced to mere sophistry. But having said that, I do, though, wish to focus on the concrete and avoid abstract generalizations, which I find unhelpful in moving this forward. Hope that makes sense. El_C 04:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Citations

Wagner & Hitler

"German antiquity and Wagner's tales of Teutonic superheroes drove Hitler's fantasies of a Germanic state. He would later transfer romanticized notions of Norse epics and the Middle Ages onto National Socialism."

"Aryan models of German manhood such as Siegfried and Lohengrin came to inspire a cult of ritual and make-believe within the Third Reich that seems like nothing so much as arrested adolescent development on a monumental scale. With secret codes and runic (ancient German alphabet) symbols, mystical rites (such as the passing of the Blood Flag), and oaths of loyalty, along with innumerable badges, costumes, and greetings, the Third Reich exceeded the customary use of regalia and ceremony within the military."

Deborah M Rothschild, Curator of Exhibitions, Williams College Museum of Art; "Prelude to a Nightmare: Art, Politics, and Hitler's Early Years in Vienna 1906-1913"

"Adolf Hitler was an artist—a modern artist, at that—and Nazism was a movement shaped by his aesthetic sensibility. Cosmopolitan Vienna incubated his peculiar genius as well as his hideous ideas. These views have been in the air recently, and a trenchant scholarly exhibition at the Williams College Museum of Art, in Williamstown, Massachusetts—'Prelude to a Nightmare: Art, Politics, and Hitler's Early Years in Vienna 1906-1913'—advances them."

"The show's curator, Deborah Rothschild, was inspired by Hitler's Vienna: A Dictator's Apprenticeship, by Brigitte Hamann (1999). A forthcoming book, Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics, by Frederic Spotts, promises an interpretation of Hitler as 'a perverted artist.'"

HITLER AS ARTIST, How Vienna inspired the Führer's dreams, by PETER SCHJELDAHL, New Yorker, Issue of 2002-08-19 and 26.

These cites back up my claim.--Cberlet 02:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Christianity, Nazism, and Anti-Semitism

The Chart clearly states that “Christianity…[does] not inherently intersect with supremacist, theocratic, or fascist ideologies.” I don’t see how that could be clearer. Nonetheless, this fact has been misrepresented to create a straw argument. Here are some cites to books that discuss the role of Christianity and Christian apocalyptic belief on the construction of anti-Semitism in Nazi ideology.

• Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages, revised and expanded (New York: Oxford University Press, [1957] 1970) (Note the original subtitle was: Revolutionary Messianism in Medieval and Reformation Europe and its Bearing on Modern Totalitarian Movements).
• Norman Cohn, Warrant for Genocide: The Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (London: Serif, [1967] 1996).
• James M. Rhodes, The Hitler Movement: A Modern Millenarian Revolution (Stanford, Calif: Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University, 1980).
• Andrew Gow, The Red Jews. Antisemitism in an Apocalyptic Age, 1200-1600 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), Gow describes his book as an exploration of the interactions between medieval Christian attitudes to Jews and apocalyptic belief/expectation, both Christian and Jewish.
• Richard Steigmann–Gall, The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).--Cberlet 02:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

My published scholarly articles and a book that discuss Anti-Semitism in detail

• Chip Berlet. (2004) Christian Identity: The Apocalyptic Style, Political Religion, Palingenesis and Neo-Fascism. Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Vol. 5, No. 3, (Winter), special issue on Fascism as a Totalitarian Movement.
• _______. (2004). “Hate, Oppression, Repression, and the Apocalyptic Style: Facing Complex Questions and Challenges.” Journal of Hate Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1, Institute for Action against Hate, Gonzaga University Law School.
• _______. (2001). “Hate Groups, Racial Tension and Ethnoviolence in an Integrating Chicago Neighborhood 1976-1988.” In Betty A. Dobratz, Lisa K. Walder, and Timothy Buzzell, eds., Research in Political Sociology, Volume 9: The Politics of Social Inequality, pp. 117–163.
• _______ and Matthew N. Lyons. (2000). Right–Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. New York: Guilford Press.
• _______. (2000). “Countering Genocidal and Hate Movements in the United States,” The ISG Newsletter, The Institute for the Study of Genocide, No. 24, Winter, pp. 12-17.
• _______. (1998). “Mad as Hell: Right–wing Populism, Fascism, and Apocalyptic Millennialism.” Paper presented at the 14th World Congress of Sociology (XIVe Congrès Mondial de Sociologie), International Sociological Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1998.

This is a partial list.--Cberlet 02:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

A possible solution

If I may propose a possible solution to our impass on using Chip Berlet as a source, I will suggest that the note to his chart be changed from "Genealogy of Antisemitic White Supremacy, Theocracy, and Fascism by Chip Berlet" to read "Genealogy of Antisemitic White Supremacy, Theocracy, and Fascism in the opinion of Chip Berlet." This would accomodate the WP:RS stipulation that partisan source citations be presented as representations of the opinions of their author while also permitting the chart itself to be retained. Rangerdude 06:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted because I simply find it reduandant. I don't disagree strongly though, because I feel that *by him* implies his opinion. I hope that's not coming across as obstructive (such is not the intent, and I applaud efforts at a dialogue), but I honestly fail to see the point. El_C 06:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Identifying it as his opinion (which WP:RS says to do for partisan sources) makes this attribute clear. Otherwise the chart is presented as something factual, the "by" only conveying its authorship. Rangerdude 07:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, I restored that qualification in the interim, pending the consensus (as to his status) to be reached on his article. El_C 07:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

El_C, with all due respect, the issues of the chart here and on the article Chip Berlet are separate. Here it is offered as an illustration of the roots of anti-Semitism, while on the biography it is offered simply as an example of Berlet's work. I don't see any linkage between the two uses. -Willmcw 17:22, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Deep problems with the article

I have been looking at this article for awhile, ever since overhauling the anti-Semitism article, and I am not sure whether it can be saved, or should just be turned into a redirect to anti-Semitism. The problem is that the whole article is essentially original research. The only source cited (besides Chip Berlet's chart, which, whatever its merits, has remarkably little to do with the roots of racial anti-Semitism in the 19th century) seems to be Marx's view, for what its worth. Among the issues:

• The article does not cover roots, it simply talks about types of anti-Semitism, but less thoroughly than the main anti-Semitism article. I can't find any information on this page that is not on the other.
• The catagories themselves. Most authors differentiate between religious and racial anti-Semitism, but where are the other catagories coming from? Why those divisions?
• The material on religious anti-Semitism seems to argue that religious anti-Semitism stems from the fact that Jews are an ethnicity (why this is problematic is not explained) and the doctrine of Supersessionism. The link between the concepts and anti-Semitism is the sentence "The linking of anti-Semitism with the doctrine that Jesus is the only way to salvation has become widespread." Huh, why? The actual roots of religious anti-Semitism are more complicated. Certainly supersessionism matters (and should be treated more deeply), but so does resentment at the Jews for not being converted, the fact that religious debate was taken very seriously in the early Church, the Inquisitions and the drive to root out heretics, the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, blood libels, host desecrations and many other concerns. There are quite a few books on the subject, and it would be good to at least cite some sources.
• The socio-economic anti-Semitism section does not discuss roots at all, it starts with the assertion: "There was a widespread belief in the Middle Ages that Jews took jobs and money from Christians..." Certainly Jews DID take money, as tax collectors, court treasurers, as well as bankers (much of it at the instigation of the local rulers, who usually confiscated it back later, see Aaron of Lincoln), but jobs? And then it says "More commonly, there is prejudice against Jews when they are in positions of power and prestige, though it remains unclear whether their positions are the cause of the anti-Semitism or simply triggers for its expression." Again, entirely assertions, and unclear ones. If this really is a catagory, than a better explaination is needed, as well as some sources.
• The racial anti-Semitism section is not factually correct. The roots of racial anti-Semitism are in the 19th century ideas of nationhood and racial types, with the Jews as the "foreign element" in the midst of th nation. These ideas were cleverly used by political parties and fanned by industrialization. Instead the article seems to lump the whole thing together with white supremacism, which happened much later.
• The political section is again just assertions: "many believe," etc.

I think it would be worth discussing a bit what this article SHOULD cover, before we start editing it futher, since I am not sure what to do to make it relevant. --Goodoldpolonius2 07:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree, i think this article is a waste of space whioch should be merged w anti-semitism, or completely re-written. Why do my improvements ger reverted without comment, btw? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 19:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is no mention made in this article of Prager and Telushkin's "Why the Jews?" Tomer ^TALK 03:21, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

That is a dreadful book, with passages like

"The generally higher quality of Jews' lives, as exemplified by the stability of the family life, significantly lower rates of intoxication and wife beating, higher education, greater professional success, much less violent crime, and greater communal solidarity, has been due solely to millennia of adherence to Jewish law, and provoked profoundly ambivalent reactions from non-Jews."

"At a time when nearly all Christian and Muslim men, and certainly women, were illiterate, nearly all Jewish men and women could read and write, and many of them achieved high levels of knowledge. ...This Jewish passion for study in turn helps to explain why Jews have the highest income of any ethnic group in the United States, earning 72% more than the national average. .....This unique intellectual achievement is due solely and directly to JUDAISM."

Etc... ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 11:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

Sam, I think I restored much of your edit. There were a few things I disgreed with, and so I wrote a mixture of what you wanted and what was there already; and there were a couple of things I disagreed with, like the Holocaust-denier description, so I retained the earlier version.

The text you deleted and I put back is:

In modern times, especially since the Holocaust, supersessionism has been linked to anti-Semitism of both the ethnic and theological kind. The linking of anti-Semitism with the doctrine that Jesus is the only way to salvation has become widespread, especially within Protestantism, but also among the bishops of the Roman Catholic church since the Second Vatican Council. Consequently, to seek the conversion of any people, especially of the Jews, is regarded as a form of religious imperialism.

I've written that it needs a citation. Let me know what you think. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:48, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, are you still working on the article? I really think we should just merge this back into anti-Semitism, or rewrite it from scratch, for the points listed above. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Polonious, it's a while since I read anti-Semitism, and I can't remember what's here that isn't there. This read pretty well when I went through it today, though it lacks sources. Do you mind if I get back to you in a couple of days after I've read anti-Semitism? But in the meantime, if you have ideas for improvement, go for it as far as I'm concerned. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect

So, is there any objection to making this a redirect to anti-Semitism? --Goodoldpolonius2 23:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

In haste, yes. Meaning, at the very least, I want to allow SlimVrigin time to finish her study, so that pertinent material would'nt be accidentally lost. I also want to hear Jay's thoughts on this. But I don't have a strong objection at this time, one way or the other. El_C 23:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I did a long edit the other day, but I must not have pressed save after previewing — either that or there was a server problem, but I think it was my fault because I remember the phone rang just as I finished the edit, and it distracted me — so I lost the edit. That's why the in-use tag was up for a day, because I didn't realize my edit wasn't saved. I'm not sure I have the heart to go back and redo it, so if there are no other objections, I'm fine with redirecting it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:01, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

The problem would be in merging any content from here to there, the anti-semite article is already 68k. Most of that article is "history of anti-semitism", btw. I placed a note @ Talk:Anti-Semitism#Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism asking for input on the subject. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

What content here is not duplicated at that article? This material seems similar, and, again, little of it actually addresses the article title. --Goodoldpolonius2 01:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Its kind of a ridiculous subject, since anti-semitism has been a historical fact since before the word (a misnomer, since arabs are also semites) existed. People have been persecuting or hating Jews since Babylon, and anything since then could be called "Roots of anti-Semitism". A more sensible subject might have been "basis for anti-semitism", but that would probably just be a factional battleground. Anyways, I favor redirecting, so long as no content is lost. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 10:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I am making this a re-direct. I have not seen much information on this page (outside of the Marx material ably spun-off by [[User:El C) that is not also covered in the article on anti-Semitism, but I will try to merge where appropriate. --Goodoldpolonius2 17:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)