Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 → Archive 25

Archiving again

I've archived the rest of the discussion. Not only is it wholly unproductive, it's utterly inappropriate, since NONE of what's been discussed in the past 5 days has anything to do with the article, rather it's almost all been about 1 particular user's antisemitism. This page is for discussing the Anti-Semitism ARTICLE, not about discussing the rationales or excuses or whatever that drive anti-semitism. Please note: the article does not discuss hairbrained ideas for what "causes" antisemitism, it merely describes the phenomenon. For the pathology, please argue at psychological disorder or whereëver such discussion is appropriate. It categorically is not appropriate here. Thanks. Tomer TALK 04:31, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Tomer,

ROTFLMAO! One user's 'anti-semitism'? What a cop out. So pray tell me, what exactly made those comments anti-semitic? Was it because something was said that a Jew didn't like? My comments by the way are wholly appropriate and were a directed critique OF THE ARTICLE.

I've continually made the case that the article is completely faulty in not explaining that as 'anti-semitism' stands now, there is (a) no objective criteria, (b) there is no objective adjudicative framework or process nor is there an discussion on (c) who the final arbiters of what is and isn't anti-semitism is.

Moreover, the article should mention that if something said about a Jew is TRUE, it can NEVER be anti-semitic.

Without these acknowledgements, the article is immensely flawed and anyone who thinks otherwise is mentally feeble or intellectually dishonest.

I know, I know, we all really know what anti-semitism is, just don't let the Gentiles know. Anti-semitism is anything that a Jews deems it to be . And normally that occurs if a Jew thinks the comments/actions/thoughts speak unfavorably of a Jew no matter how true they are. The perfect example I presented was Jews cursing Mel Gibson's wonderful film "The Passion of Christ" as 'anti-semitic'. Another examples is Israel and World Jewry cursing the Pope as 'anti-semitic' for speaking ill of Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians.

The funniest thing about 'anti-semitism' is that without or even the baseless charges of it, the entire World Jewish community would be weaker. Now it is an emotional kneejerk rallying cry, just like the Jewish College Professor from San Dimas, California that is now in prison for faking a hate crime where she said, "Neo-Nazi's vandalized her car".

The problem she faced was that her students saw her smashing her own car and spray painting "Kike!" on it.

Back to the main point. Are we going to fix the defects of this article or just continue ignoring the elephant in the room?

--Titus70AD 04:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Kerri Dunn (the "Jewish College Professor" you refer to) was Catholic; not a drop of the dreaded Jewish blood in her. You about done here? Jayjg (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
True or false, Jayjg: Was Kerri Dunn converting to Judaism around the time she defaced her own car with anti-Jewish slogans? Amalekite 16:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
[1] [2] [3] [4] Jayjg (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, snap!


I want a discussion on the following to be added to the article. This is common sense.

For something to be characterized as 'anti-semitism' or 'anti-anything' it must first be UNTRUE. If it is TRUE than it can't be 'anti-anything' let alone 'anti-semitic'.

Further, to characterize something as anti-semitism/anti-semitic, we must establish (a) an objective criteria, (b) an objective adjudicative framework or process and determine (c) who the final arbiters of what is and isn't anti-semitism is.

I've been told I need to reference a book to make this case but how can you reference what is obvious logic -- perhaps an undergraduate Business Law 101 book.

Without those three components AND a defense of "truth" the article is flawed and that should be mentioned in the article.

Without these acknowledgements, the article is immensely flawed and anyone who thinks otherwise is mentally feeble or intellectually dishonest.

Thoughtful, logical comments? Or just more obfuscation?

--Titus70AD 05:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thoughtful: Wikipedia is not a discussion forum
Logical: Clearly nothing I've said has sunk in. Likely because you're only talking, and not listening.
Obfuscation? WP:AGF WP:NPA WP:WIN
Tomer TALK 05:39, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't going to reply, but then Tomer had to jump in, so I couldn't resist. You have brought up three issues of fact that you had with the article, all of which are not in the article: : (1) The Passion of the Christ, which the article does not call antisemitic (2) Complaints about Palestinians and the Pope, which is not in the article, and (3) Some false allegation of antisemitism by someone who isn't Jewish, which you blamed on the Jews, and which is not in the article. You have no factual arguments with the events described in the article and you seem to not show the slightest embarassment at being repeatedly incorrect. Usually people get bored by now... so, to all the other editors, can we please stop responding and get back to more interesting hobbies? --Goodoldpolonius2 05:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


Goodoldpolonius2,

I clearly stated my thesis - see the 4 points above (objective criteria, adjudicative framework/process, determination of final arbiters, truth as the ultimate defense to charges of 'anti-semtism').

I'm sorry if this was lost on you or you couldn't keep up. As far as the discussion on the Passion goes, that was simply to illustrate the above 4 points to demonstrate with empirical evidence why the 4 points are so crucial to determine what is anti-semitic and when it occurs.

Further, the Passion is just one example among many that prove my statement that often times (perhaps more often than not), 'anti-semitism' is simply anything that a Jew finds offensive or paints Jews in a bad light even if it is true. Again, I'm sorry this was lost on you or you couldn't keep up with the argument. Four points and empirics. Shouldn't be that hard.

--Titus70AD 08:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Titus: If you have something you'd like to see added to the article, write it up, and we'll discuss that. Nobody here except you is interested in discussion about your views, only about the article. What you're proposing is not inviting discussion about the article, you're proposing that we all sit around and waste our time discussing your views. Do that in a discussion forum. Please stop doing it here. Thanks. Tomer TALK 05:44, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Tomer & All,

Apologies if I didn't follow the process properly. That was not my intention. I will write up the section I have proposed and submit for everyone's review.

Thank you. Titus70AD 08:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. In order to save yourself from wasting your own time, before you present your paragraph to us, go over Wikipedia: Neutral point of view and Wikipedia: No original research and Wikipedia: Cite sources carefully (be especially careful about our distinction between primary and secondary sources), and make sure your proposed paragraph is in full accordance with these policies. This is not a threat, just serious advice, because if anyone thinks what you propose violates one of these policies, you'll be in for an argument — and if most people here agree that it violates one of these policies, it will just be rejected out of hand. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Slrubenstein,
Thank you for the writing tips and guidelines. I will check these
links out.
--Titus70AD 02:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Page obviously POV in favor of Jews

This page should focus on facts, not the "right" or "wrong" of those facts. Words such as "worrying" "unfortunately" etc should be removed, as they do not reflect the views of those who might support anti-semitism.

Definitions of anti-Semitism

It might also be worth pointing out that there are a number of formal definitions of anti-semitism, though most of the controversy is over the "new antisemitism" as opposed to the historical stuff in the article. In any case, I reproduced a couple below: --Goodoldpolonius2 19:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I added a reference to the controversial nature of equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semeticism. I support the "controversial" attribution with Anti-Zionism#Anti-Zionism_dictionary_definitions. Vassyana 18:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

ECRI definition

the definition used by the European Commission on Racism and Intolerance, which is part of the European Union, available here: [5]:

ECRI, January 28, 2005 The purpose of this document is to provide a practical guide for identifying incidents, collecting data and supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.

Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and / or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.

Anti-Semitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong”. It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of anti-Semitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

  • Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
  • Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective – such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
  • Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagines wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, of even for acts committed by non-Jews.
  • Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
  • Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
  • Accusing Jewish Citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

  • Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.
  • Applying double standards b requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
  • Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
  • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
  • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

Wow. This definition of antisemitism is rather intense! I will note however that no where in this definition is there anything in specific about taking political action to ban Jewish practices (like circumcision) for ethical reasons. Nevertheless, such people have been accused of antisemitism and there is certain anxiety within such groups of being labeled this way. It is interesting that reasonable criticism of Israel is the only given example of a limitation in the definition. Sirkumsize 00:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Helen Fein definition

The EUMC and a large number of other sources site Helen Fein's (CUNY) definition: "A persisting latent structure of hostile beliefs towards Jews as a collective manifested in individuals as attitudes, and in culture as myth, ideology, folklore and imagery, and in actions – social or legal discrimination, political mobilisation against the Jews, and collective or state violence – which results in and/or is designed to distance, displace, or destroy Jews as Jews."

Dietz Bering definition

Another common definition is Dietz Bering (Univ. of Cologne), who works from Prof. Fein's definition: "A summary of anti-Semitic belief is:) Jews are not only partially but totally bad by nature, that is, their bad traits are incorrigible. Because of this bad nature:

  • Jews have to be seen not as individuals but as a collective.
  • Jews remain essentially alien in the surrounding societies.
  • Jews bring disaster on their “host societies” or on the whole world, they are doing it secretly, therefore the anti-Semites feel obliged to unmask the conspiratorial, bad Jewish character."

Causes of Antisemitism

If I'm reading one of Tomer's posts correctly, he's trying to tell us that an article on antisemitism is not an appropriate place to discuss the causes of antisemitism. Is this logical? When I look something up in an encyclopia do I not expect an explaination on thinking around the causes if applicable and even a history of such theories? Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is supposed to be more indepth than a simple definition of a phenoma. If there is a page I don't know about for the causes of antisemitism please tell me. Otherwise explain why theories about the causes don't belong here? Is it because the best theories on the subject are distasteful to Tomer? Isn't that against the policy of using wikipedia as a soap box? Sirkumsize 02:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The article should (and already does) discuss the causes of anti-semitism, but they should be from verifiable sources, not made up on the spot. Rhobite 02:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Sirkumsize, I think this article does discuss the causes of anti-semitism. It is clear, however, that you are referring to your thesis that the root cause of anti-semitism is repulsion towards the practice of circumcision. You have not adequately proved that point, and every article I have read about any such link between circumcision and anti-Semitism mentions circumcision as just one aspect of what made the Jew different,and therefore an "Other" in many societies - nowhere is it listed as a primary cause.
For example, in Gilman's The Jew's Body, the author has chapters on racial anti-Semitism and its emphasis on many other aspects of Jewish physical difference, real or imagined; including feet, noses, voice, and propensity for disease. Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics, thought that the eyes of Jews were "the sign of their difference, their potential pathology," for example. Freud certainly thought that circumsicion created castration anxieties, but he considered the primary cause of anti-Semitism deicide, and secondary causes the continued persistance of Jews, Jewish seperation from gentile societies, finally writing, in Moses and Monotheism, "The hatred of Jews is at the bottom the hatred of Christians."
I am not supporting any of these interpretations of anti-Semitism, as my personal preference is not semiotics or psychoanalysis, but I am pointing out that the circumcision thesis is not a primary one in the literature that deals with such matters. I understand that it is your theory, but it seems marginal in the literature, or even original research. It also lacks a consensus on this page, even more importantly. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Nah. What Sirkumsize is talking about now is my assertion that Kevin MacDonald's crackpot theories don't warrant inclusion here because the article isn't a discussion about the causes of antisemitism. The article is not a discussion about the causes of antisemitism, it's a description of antisemitism and tangible evidence of the pathology throughout recorded history, the impact it's had on various Jewish communities, the manifestations of antisemitism, and so on, but the main focus of the article is not on "causes" of antisemitism, especially not on crackpot theories about evolution (which is actually in itself a condescension to the rest of humanity, and simultaneously an excuse for rampant stupidity) per MacDonald, nor on Sirkumsize' pathological obsession with his penis and his projection therefrom as a "primary cause" of antisemitism. Tomer TALK 04:58, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I would like to add that MacDonald does not in any way warrant a mention in this article, not just because of the focus of this article, but also because many, many scholars who we do not mention have dealt with the roots of anti-semitism, have theories are actually accepted by the academic community, and are not nearly as idiotic and neo-racist as those of MacDonald. If someone does start an article on the subject, I hope that the authors will do some reading on the generally accepted arguments, rather than just picking the most controversal and sketchy of all possible writers on the subject and blowing his contribution well out of proportion. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Goodoldpolonius2, I believe your assertion that my thesis about circumcision not being supported just isn't so. I've been doing some serious reading up on the subject and it is mentioned by many many authors since Freud. I am really really concerned by this communities apathy towards including it in the article. I think it is a reflection of our societies bias against taking the issue of male circumcision and its effects seriously. It also shows that this community is afraid of real academic discussion on the matter. I will also point out that I have had good references -- not just text -- that I added to this article deleted without provocation simply because they didn't sit well with Tomer's personal taste. Also I have been accused of personal attacks for the most minor infraction while you can see from above that its okay for Mr. Tomer to talk about my supposed obsession with my penis. What is with this double standard of conduct. A unattainably stricts standard for me and a second, rediculous loose one for Tomer. That's fair. I'll also note that the two words I added to the section on relgious antisemitism "or coincidental" were removed. I cannot even add two words to the article? Was there no consensus that political activities to ban circumcision -- a Jewish practice -- are coincidental and not related to antisemitism? Is it not clear yet that there is a problem here? Sirkumsize 07:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

anti-semitism in the middle ages

Surely some mention should be made (as it is in the 'history of anti-semitism in England' article) that Catholic and Islamic doctrines of the time stated that charging interest on loaned money was immoral and that this was a reason (along with their being barred from many trades) that the Jews were traditionally money-lenders and also a reason that they became so disliked in many communities. MagicBez 03:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism

come have a look, and weigh in regarding the proposed redirect. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Passion play and anti-semitism

Vizcarra has made a change I'd like discussed. The former wording asserts that the passion plays was used to arouse hatred of local Jews; the newer wording says that the passion plays sometimes happened to arouse hatred of local Jews. The difference is rather critical. Let's leave aside the fact that the former version should qualify itself at least to make it clear that the passion plays were neither always nor only used for arousing anti-Jewish sentiments; can it be fairly said that there was (sometimes? often?) a deliberate and specific intent to incite such sentiments? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

If we keep "passion plays have traditionally been used to incite hatred towards Jews" implies that a religious tradition of Christians (that is still popular to this day) was used mainly for hatred. Thus implying that Christians are indeed evil people. I can't deny that in the past some people may have used them to incite hatred. I mean, nowadays a lot of people use religion as an excuse to incite hatred towards blacks, jews, gays, muslims etc. However, the purpose of passion plays is to remind people about Jesus suffering (according to Christians beliefs) and not to avenge him or to blame anybody. Saying that because some have used it such different purposes contrary to the Christian belief of forgiveness not only does not make sense but is also a horrible generalization. --Vizcarra 20:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, this is an article about anti-Semitism. Certainly, there was a considerable amount of anti-semitis in the best-known of the passion plays. In fact, here's a quote from the 2000 Oberammergau play booklet: "We must nevertheless admit that this Passion Play, too, contributed in various ways to prepare the soil which eventually yielded the terrible harvest of the extermination of the Jews."[6] --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
That is a comment about the Oberammergau Passion Plays in specific not in general about passion plays. And it contributed because it inspired Hitler to think very bad things about the Jews. The song Helter Skelter by the Beatles inspired George Mason to kill a few other people. Shall we say that the song has traditionally inspired the murders of people and that the game Doom incites students to kill their classmates? (see Columbine High School massacre). --Vizcarra 21:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm going back to my original question. Why was the anti-semitic material inserted into the Passion Plays? Was it simply a reflection of the feelings of the populace, or was it a deliberate socio-political act of the plays' producers? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Which anti-semitic material? --Vizcarra 21:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Is that a serious question? Or are you unaware of the historical anti-semitic content in passion plays in general, and the Oberammergau one in particular? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
It is a serious question. I'm obviously familiar with the Oberammergau since I've mentioned it already. I assumed "Why was the anti-semitic material inserted into the Passion Plays?" referred to plays in general. What was the anti-semitic material? --Vizcarra 22:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
The anti-Semitic material is the charge of deicide against the Jews as a people, and their collective guilt for the death of Jesus. This has historical been a pretense for violence against Jews and anti-Semitism. The Second Vatican Council said as much in 1965 in the Nostra Aetate. Goodoldpolonius2 22:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Who is charging the Jews as a people in the plays? Plays quote Mathew 27:25 "25Then the people as a whole answered, ‘His blood be on us and on our children!’" which refers to the specific crowd, not all Jews. The article, before your edits already spoke about "the pretense for violence against Jews" without generalizing all plays and all Christian communities. Could you quote Vatican II? --Vizcarra 22:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Reverted

"These plays blame the Jews for the death of Jesus". These plays tell the New Testament version of the last hours of Jesus. The plays is focused on Jesus' life not on blaming anybody.

"as Christianity Today stated, "Outbreaks of Christian anti-Semitism related to the Passion narrative have been so numerous and destructive that theologian and Holocaust survivor Eliezer Berkovits concluded, 'the New Testament is the most dangerous anti-Semitic tract in human history'."[7]"

Christianity Today stated that coment by Eliezer and then challenged his position by writing: "But neither the New Testament nor The Passion of the Christ is about Jewish deicide or revenge. Each is about God placing the iniquities of us all on his one and only son, who suffered unspeakable brutality to redeem his estranged children." --Vizcarra 22:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Vizcarra, your reversion criteria is totally ridiculous, this was not out of context at all, Christianity Today is obviously not calling for anti-Semitism, it is clearly saying that passion plays have been used to incite anti-Semitism historically, but that it shouldn't be used for that anymore. The second sentence you quote does not challenge Eliezer's position, it is the same position of the article itself, in fact, the next sentence begins "Now is the time for Christians to disavow the history of Passion-linked hatred" To quote the ENTIRE full last section of the article from Christianity Today:
The Pope may have had the Slovakian papal nuncio in mind when making his remarks about the "lulled consciences" during World War II. When asked in 1942 to intervene on behalf of Jewish children slated by the Nazis to be deported to concentration camps, the nuncio refused. "There is no innocent blood of Jewish children in the world. All Jewish blood is guilty. You have to die. This is the punishment that has been awaiting you because of that sin [of deicide]," he replied. Deicide, which means "to kill God," is the foremost "erroneous and unjust" interpretation of Scripture that has incited so much hostility. In Passion plays, a difficult forum for conveying the theological nuance of humanity's collective culpability, the Jews have often become an inviting target.
Unfortunately, deicide has not been the lone charge directed collectively against Jews. As recently as the early twentieth century, pogroms sometimes erupted during Holy Week in Eastern European nations when rumors spread about Jewish crimes. Inflamed by outlandish accusations, such as the claim that Jews killed Christian children and used their blood to make matzo bread for Passover, unruly gangs searched out Jews to kill and maim.
This style of pogrom dates back to the First Crusade. Until this point European Jews largely eluded organized violence, but marauding crusaders on their way to the Middle East in 1096 stopped to slaughter Jews in the Rhineland. One crusader's account recalls, "Behold we journey a long way to seek the idolatrous shrine and to take vengeance upon the Muslims. But here are the Jews dwelling among us, whose ancestors killed him and crucified him groundlessly. Let us take vengeance first upon them. Let us wipe them out as a nation."
Outbreaks of Christian anti-Semitism related to the Passion narrative have been so numerous and destructive that theologian and Holocaust survivor Eliezer Berkovits concluded, "the New Testament is the most dangerous anti-Semitic tract in human history." But neither the New Testament nor The Passion of the Christ is about Jewish deicide or revenge. Each is about God placing the iniquities of us all on his one and only son, who suffered unspeakable brutality to redeem his estranged children. Now is the time for Christians to disavow the history of Passion-linked hatred and show Jews "how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ" (Eph. 3:18).
Now can you explain why you keep removing this material? Goodoldpolonius2 22:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I already explained it and will explain it again:
  1. I'm challenging the remark that "These plays blame the Jews for the death of Jesus".
  2. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox and the claim that "'the New Testament is the most dangerous anti-Semitic tract in human history'" cannot possibly be substantiated. Prove it before before adding such a controversial statement. --Vizcarra 22:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

This is silly. First, you are ignoring the article above, which you accused me of quoting out of context, and which was clearly in context. Now you are asking for other proof as well? Well, deicide was a common charge in pasion plays:

  • "Deicide, which means "to kill God," is the foremost "erroneous and unjust" interpretation of Scripture that has incited so much hostility. In Passion plays, a difficult forum for conveying the theological nuance of humanity's collective culpability, the Jews have often become an inviting target." --Christianity Today
  • "The Jew, historically the object of derision and animosity, became the living incarnation of Satan. Holy Week, the week beginning with Palm Sunday and culminating with Easter, became a particularly dangerous time for Jews, as Christians perpetrated violence against Jews living in their communities. Given these developments, which, along with New Testament interpretations, were incorporated into the production of Passion plays, it is understandable that these plays evoked intense feelings of hatred by Christians toward Jews. Belief that the Jews killed Christ became translated into action against his killers. As Passion plays kindled latent rage about the supposed deicide by the Jews, they had an important role in perpetuating anti-Semitism. Since Passion plays historically have resulted in violence and negative attitudes towards Jews, we must be particularly careful in this time of increasing anti- Semitism to make sure that we do not continue or reinforce the mistake of blaming Jewish people for the death of Jesus." Boston College's A VIEWER’S GUIDE TO CONTEMPORARY PASSION PLAYS
  • The most pernicious aspect of Passion plays is the repetition of the charge of deicide, that is, that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. The charge of deicide lies at the core of Western antisemitism. The history of physical attacks on Jewish communities stemming directly from Passion plays is well documented. In the years since Rabbi Krauskopf wrote his book there have been significant advances in relations between Jews and Christians and some Christian communities have become aware that the Passion narrative has historically generated anti-Jewish sentiment and violence and are careful about how those narratives are presented in plays and in liturgy. Judaism Spring 2002

As for the New Testament issue, I was simply quoting the article, and am happy to use the quote without the New Testament section, though this is a common view[8].Goodoldpolonius2 22:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

    • "deicide was a common charge in pasion plays" so is the charge that Jews are as a group guilty of deicide. But neither accusation is sustainable, no matter how old the accusations are.
      • Huh?--Goodoldpolonius2 23:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes.--Vizcarra 00:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
          • I don't know what you mean, but if you mean that deicide is false, well, I agree with you. But false doesn't mean people didn't believe it. Heck, they even believe it now, 20% of Europeans blame the Jews for killing Jesus.[9]
    • None of the quotes you have included can sustain the argument that plays blame Jews from deicide although they all conclude that passion plays did in the past caused anti-semitic sentiment, which was the original argument before your last edits.
      • "The most pernicious aspect of Passion plays is the repetition of the charge of deicide" seems pretty straightforward to me. Are you saying that the Jews were not blamed for deicide? --Goodoldpolonius2 23:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
        • What I'm saying is that you cannot possible prove that, I'm not saying that they were blamed or not. --Vizcarra 00:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
          • What the heck are you asking him to prove? That passion plays historically blamed the Jews for deicide? Of course they did. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
            • I don't think that lowering the level of this discussion will help in any way. I am sure it is clear what I'm asking to be proven that passions blamed the Jews for deicide. Wikipedia is not about people's opinions but as facts Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms --Vizcarra 00:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
              • I know, and it's a fact that the Passion Plays portrayed the Jews as deicides. It's not something that needs to be "proven"; it's a simple historical fact. Here's a pretty good article on the issue of Passion Plays and anti-semitism, from passionplayusa.net. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
                • I fail to understand how you are calling a straightforward answer a weasel word, the sentence couldn't be more clear, but you want other sources, howabout: "As the dramatic story of the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus, the passion play has for centuries been powerful and popular entertainment - on stage and screen - in the Christian world. But historically, productions have reflected negative images of Jews and the long-time church teaching that the Jewish people were collectively responsible for Jesus' death. Violence against Jews as "Christ-killers" often flared in their wake." from the CS Monitory or "S uch exegetical niceties, however, eluded the Christians who pioneered the Passion as theatrical entertainment back in the Middle Ages. What came to be called Passion plays were harder edged than the Gospels, dropping Jesus' earlier teachings on tolerance and love to focus on his moment of supreme self-sacrifice. They also imbibed the malignant anti-Jewish spirit of their age, when peasants believed that Jews mixed the blood of Gentile children into Passover matzos. Consistent with such prejudice — and with the black-hat, white-hat needs of early dramaturgy — Passion plays presented Jews as money-grubbing Christ killers, a dramatic rendering that enjoyed a centuries-long run." from [Time Magazine http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030901-477956,00.html]. This couldn't be more clear and well sourced. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • "As for the New Testament issue, I was simply quoting the article" yes you were quoting the article but as this "as Christianity Today stated Outbreaks of Christian anti-Semitism related to the Passion narrative have been so numerous and destructive that theologian" which is misleading since they are only quoting Eliezer Berkovits. --Vizcarra 23:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
      • The quote was not misleading, it is Christianity Today that said "Outbreaks of Christian anti-Semitism related to the Passion narrative have been so numerous and destructive..." and then they quote Berkovitz. Read the article, you are the one misinterpreting, the article ends with the call "Now is the time for Christians to disavow the history of Passion-linked hatred." They do not quote Berkovitz to refute him, merely to say that this is not what the New Testament should be about. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I already read it. Your version was misleading, because you only mentioned that CT quoted Berkovitz after the "Outbreaks" remark. Exactly I agree to disavow the passions from their linked hatred based on erroneous interpretation of the purpose of the plays. --Vizcarra 00:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
          • It only did quote him after the outbreaks remark, the line: "Outbreaks of Christian anti-Semitism related to the Passion narrative have been so numerous and destructive" IS NOT FROM BERKOVITZ, it is from the author of the Christianity Today article. It is not Berkowitz's opinion, which follows after the quote. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Passion play redux

User:Vizcarra has now changed the title of the section. I've reverted it back. This article is about historical anti-semitism, and passion plays played a significant role in the history of European anti-semitism. If Vizcarra wants to write a section on modern passion plays, he's welcome to, but that's not what we're talking about here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't. The original title of the section was === Modern passion plays === See here if you didn't like it back then why didn't you change it just "passion plays" which I agree is more with accord with the article. I don't know why you have to be so contentious adding that type of remarks in the edit summary or with language such as "What the heck are you asking him to prove?" --Vizcarra 17:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm contentious because you've acted unilaterally. Let's try to build a consensus here before making radical changes in the meaning of the paragraph. It's unambiguous that the Passion Plays historically (and within my lifetime) portrayed Jews as deicides; you seem to be the only one here that has a problem with this fact. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Vizcara, Time Magazine, the Christian Science Monitory, Boston University, Judaism magazine, and Christianity Today are "wives tales"??!!? I think the consensus here is that you seem to reject any standard of proof that passion plays historically blamed the Jews for deicide, and often incited anti-Semitic incidents (whether this was intentional or not is not discussed). What would it take to convince you?
Also, no one is saying Christianity is anti-Semitic in nature, and the quote I included was not intended to smear Christianity, it was from Christianity Today, and I removed it as soon as it bothered you, but the basic message about passion plays historically is entirely correct, as Christianity Today's article indicates. This article is about what was, not what ought to be. Goodoldpolonius2 01:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
You didn't want to seam Christianity but added a quote saying that the New Testament is one of the most dangerous writings? Interesting POV. You never proved that historically passion plays blamed the Jews for deicide, only people's opinions, which can be biased. You can find quotes of people claiming men never landed on the moon, but that's rather a reason to say that historically it is believed that men never landed on the moon. You have to show more than people's opinion to prove something, otherwise you can only claim that some/many/several people think that. You did not include quotes from Time, CSM, BU, JM, and CT, just CSM and CT and they don't even justify their views. --Vizcarra 17:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually my understanding of the passion narratives in the new testaments and this is coming from a New Testament scholar is part historical and part theological glossing. We can certainly deduce that Jesus was tried and executed as a threat to Roman power in Jerusalem, (though what exactly is true or fabrication during the trial and execution is open to interpretation). We also have to mind the era when the gospels were written. They were written down about 30-40 years after Jesus, well the synoptics were and John 60-70. They were written in a time period when the cult of Christianity was growing and being persacuted themselves by not only Roman auhtorities (udring Nero-s reign) but also Jewish synagouge rabbis. John whose gospel is deemed the most anti-semitic of all was composed after the council of Jamnia which deemed christianity as a heresy and excommunicable, therefore leaving Christians out of the mix of being protected under the roman religious tolerance edicts of etablished religions. I believed the writer of John's gospel is reacting to the Jewish anti-Christian actions with his own anti-Jewish rhetoric. It was sort of a PR battle between the two faiths. The christians of this era were seeing jews as their main competitors and actual enemy. We all know that once the Christians became the majority and the tide of their power stem over. We must acknowledge that part of the anti-semiticism in the passion is reflected by Christian reaction to anti-christianity espoused by the  temple leadership and mostly by later Pharises rabbi leadshio after the fall of Jerusalem.

previous wording better and more complete?

That you agree with it more does not make it better. And more complete? You deleted information about:

  1. Who publishes the publication the magazine. And thus who is behind the opinion being quoted.
  2. Link to the publication and link to the Church that publishes it.
  3. The name of the article
  4. The "most famous" and perhaps oldest passion play
  5. The real reason behind the play
  6. Link to the other magazine being quoted
  7. Information about the New Testament which is the inspiration to the play, which is a quote from the same magazine and same article.

--Vizcarra 19:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Passion Plays - opinion of an atheist

I really cant see much in the way of POV from either side in the current - 20:22, 10 August 2005 - Jayg - version. I'd be all for keeping this one if possible. 62.252.0.7 23:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

To the anon

That some Jews are anti-Zionists doesn't mean that many anti-Zionists are Jews. You'd need a source for that claim. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:17, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Antisemitism in France

The report about antisemitism in France is completely inaccurate. You can say that there are "frequent vandalism and desecration of Jewish cemeteries and synagogues", but you can't conclude from this situation that "Anti-semitism remains strong in France". Polls show that a minority of people believe in these opinions [11].Polls show that racism and antisemitism are decreasing in France[12]. Saying "The French POPULACE openly collaborated with the Nazi occupiers to identify Jews for deportation and transportation to the death camps" is insulting and a caricature. You can say that the French State openly collaborate with the nazi: that's a fact accept by historians (Robert Paxton), and french autorities (Jacques Chirac made a speech where he recognize the responsability of France). You can describe the role of the administration, who made the files, of the police in the arrestation, of the SNCF, who made the transportations, and was paid for it, the denounciations : these persons represente certainly a lot of people, but you can't say it's the entire, or even the majority of the "populace".--Geremy78 14:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

First, you are absolutely correct. That the Vichy govt was complicit in helping the Nazis bring the Holocaust to fruition in Vichy France is a rather well-established historical fact. The first poll you referenced is quite encouraging, although I don't see what I'd call a very thorough discussion of the demographics of those polled, nor do I know anything about the polling company. The second link actually deals with the subject at hand, namely the increase in anti-semitic acts. I would propose the following rewording:
Anti-semitism was particularly virulent in Vichy France during WWII (1939 - 1945). The Vichy government openly collaborated with the Nazi occupiers to identify Jews for deportation and transportation to the death camps.
Today, despite a steady trend of decreasing antisemitism among the population[13], acts of antisemitism have become a serious cause for concern, with increasingly frequent vandalism and desecration of Jewish cemeteries and synagogues, as well as an increase in assaults against Jews[14]. According to the National Advisory Committee on human rights, antisemitic acts account for a majority (72% of all in 2003) of racist acts in France.
This removes the bit about French collaborating with the Nazis to "get rid of the Jews", not because it didn't happen, or because it wasn't prevalent, but because it's not particularly relevant. Until someone comes up with a scale to measure the extent to which the populace of each occupied country or region betrayed their Jewish neighbors to their deaths, it's best to not include it. Certainly the rate of betrayals in France was higher than in Holland, but the distribution was not "higher in France, lower in Holland", it just happened to be higher in some places in France. It also might be prudent to discuss somewhere that survey about the increase in antisemitic acts in France in the past few years, which the French government (or was it the EU?) suppressed, because it indicated that the vast majority of the perpetrators were Muslims. Tomer TALK 22:51, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

That's really better! --Geremy78 14:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've changed the article accordingly. Lemme know whatcha think. Tomer TALK 02:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Jews aren't black-blood-sucking devils right?

This edit looks ridiculous, but I can't prove anything. Jews are not "responsible for the exploitation of black labor, bringing alcohol and drugs into black communities, and unfair domination of the economy" right?

(I forget to sign things. Race Reality)
  • Right. But the unsourced "impartial observers" are the problem, I'd guess. I don't see much reason for refuting the NOI position, since it's expressed as the claim of one particular group, as opposed to a generally or widely held position. If you want to include the refutation, don't just express your opinion (regardless of how accurate and correct you are); quote somebody's response to the NOI position instead, not some anonymous impartial (according to whom?) observers (of what?). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The NOI has stated their position. Many, especially those blacks that deal with Jews in their communities, believe the NOI's claims to be correct, and not "spurious".69.221.63.168 15:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Of course "many" believe that. "Many" fully subscribe to NOI's positions. And "many" do not. This is not the place for discussing the veracity of allegations or the lack thereof; what we're trying to do is say what the allegations are, and if there are citable responses to the allegations, refer to them as well. We're reporting and recording, not advocating. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Go the other way. Is there any evidence for these beliefs? (A real earnest effort to determine how they justify the POV), then a summary of their evidence if any, or lack of evidence. If somebody who supports the position finds we left out significant evidence, they can always add it. If there are refutations by any group, they can be added too. Gzuckier 17:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok. Good idea. I just added that there's no evidence. Race Reality 05:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, if there were any evidence, we would've seen it. What happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"? On the other hand, adding the word "Claimed", makes it NPOV and we should leave it alone. --Sebastian Kessel 15:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You say so Jpgordon, if you continue providing no evidence. After some helped to found the NAACP, after millions of dollars have gone to black groups, after campaigning to unionize black labor, I doubt jews are doing any of that. Race Reality 19:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Race Reality, I know your intentions are good, and you may very well be right. I have to point out, though, that it is a core wikipedia policy that it does not matter whether editors' beliefs are right or wrong. You may be right that this article is lacking certain content (since all wikipedia articles are works in progress, all are incomplete, though we do keep trying). But whatever toes in cannot be based on the knowledge or views of the editor to do so would violate our Wikipedia:No original research policy. I urge you to read that policy and the NPOV policy carefully before continuing this discussion. The issue here is NOT whether a certain claim (about Blacxks, about Jews) is right or wrong. The question is, how to contribute to this article without violating our NPOV and NOR policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Race Reality, you can ask Jpgordon for evidence. Jpgordon can ask you for evidence. But neither of you can ask the NOI for evidence — that would constitute original research and thus violate our NOR policy. Again, the accuracy of your edit (the one Jayjg just reverted) is not the issue here. But your edit was editorializing and violated our NPOV and NOR policies. Please go over them carefully, then you can edit without getting into these kinds of conflicts with other editors. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Ok I give up, this has crossed the line into the ridiculous. Someone else will deal with this, or not. And the correlation of my edits and Jayjg's reversions suggests this is just stalking.
  • And no, asking NOI for evidence would not be "original research". How else would someone support a statement about what the NOI's position is? I haven't done that, but now that you mention it, Someone should do that. Race Reality 21:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Look, dude — either follow our policies and you can make a serious contribution, or don't, your choice. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

If you don't want to be "stalked", then stop inserting original research into articles on my watchlist. Jayjg (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

What qualifies to be included

Does for instance, the capital tax imposed by Turkey which was also directed against Jews during World War II, which the government justified by this: “Stop all Jewish immigration, while provoking incidents within the country with the goal of creating a Jewish exodus, keep them away from all government activity, be it financial or economic” (source: Ridvan Akar, Askale Yolculari—Varlik Vergisi ve Çalisma Kamplari (Passengers to Askale—Capitial Tax and forced labour camps), Belge Uluslararasi Yayincilik, Istanbul, 1999); enough important to be included in the article? Fadix 02:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I sure think it's worthy of inclusion. Well sourced, and quite explicit. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

19th & 20th Centuries to be deleted

This is an article about why the section of the 19th and 20th centuries should be deleted. To take information from an unscholarly work that only mentions history from one point of view is terrible. There is little historical evidence to support the view that the papacy was anti-semitic in the 20th century.

Well, the 19th century papacy is certainly clearly anti-Semitic in the most direct way : Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) had the walls of the Jewish Ghetto rebuilt after the Jews were released by Napoleon, and it was maintained up to Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) who called the Jews "dogs," increased restrictions on them, and blamed them for the revolutions of 1848. I don't know as much about the 20th century, although the passivity of Pius XII in the face of the Nazis may deserve a mention. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Newcrusade, Christian opposition to anti-Semitism is lovely, but we cannot delete facts from encylopedia simply because some people opposed the oppression. Of course there were loving and tolerant folks at any time, and some even spoke and fought against persecuting others. I think we should mention those brave souls, along with references of historical facts. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

First, my response to Goodoldpolonius2: While there were certainly some actions that popes have taken that were anti-Semitic is a matter of fact. But, to say that "the 19th century papacy is certainly clearly anti-Semitic in the most direct way" is false. Here is an article, written by RABBI and HISTORIAN David G. Dalin, who wrote a book (The Myth of Hitler's Pope) critiquing the numerous errors of Kertzer's book, which I believe is where you get your sources. My second response is to Humus sapiens: I certainly agree that we should not delete facts of events that occurred, but we should not fail to mention the whole side of the story either. We must present what actually happened. While it may be difficult to do so in the article, it certainly is worth inserting cross references to the other article Christian opposition to anti-Semitism, which will soon include references on the countless papal actions taken against anti-Semitism. Way too much of the language in that article acts as if the entire papacy hates the Jews--such a claim cannot be farther from the truth. Newcrusade 20:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

On Deicide

It may not have been a Papal announcement, but Church officials often taught that the Jews were collectively responsible for the death of Jesus. This was stated as early as Biship Melito of Sardis (d. 180) and repeated as late as 2000, when Vatican official Father Peter Gumpel, realator of the canonization of Pius XII said in two different interviews that "It is a fact that the Jews have killed Jesus. This is an undeniable historical fact." (Globe and Mail, March 18, 2000). We can make the language reflect this difference between official and actual policy, but even Caroll in Constantine's Sword (winner of the National Book Award) calls the charge of deicide "the ground of all Jew hatred" within the Church. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that the Jews did kill Jesus, but they alone did not kill him. All Christians, Catholics, and everybody is responsible for his death. Your quote by Fr. Gumpel does not prove that the Church "taught" that the Jews were "colllectively" or "permanently" responsible for the death of Jesus. Also, is one bishop representative of the whole Church? By no means! There have been lots of bad bishops, priests, and even a few popes. One statement from Bishop Melito doesn't prove anything. Also, you have not provided the quote from Bishop Melito, what exactly did he say? Constantine's Sword has many problems with it, the author has his own personal agenda of hatred against the Church. He chose only to research the point of view that supports his viewpoints, while ignoring all the other historical data that the Church was not anti-semitic. Newcrusade 18:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Newcrusade, can you give us some help here by providing some support for your views? At least something reputable attacking Caroll, which seems to be generally extremely well regarded. Also, as I said, I am happy to help you craft a fairer phrasing, if you don't like the one in the article. --Goodoldpolonius2 19:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
How can people possibly say that the church didn't teach that the Jewish people kill Jesus? The Inquisition is living proof that they did. It was on their doctrine, and part of cathecism (sorry about the spelling). Even more, Pope John Paul II even apologized for it... I have absolutely nothing against the Catholic Church of the 2000s, but we can't forget what DID happen in the past. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
The Inquisition persecuted many groups of people (heretics, prostitutes), even though nobody claims these groups "killed Jesus" as well. --Vizcarra 23:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Vizcarra is right, the Inquisition really isn't linked to deicide charges. The work of historians like Caroll are more relevant to this particular point, and I would definitely be interested in any material discrediting Constantine's Sword, where Carroll makes the argument about deicide being an underlying tradition. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Goodoldpolonius2, this is the same article I provided before, but it has some info on stuff relating to Carroll's views: http://www.chretiens-et-juifs.org/article.php?voir%5B%5D=1700&voir%5B%5D=1182 Also, I think the article Christian opposition to anti-Semitism clearly contradicts or at least shows that Carroll selective uses only the sources that support his point of view. I am interested in fairer phrasing, my main problem is that you CANNOT correctly say that the Church taught that the Jews were "collectively" or "permanently" responsible for the death of Christ. While, it is true that the Jews did kill Jesus, the Church holds that all Christians are responsible, not just the Jews. Let me clarify, I am not denying nor was not denying that the Jews did kill Jesus, BUT I am denying that they were "solely responsible" or "collectively" or "permanently" responsible, Christians are also responsible, so was Pontius Pilate. Sebastiankessel, I hold my view with Goodolpolonius2 on this matter about the Inquisition. Furthermore, no the charge that the Jews are solely responsible/collectively/permanently responsible CANNOT be found in any Catechism, nor in any Catholic doctrine. I suggest that you read what the Catechism says is a Church doctrine: "revealed teachings of Christ which are proclaimed by the fullest extent of the exercise of the authority of the Church's Magisterium. The faithful are obliged to believe the truths or dogmas contained in divine Revelation and defined by the Magisterium." Church doctrines are also infallible and usually established by either a Council or the Pope speaking ex cathedra. NOWHERE can it be found in Catholic doctrine that the Jews were "solely" or "collectively" or "permanently" responsible for the death of Christ. Newcrusade 20:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Newcrusade, I think your changes make sense. Thank you for leaving in sourced material, and your addition of material has strengthened the article. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think they make much sense; they are mostly unsourced claims, and a citation from someone whose notability is not established. Jayjg (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, what do you mean that Rabbi Dalin's notability is not established? Are you questioning his credibility? Here's some of his credentials: http://cspc.org/ Newcrusade 03:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Newcrusade writes, "BUT I am denying that they were "solely responsible" or "collectively" or "permanently" responsible, Christians are also responsible, so was Pontius Pilate." Well, okay. But so what? The views of editors are absolutely irrelevant to the article. The only thing that matters is that some people have either used the accusation of deicide to support anti-Semitism, or have claimed that other people were motivated by their belief that Jews killed Christ. And by "some people" we all know that this categorically excludes contributors to Wikipedia. None of our personal opinions are relevant to this discussion, SR

True, but WHERE is the evidence that members of the Church taught that the Jews were "collectively" or "permanently" or "solely" responsible? IT DOESN'T EXIST! It is not I who have to establish that the members of the Church never taught this, because how can I prove something that the Church never said? I don't have to, that's my point. Somebody has to prove that it DID teach that if you want to keep those words in the article. While, it may indeed be true that members did teach, this you need to provide concrete examples. However, I am satisfied that the article does mention that this idea of Jewish deicide was never a part of Church doctrine/dogma. Newcrusade 03:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to note that there is NOTHING anti-Semitic about the fact that the Jews did kill Jesus (historical fact), but it is anti-Semitic to say that they were "solely" or "collectively" or "permanently" responsible for his death. Newcrusade 03:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

In order to keep the statement that Christians have held the Jews "collectively" responsible for the death of Jesus, you must have at least one statement that uses the word "collectively" from a Christian in the middle ages. But you have NONE! You cannot use statements that are not backed up with historical evidence. Unless you can provide evidence, the whole sentence about deicide must be deleted, because there is nothing anti-Semitc about the fact that the Jews killed Jesus. But, it would be anti-Semitic if you could find a statement from a Christian in the middle ages who said the Jews were either "collectively" or "permanently" or "solely" responsible for the death of Jesus. But you have NO evidence. Newcrusade 03:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a "historical fact" that the Jews killed Jesus? If the New Testament accounts are to be believed, it was the Romans who did it. As for collective responsibility, what was the 1965 Nostra Aetate decree if not a repudiation of that formerly commonly held belief? Even then it equivocated, stating that "neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor all Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his passion", implying that at least some Jews today can be charged with those "crimes". The church belief in collective and eternal Jewish guilt is ancient: for example, Origen (185 - 254 CE) stated: "The blood of Jesus falls not only on the Jews of that time, but on all generations of Jews up to the end of the world." Jayjg (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, yes true the Romans did, but it was the Jews who chanted "crucify, him, crucify him." I don't think that Nostra Aetate was a repudiation of "that formerly commonly held belief." It is very questionable as to whether or not that belief was "commonly" held; I'm not aware of any statiscal studies that even existed from those periods. You have made an interesting point about the Vatican II document. It certainly does appear that it did equivocate on the use of the term "all." Perhaps, I need to clarify myself. When I say that it is a historical fact that the Jews killed Jesus, I agree with the document that the Jews of "today" are not responsible, but that some of the Jews back then were responsible to some degree. As for the quote from Origen: that certainly does support your point for several reaons. first, because the article about deicide was under the section about the middle ages. Origen was from hundreds of years before the middle ages. Origen is not a saint, and he alone definitely does not show that the "Christians" as a whole held that the Jews were "collectively" responsible. While, there certainly were some Christians who held this belief, the Origen quote neither proves that all Christians or most Christians have held this belief nor does it prove that this was the official teaching of the Church. Newcrusade 15:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

More critiques of Carroll's Constantine's Sword, Kertzer...

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php?id_article=201

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0206/articles/rychlak.html http://www.chretiens-et-juifs.org/article.php?voir[]=517&voir[]=4002

Other editors: please doublecheck the edits [15] made by anon (Newcrusade?). ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Newcrusade, let's not whitewash history. BTW, please don't forget that "Christians" include many denominations, including Eastern Orthodoxy. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

A few things of importance here - nobody is claiming that the Church is currently anti-Semitic, but, similarly, it is accepted by almost every source that the Church was historically widely anti-Semitic. We can look at User:Newcrusade's own source, from Commonweal magazine above, which does indeed attack Carroll, but states "Constantine’s Sword is behind the curve of history. Had this book been written fifty years ago it would have been noteworthy. But its message has been heard, digested, and acted upon. And the new openness of the church to the Jews has led to a dramatic transformation of relations between Jews and Christians." This certainly does not absolve the Church of historical anti-Semitism.
Similarly, from one of two most respected sociological journals in the world, the American Sociological Review (the other might be AJS) "Do Christian Beliefs Cause Anti-Semitism? Russell Middleton, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 33-52: "Historians have made a convincing case that the Christian church was largely responsible for the development of anti-Semitism in ancient and medieval times (Parkes, 1934, 1962, 1963; Isaac, 1956, 1964; Simon, 1948; Trachtenberg, 1943). The evidence suggests that economic and other social factors were of relatively minor significance, at least initially. It was the theological picture of the Jew created in the New Testament, in the patristic literature, and in subsequent teachings of the church that apparently unleashed the virulent hatred and persecution of Jews in the western world." Note that the current WP article on anti-Semitism does not go as far as repeating these ("largely responsible") results, or placing sole blame on the Church, but this does seem to represent scholarly consensus that is sourced and clear on the topic.
I am all for adding balance to the article, and praised User:Newcrusade when he or she added in sourced opinions that contracdicted individual writers like Kurtzer, but the repeated deletion of well-documented history is more troubling. The Church had enlightened members, but it was also, historically, a font of anti-Semitism, though it is not today. This really seems supported across any range of sources. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

To Humus sapiens: I'm not whitewashing history, i'm only acknowledging what really happened, namely that the Church WAS NOT anti-Semitic in its past. But, I don't like it when people try to paint the entire history of the Church as anti-Semitic. I realize that "Christian" does include other denominations, but I'm primarily concerned here with the Catholic Church, not other churches. To Goodoldpolonius, the Church WAS NOT a font of anti-Semitism, did you even read the article Christian opposition to anti-Semitism? Also, just because it appears that "almost every source" says the Church was anti-Semitc doesn't make it true. What is popular is not always right. I doubt the findings of your ASR article, other historians would disagree. You cannot blame the Church for anti-Semtism, or say that it directly advocated it. OVERALL, though I am (at least for the time being) willing to compromise. I will allow Kertzer in the article so long as I can add sources that critique his position. Newcrusade 02:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Newcrusade, thank you for your willingness to compromise. As an additional note, I did read Christian opposition to anti-Semitism, and, while some Christians certainly spoke out and protected the Jews, there is also Christianity and anti-Semitism and this article, which discuss the other side of the coin. All of my arguments are directly from authoritative sources, not some popular vote, and I think that I have always made it clear that I am more than willing to read any sources you might provide as counters. Anecdotes of Christians who spoke out against anti-Semitism, however, do not contradict the strong evidence that, as a whole, the church served as a source of anti-Semitism, but I would, again, be happy to read evidence to the contrary. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, while I do have other books that I highly suggest reading, I unfortunately do not have them on me right now (sorry). But, besides that I would like to note that the article about Christian opposition ot anti-Semitism is not merely anecdotal evidence. It is a preponderance of evidence, versus the little that is offered in the article of Christianity and anti-Semitism. All of those in the article about Christian opposition are from very authoriative sources, ones that are not nearly as controversial as the ones that you quote. In fact, I have not even heard of controversy regarding the works that are mentioned on that page. Mere statements of opinion by however many authors you want to quote do NOT surpass evidence that is quoted from PRIMARY documents (which is where a lot of those quotes came from...they came from an authoritative report, which quotes PRIMARY documents). While I certainly did not quote the actual words (because I can't translate Latin yet), they quote the summary of what the documents said. Just because the entries in the article are short for each document, doesn't mean you can dismiss it as anecdotal evidence. There are so many of these documents also! Do you know how many there are on that page? While you do provide some and while there certainly were some anti-Semite actions taken many of your sources are very questionable in authority, you quote/summarize opinions from the author, or it appears that some of the actions are taken out of the context of the historical period and thus possibly not anti-Semite. I merely want the truth, however I am willing to let you allow Kertzer to be mentioned in the article of anti-Semitismso long as I can mention authors who critique him. Newcrusade 00:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Definition of anti-semitism correct?

I didn't want to change this myself in case I'm wrong, but forgive me for saying this but isn't a "semite" a person of middle eastern origin and therefore anti-semitism is hostility towards or prejudice against Jews, Arabs, Persians, etc.?

Please read the section Anti-Semitism#Etymology_and_usage. Jayjg (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
got it now

Etymology redux

For the last couple days, a couple of anons and then Vizcarra have been adding a new second sentence to the introduction:

It should be noted, however, that the term "Semitic", refers to the people who have traditionally spoken Semitic languages or to things pertaining to them which would include Arabs, since Arabic is the most widely spoken Semitic language.

Pointing these editors to Anti-Semitism#Etymology and usage hasn't helped. I suggested discussing these changes on the talk page; I guess I'll start the discussion myself, since SlimVirgin, noting a revert war going on, properly has protected the article.

My question to Vizcarra et al is: why should this be the second sentence of the article? What information does it convey about Anti-Semitism? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Response to Etymology redux

My answer to Jpgordon is:

  • The first sentence says boldly that the term "is hostility towards or prejudice against Jews". Given the controversy about the correct use of term, then it should be noted.
"why should this be the second sentence of the article", it doesn't have to be, it shouldn't be the first, but it should be in the introductory paragraphs.
One of them main functions of an introduction section is to engage the reader so they will be encouraged to read the entire writing. So, "having a section about etymology" doesn't prevent a writer to add the subject in the introduction. Especially, in this case, as it has been explained, rather extensively (and perhaps excessively so) about racial and religions anti-semitism, when "you" have a section about each topic.
  • "Pointing these editors to Anti-Semitism#Etymology and usage hasn't helped."
It didn't help because the first time I noticed the remark was removed was because it was "wrong", I corrected it and the second time it wasn't wrong, but was removed because "we" have a section about it.
If you have several objections about content then it's better to note them individually, because the removal of my re-introduction of the "controversial" paragraph seemed to have had a different justification each time and different content each time. This would help prevent edit wars and silly locking (as opposed to "protecting") of pages. --Vizcarra 05:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't belong at all. It represents a recent attempt to change the meaning of the word -- a combination, perhaps, of folk etymology and false revisionism, in proportions which depend upon the writer in question; that is, it's an error, whether deliberate or misguided. Some people who have attempted to add this claim before have been shown to have had ill intention towards this article; others seem simply to be misinformed.

The fact of the matter is that the expression antisemitism was promulgated by Jew-haters to refer to their hatred and to cloak it in "scientific" (anthropological) terms; and that it has since then been used by both Jew-haters and their opponents (both Jewish and otherwise) to refer to this specific hatred and its history.

It is true that linguists call Arabic and Hebrew both "Semitic" languages, and that once upon a time anthropologists referred to "Semitic peoples", although this latter terminology is obsolete, along with the rest of racialist classification. Nonetheless, the linguist's use of the word "Semitic" does not change the fact that antisemitism has always referred specifically to antipathy towards, and discrimination and violence against, Jews.

Pick up a dictionary, dudes. Just because the English language would make more sense if antisemitism meant antipathy towards "Semitic language" speakers or some such, doesn't mean that it does. English is a nasty mess and has lots of confusions like this. There's no cock on a cocklebur, and antisemitism means what it means, not that other thing. --FOo 05:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Speaking of which, why don't we move to the unhyphenated spelling (the earlier attempt to discuss this Talk:Anti-Semitism (archive 20)#How to avoid recurrent confusion? Anti-Semitism vs. Antisemitism was hijacked by Titus70AD &co. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Response to Fubar's comments

  • "It represents an attempt to change the meaning of the word".
Not is isn't, but rather recognizes the controversy around the correct usage of the term.
Yes it is. Please present credible examples of what you consider "the correct usage of the term" before the Holocaust. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Read the article, read Semitic. --Vizcarra 17:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
But this article is Anti-Semitism not Semitism. Even though the two words sound as antonyms, they are not. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 21:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "Some people ... have had ill intention towards this article"
It shouldn't matter what are the assumed intentions of the editor(s), what should matter is the validity or lack of the edit and its relevancy to the article or section.--Vizcarra 05:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "It represents a recent attempt to change the meaning of the word" vs "and that once upon a time anthropologists referred to 'Semitic peoples'"
Well, is it recent or "once upon a time"?--Vizcarra 05:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Please reread the phrase, it is quite clear. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
No, it isn't, is it a recent or ancient controversy about its use? --Vizcarra 17:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "The fact of the matter is that the expression antisemitism was promulgated by Jew-haters"
Actually it was "probably first used in 1860 by the Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider" according to Anti-Semitism#Etymology and usage--Vizcarra 05:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "that antisemitism has always referred specifically to antipathy towards, and discrimination and violence against, Jews."
If you notice, my edit had no mention of the word "Anti-Semitic" but rather about "Semitic".--Vizcarra 05:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Please check with a good dictionary and don't engage in original research. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
A good dictionary?
  • How about Merriam-Webster: "'Semitic: of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic'".
  • Oxford Dictionary: "'Semitic: a family of languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as Phoenician.'".
  • The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: "Semitic: relating to, or constituting a subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic language group that includes Arabic, Hebrew, Amharic, and Aramaic.".
  • How about a "good" encyclopedia, Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Semitic: group of languages spoken in northern Africa and the Middle East that constitutes one of the branches of the Afro-Asiatic".
So, original research is evil? I do that for a living, but in Engineering.  :)
My contribution is not original research, it comes from Semitic and Semitic language. --Vizcarra 17:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Again: this article is Anti-Semitism not Semitism. Even though the two words sound as antonyms, they are not. Try again: you'll be surprised. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 21:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "English is a nasty mess and has lots of confusions like this."
That is why this type of clarifications are essential. --Vizcarra 05:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Every human language is a confusing mess. Historically, it's been a bad habit to start "clarifications" with the Jews, so why don't you start your campaign elsewhere. Good luck. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
"Historically, it's been a bad habit to start 'clarifications' with the Jews"
That is an interesting point of view and very un-wikipedia-like.
You propose to change the term's usage. That is not what encylopedias do. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
So only "Jews" can edit Jewish-related articles? is there a WP:Apartheid guideline I'm unaware of?
see Strawman. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
"Why don't you start your campaign elsewhere?"
I'm not running for office.--Vizcarra 17:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Your campaign to reform English language. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 21:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps another approach?

Can someone provide either sourced or anecdotal evidence that there is substantial confusion over the term? That is, that readers and non-experts are likely to look up anti-Semitism when they mean Islamophobia or anti-Arab sentiment, or that the terms are commonly used synonymously. Knowing if there is a problem would help in deciding whether a note in the intro is important. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's about as likely as someone seriously saying, "I'm like a chocoholic, but for booze."
Making the separation between antisemitism and the historical anthropological meaning of Semitic is part of the reason that many scholars choose to spell it "antisemitism" rather than "anti-Semitism", by the way. Besides the fact that "antisemitism" is closer to the orifinal German, it also emphasizes that antisemitism isn't "opposition to 'Semitism'" -- there isn't anything called "Semitism". Rather, it's the belief system of (self-described) "antisemites"; that is, Jew-haters. (See the third para of the Etymology and usage section of the article.) --FOo 15:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Foo, you don't need to convince me, I would prefer to keep the intro the same, and don't think we need to explain the difference in the opening, just as we don't need to explain that a supervisor is not a better version of a visor. HOWEVER, if those who want to add the disclaimer in the intro can show that there is widespread confusion among good-faith non-experts between anti-Semitism and anti-Arab sentiment, then that would serve as evidence that such a change is warranted. So, does anyone have such evidence? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
"if those who want to add the disclaimer in the intro can show that there is widespread confusion among good-faith non-experts between anti-Semitism and anti-Arab sentiment, then that would serve as evidence that such a change is warranted."
Wikipedia articles are written for the non-experts. I don't think experts on this matter will go to Wikipedia for information. Although I am sure experts on the matter realize that Arabic, among other languages, are Semitic. --Vizcarra 17:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Please show us a single instance of anyone suggesting otherwise. That's not the point. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
(Ok, just more indentation :) )
"[S]uggesting otherwise", what point? That wikipedia is aimed at non-experts or that Arabic is a Semitic language? --Vizcarra 18:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Enough with the indent... :) Guys, can somebody tell me why is it such a big deal to have the sentence there? What is the damage to the article? That's what I don't get. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this is more acceptable. It should be noted that the term "Semitic" (or "Semite") is sometimes used to refer to the people who have traditionally spoken Semitic languages, (like Hebrew, Arabic or Aramaic) instead of just the Jewish people. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Why should that be noted? This isn't an article about the term "Semitic" or "Semite". Jayjg (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Besides, the phrase "it should be noted" should never be used in Wikipedia. If something should be noted, note it. "It should be noted" is book report and magazine article language -- not encyclopedic. (Consider that nit firmly picked.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Cooling down?

Ahem, sorry to barge in. It seems that we're letting religious and personal passions get involved here. I think we need to look at the facts:

  • That the word Semitic includes the arab people should be beyond discussion, the language classification alone makes it clear.
  • That the word Anti-Semitic therefore is meant to include the arabs too.
  • That the word Anti-Semitic is generally used against jewish people, regardles of their ethnicity (i.e.: Me being a jew of german descent, I really don't think I have a lot of semitic genes).
  • That this dychotomy may be confusing to some people.
  • That this is an encyclopedia after all, and we should be avoiding confusion not adding to it.

Therefore, I propose leaving the paragraph on top of the article, since it adds clarification to the term and it really doesn't push any particular POV. Furthermore, we should also add a sentence explaining that even the term is meant to include Arabs (and other peoples too) it is mostly used in the sense we know.... although the rest of the article (and the first sentence) makes it plenty clear. Just my two cents... --Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, S, you are just wrong. There are not¨"semetic genes" and the word "anti-Semitism" referst to hatred of Jews, period. I don´t like people who hate Arabs or Italians either, but that´s nopt anti-Semitism. SR
SR, sorry I didn't express myself correctly... People of middle-eastern ethnicity (and ethnicity is indeed determined by genes) sometimes are called 'Semites' or 'Semite Peoples', that's what I meant.
I agree with you on the widely accepted use of the word, but I feel that we should clarify a little more, for the sake of avoiding confusion. That clarification just doesn't take anything away from the explanation or meaning.
Lastly, please don't write things like "you're just wrong", it feels rude (at least to me). I understand we might see differently in this point and we can disagree ad-infinitum, but that's no reason to put somebody down like that. Unfortunately, nobody has the absolute truth, if there even is one. Thanks. :) --Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The issue of "antisemitism" and the word "Semite" is dealt with more than adequately in the Etymology and usage section of the article. It has also been dealt with time and time again in this talk page -- see several of the archives, which deal with it specifically. In short, it is not even a dead horse any more, but a vaguely horse-shaped smear on the ground.

It is an unfortunate fact that many of the people (not necessarily the Wikipedia contributors!) who push the "anti-Arabism is antisemitism" meme are doing so in (what I would regard as) a dishonest manner. They go on to try to claim that "Israel is antisemitic" for having fought wars against Arab nations, for instance ... or that "Palestinians can't be antisemitic, because they're Semites" -- in direct contradiction (or ignorance) of some of the Palestinian Authority propaganda that makes use of some of the vilest antisemitic images seen since the defeat of Nazi Germany.

(Full disclosure: I'm neither a Jew nor a supporter of Zionism, but I thoroughly detest antisemitism.)

If anything needs to be done in this regard, it is to post a notice on this talk page, similar to the one on the page for Talk:Gdansk, making it clear that misusing the terminology is not OK. --FOo 17:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Foo, you are right in the "beating a dead horse", so I'll try to write this as concisely as I can and then I invite everybody that wishes to continue this discussion to do so on my talk page. I think I made my point on previous posts.
While I agree with all of your points above, the only one I am trying to make is that a simple aclaratory sentence doesn't prejudice the reader for or against any explanation, just makes the text richer and accurate.
I felt a little defensive after your reply (it's probably me, since it's the 2nd time I feel this way today) so I feel compelled to say that I am indeed Jewish and abhor antisemites, regardless of what 'semite' might mean. Two of my grandparents spent years in Auschwitz, and from them I learned that hate is inhuman regardless of who is directed at. Ok, this has gone on waaaay too far.
Cheers, --Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

S, I apologize if I was rude. For what it is worth, ethnicity is not necessarily about genetics and often is not about genetics. I agree the article should be clear that anti-Semitism = hatred of Jews and not hatred of all or any other peoples who speak semetic languages, but I think the article conveys this and is better explained ijn the body. SR

SR, no offense taken, it's the lack of ability to convey emotions that makes writing so ambiguous sometimes... In regards to the point in question, I believe in being over explanatory rather than risking confusion. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so if I understand where we stand, there are at least a few people who feel that the term is confusing, and a clarifying sentence or phrase in the intro is in order. What sentence is being suggested currently? A disambig across the top stating "Anti-Semitism is the modern sense is not related to the outdated anthropological concept of Semitic races?" Or changing the first sentence to read "Anti-Semitism (alternatively spelled antisemitism) is hostility towards or prejudice against Jews (see entymology below for usage), which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized violent persecution, of which the highly explicit ideology of Adolf Hitler's National Socialism was the most extreme form." Or something else? I certainly don't think the most important thing about anti-Semitism is that it doesn't apply to Arabs, so, if we want to disambig, lets try to do it lightly. What are the proposals? I would like to see something concrete before discussing further. Goodoldpolonius2 19:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I agreem you can see my proposal for change above in section "Perhaps another approach?". --Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any purpose in including an additional discussion of the etymology of the term in the opening paragraph, it's already the first section of article. Please recall that this is an article about Antisemitism, not Semites. Oh, and genetic testing indicates that German Jews have quite a bit of "Semitic blood" in them. Jayjg (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey, don't mind at all to have them! :). Jay, since "Anti-Semitic" has an obvious relationship to "Semitic", at least ethimologically speaking, I don't see the explanation to be redundant. Plus, it's not a discussion, it's just one sentence. I don't get why this is such a big deal. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
The point is that it is a sentence about a different topic. Though the words are etymologically related, the terms themselves are not. Antisemitism, for better or worse, is "Jew-hatred". For historical reasons this silly term is used, rather that the more accurate "Jew-hatred", but regardless it is still a word in its own right having nothing to do with "Semitic"; you might as well have an explanation of the meaning of the word "Anti" in there as well. The Anne Frank page doesn't have an introductory sentence explaining the meaning of the term Franks, even though the source of the last name is etymologically related. Jayjg (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Now you're being ridiculous and condescending, but I'll try not to take it personally... I don't think its a sentence about a different topic but rather about disambiguating the topic in question. But since I'm the only proponent of this theory, I'll be a good loser and give in to the majority. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 21:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
My intent was neither to be ridiculous nor to condescend; my comments were entirely serious. Jayjg (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
If you'd prefer another analogy, we don't have an explanatory sentence at the beginning of Kindergarten that a Garden is actually a place where one normally finds plants. Jayjg (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Maybe because #1: There isn't any confusion on the usage of the term "garten". However, there is about the term Anti-Semitic, since the term Semitic includes more than Jews and could be argued that it should include hate towards Arabs. #2 Kindergarten, does not have an etymology section. --Vizcarra 22:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
This will be my last post regarding this subject, I hope I can at least be understood, since my frustration is growing and I may violate WP:NPA... I'd rather chill and let it go. There is a huge difference between the pairs Kindergarten-Garden and Anti-Semitic-Semitic. The first two are words that share a common root. The second pair are two words that seem to be antonyms but they really aren't, as Humus_sapiens very well pointed out. I just felt that an explanation would be useful to the casual reader. It seems that we'll assume that if you got to this article, you already know word meanings and its usages... But wait, if you already know all that why would you go check an encyclopaedia?... Sorry for the sarcasm, I'm frustrated.
As I said before, I'll be a good loser and give in to the majority, after all this is a democracy and you win some, you lose some. I hope I have offended nobody and that "it's all good".
--Sebastian Kessel Talk 22:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree, there shouldn't have been much controversy about the inclusion of an inocuous statement. However, all contributions to the article are stalled for such a simple difference of opinion. --Vizcarra 22:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Arabs are semites, and this needs detailed discussion (more than a sentance) because so many Jews hate arabs, and so many arabs hate jews, yet jews who hate arabs are essentially never labelled "anti-semites", but arabs who hate jews almost always are. Its very confusing to anyone who knows what semite means (like me). Maybe its because I'm in germany, but I prefer "Judenhass" myself, at least its clear. Sam Spade 22:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Sam, the detailed discussion is indeed in the later in the article. I was only arguing for an introductory one-liner. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I am curious. It simply hadn't occurred to me that people might be familiar with the term "semite" before they are exposed to the term "antisemitism". Sam, was that your own experience? But more importantly: Gooldoldpolonius2 was (as he usually seems to be) very much on the right track with the minor edit he suggested above. I'd do it a little differently: Anti-Semitism (alternatively spelled antisemitism; see below for etymological issues)..." Makes double use of the existing parentheses (they are, after all, a somewhat endangered species), and bundles the spelling issue with the etymological issue. Of course, this won't take care of the people who won't get as far as the first paragraph past the intro, and is perhaps redundant. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I doubt it. My guess is I heard of anti-semitism long before I knew what a semite was (it gets far more airtime). To ad a fun twist, I know a Jewish lady who insists it is racist not to include anti-arabism under "antisemitism". She's also an anti-zionist, so go figure. Sam Spade 13:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Noblesse Oblige

This last discussion left me a little shaken and full of self doubt. I pointed a co-worker of mine to the article. This guy is known among to be particularly naive and he's has expressed a lack of knowledge and experience of all things Jewish... To be put bluntly, to my standards, the guy has no clue. After reading the article I asked him a couple of questions, to gauge his impressions and reactions. It was clear to him what the article meant... entirely. If he has no problem getting it, I can't see who will...I stand back and corrected. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

S, thanks for putting it through this useful test. I don´t think anyone has questioned your intentions. But, picking up on earlier discussion, maybe you could work on the Semitic article. One of the whole pooints of an online encyclopedia is to take full advantage of links and hypertext, which allows people to leave the article to go in depth on a particular point. Let´s make sure linked articles are consistent with this one, and, where appropriate, offer information not directly relevant or relatively minor to this article. SR
Thanks SR, I'll do my best to be useful wherever I can... I'll see If I can add something of value, then. :) --Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
How many, who are not familiar with Anti-Semitic do you really think will read the entire article? Most people don't read entire articles (including many editors), that is one of the reason wikipedia has a "Contents" section. Many people just read introductions and/or conclusions, hoping to find all relevant information there and if they are curious about a topic in particular they will be able to find more information about it. Although I once knew Semitic meant to include Arabs as well, I forgot and since then I have always related Semitic to Jewish, especially because of the popularity of the term Anti-Semitism which as "hate towards Jews" may cause many to think that Semitics are just Jews. I don't think that there should be much controvery about adding a note about the term semitic. Or we can just hope everybody will read the entire article and just forget about the introductory section. I would hope not. --Vizcarra 23:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, it helps that the etymological explanation is in the first paragraph after the TOC. And that the explanation is clear on Semitic's introduction... And just I saw firsthand that if somebody takes the time to read even some of the article, they'll get it. Unfortunately, I have to take the position opposite to the one I had before. I hate to be wrong, but I was. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
The content is there, yes. After you scroll-down twice. There are even editors that have sugested adding a note to clarify that Arabs are semites. If editors have missed it, what can be expected from the casual reader? --Vizcarra 18:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, you are conceding the point that the note is there. I think its high enough on the article (1st in the TOC) to make the impression. If the reader wants to know about more semites, then he/she is in the wrong article. :) --Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

"You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink." Our task is to write clear, NPOV, accurate articles. Millions of people will read them, or might one day. We cannot predict how each one will read it, nor can we cater to the learning-styles of each reader nor should we shoot for the lowest common denomenator. If someone doesn´t understand something, they can tell us why in the talk page or even suggest improvements — remember that this is a wikipedia meaning anyone can contribute, which means none of us has to anticipate how all others will read it. Let all who come participate. SR

Actually, we can predict how readers will read articles and how people will read website. These are topics that are part of the studies in Marketing, web-design, etc. There are even guidelines about color schemes, and content distribution. We don't have to cater the learning-styles of each reader but to the learning-styles of most readers. You cannot assume that people will read entire articles, and all published writers and editors know this, that is why "introductions", and abstracts were created. The problem with this article is that an important piece of information such as "anti-semitic is 'hate towards Jews' although 'semitics' are Jews, Arabs, etc." is lacking in the introduction. While it details some other topics. So one cannot be mentioned while others are detailed. Introductions should include all important points of the article, even though we have a section on ethymology, that section is not reflected in the introduction. We cannot assume that everybody who does not read the entire article and would instead read "anti-semitic is hate towards Jews" will take the time to edit the talk page. --Vizcarra 18:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree that we need to be broad and not narrow in our style. Having said that, the meaning of the word is "hate agains Jews", period. I don't quite agree that the alternate meaning is of that much importance since I have never ever heard about anybody using anti-semitism to refer to Arabs. I think that your point is valid but in the end, I think its very clear that only Jews are included in the definition, since nobody else is mentioned. I just read the intro before answering and I think that the omission explains almost as much as if the mention was explicit. As I said before, if somebody is interested in the word Semite, they should go to its article. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:23, 12

September 2005 (UTC)

Spelling?

Article says: "Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase "antisemitic prejudices" ("antisemitischen Vorurtheile")." I believe it is "Vorurteile" - No "h" - check it out. MEW 13:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Immigration Act - "not as stated"

Irishpunktom has removed the phrase the Immigration Act of 1924 in the United States used quotas to reduce Jewish (as well as Italian) immigration from the article with the cryptic comment "not as stated". Tom, could you explain what you mean? Jayjg (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

1911 Encyclopædia Britannica

Pwqn (talk · contribs) appears to be adding information from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica to multiple articles. [16] I'm not sure how his addition helps improve this article, considering that the content itself seems mired in a number of problems including stereotypes, and loaded and archaic language. I've moved the text from the main article below for the review of other contributors. I would like to know why Pwqn believes adding old information to current articles is helpful in any way. IIRC, 1911 sources are used when no other information is current, and there is usually a request for an upate in such cases. Text of Pwqn's addition follows. --Viriditas | Talk 10:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The extreme section of the anti-Semites, who had given the movement its quasi-scientific name, declared that it was a racial struggle--an incident of a supposed eternal conflict between Europe and Asia--and that the anti-Semites were engaged in an effort to prevent the so-called "Aryan race" from being subjugated by a "Semitic" immigration, and to save Aryan ideals from being modified by an "alien and demoralizing oriental Anschauung". The Jews contended that this anti-Semitism was a mere atavistic revival of the Jew-hatred of the middle ages.
There was and is no essential foundation for either of these contentions. Religious prejudices reaching back to the dawn of history were reawakened by the modern anti-Semitic agitation, but they did not originate it, and they have not entirely controlled it. The alleged racial divergence was, too, only a linguistic hypothesis on the physical evidence of which even contemporary anthropologists were not agreed (Topinard, Anthropologie, p. 444; Taylor, Origins of Aryans, cap. i.), and, even if it were proved, it had existed in Europe for so many centuries, and so many ethnic modifications had occurred on both sides, that it could not be accepted as a practical issue. It is true that the ethnographical histories of the Jews and the nations of Europe had proceeded on widely diverging lines, but these lines did more than once cross each other and become interlaced. Thus "Aryan" elements are at the beginning of both; European morals have been ineradicably semitized by Christianity, and the Jews have been Europeans for over a thousand years, during which their character has been modified and in some respects transformed by the ecclesiastical and civil polities of the nations among whom they have made their permanent home.
[...]
Anti-Semitism was exclusively a question of European politics, and its origin is to be found, not in the long struggle between Europe and Asia, or between the Church and the Synagogue, which filled so much of ancient and medieval history, but in the social conditions resulting from the emancipation of the Jews in the middle of the 19th century.
If the emancipated Jews were Europeans in virtue of the antiquity of their western settlements, and of the character impressed upon them by the circumstances of their European history, they none the less presented the appearance of a strange people to their Gentile fellow-countrymen. They had been secluded in their ghettoes for centuries, and had consequently acquired a physical and moral physiognomy differentiating them in a measure from their former oppressors. This peculiar physiognomy was, on its moral side, not essentially Jewish or even Semitic. It was an advanced development of the main attributes of civilized life, to which Christendom in its transition from feudalism had as yet only imperfectly adapted itself.
The ghetto, which had been designed as a sort of quarantine to safeguard Christendom against the Jewish heresy, had in fact proved a storage chamber for a portion of the political and social forces which were destined to sweep away the last traces of feudalism from central Europe. In the ghetto, the pastoral Semite, who had been made a wanderer by the destruction of his nationality, was steadily trained, through centuries, to become an urban European, with all the entrepreneurial activities of urban economics, and all the democratic tendencies of occidental industrialism.
Excluded from the army, the land, the trade corporations and the artisan gilds, this quondam oriental peasant was gradually transformed into a commercial middleman and a practised dealer in money. Oppressed by the Church, and persecuted by the State, his theocratic and monarchical traditions lost their hold on his daily life, and he became saturated with a passionate devotion to the ideals of democratic politics. Finally, this former bucolic victim of Phoenician exploitation had his wits preternaturally sharpened, partly by the stress of his struggle for life, and partly by his being compelled in his urban seclusion to seek for recreation in literary exercises, chiefly the subtle dialectics of the Talmudists (Loeb, Juif de l'histoire; Jellinek, Der Jüdische Stamm).
Thus, the Jew who emerged from the ghetto was no longer a Palestinian Semite, but an essentially modern European, who differed from his Christian fellow-countrymen only in the circumstances that his religion was of the Semitic form, and that his physical type had become sharply defined through a slightly more rigid exclusiveness in the matter of marriages than that practised by Protestants and Roman Catholics (Andree, Volkskunde der Juden, p. 58).
Unfortunately, these distinctive elements, though not very serious in themselves, became strongly accentuated by concentration. Had it been possible to distribute the emancipated Jews uniformly throughout Christian society, as was the case with other emancipated religious denominations, there would have been no revival of the "Jewish question". The Jews, however, through no fault of their own, belonged to only one class in European society--the industrial bourgeoisie. Into that class all their strength was thrown, and owing to their ghetto preparation, they rapidly took a leading place in it, politically and socially. When the mid-century revolutions made the bourgeoisie the ruling power in Europe, the semblance of a Hebrew domination presented itself. It was the exaggeration of this apparent domination, not by the bourgeoisie itself, but by its enemies among the vanquished aristocratic reactionaries on the one hand, and by the extreme Radicals on the other, which created modern anti-Semitism as a political force.

Inserting POV commentary into direct quotes

Why are people inserting commentary into direct quotes from the New Testament (i.e. the quote from John)? It's hard to understand how modifying direct quotes complies with policy. Jayjg (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I guess I'm confused here. The direct quote starts with "You are of your father the devil" (John 8:44); the "inserted commentary" preceding it is replacing "Jesus said to them", but that's back in John 8:42, so if the quote's supposed to be accurate it should read, "...Jesus said into them...'You are of your father'". Vizcarra is right in that it does appear to be the Pharisees who don't agree with him that are being addressed here. His phrasing is not quite right, though. And the point is that the way this verse is used, not what is actually meant -- so it doesn't really matter what may or may not have been said to whom. Perhaps the best solution is to simply remove the preface and start right off with the direct quote. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Agreed; the section provides a list of quotes from the New Testament, so there should be no commentary in it. It appears MPerel has fixed this. Jayjg (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Another problem is, that there are dozens of versions of the Bible. We could, perhaps, indicate which one we are using so as to avoid future conflicts on what the verses actually say, I used KJV because it's a classic version. --Vizcarra 18:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
      • You didn't quote the KJV at all, you inserted an introduction entirely of your own making into a quote from the RSV. Jayjg (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I didn't say I quoted it, I used it. As in I read the chapter to determine who "them" was referring to.
        • I didn't insert "an introduction entirely of [my] own making" Chapter 8 of John indicates who is this "them" as in any piece of literature, them is a substitute for using the persons/objects' names after you have mentioned them once.
        • I didn't insert anything "into a quote", I explained who "them" was referring to, and then I included the quote.
        • No, it is not "fixed". The article mentions "you", however there is no explanation of who "you" is. I will get to that tomorrow, I won't fall into 3RR traps. --Vizcarra 19:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
          • I understand your wanting to put the quotes in context, as an answer to those who find these passages antisemitic. But the better way to do that, since the paragraph is about identifying passages some construe as antisemitic, is to simply list them without commentary. Then in a followup paragraph, provide common arguments given (context, etc) that counter the idea that these passages were intended in an antisemitic way. That way we're not qualifying the POV of one side during the presentation of that POV, but presenting it honestly from that perspective. Then the followup should present the POV of the other side. What do you think? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 20:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
                  • How is the text antisemitic without knowing who is being addressed and told that their father is the devil? Marsden 21:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
                    • We don't actually need to convince the reader that these passages are antisemitic; just list them as examples of passages some find antisemtic. See my comment below explaining my argument on this. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 23:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
            • That is an option I am willing to consider, even in addition to the context explanation. Providing context is an attempt to balance POV, not to argue against one case or the other. An argument at the end of the inclusion could rely on the explanation of context. I am fine not providing any POV and letting the reader decide the meaning behind the verses, as long as thy are presented in context. --Vizcarra 20:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
              • We agree on balance. The better way, imo however, is to list the quotes directly without context, because the point is not to convince the reader to consider whether these passages actually are or aren't antisemitic; the point is to present which passages are seen to be anti-semitic from the POV of those who think they are. And it's often the case that people who interpret passages a certain way don't consider the context, indeed it may even be that many come to hasty conclusions about it precisely *because* they don't consider the context. This is why I think that presenting the context as part of the presentation of the POV describing which verses are seen as antisemitic is actually an obstacle, too much qualifying. We're not trying to present the "real meaning" of the verses, but rather the perception of people who interpret them negatively, which as I pointed out, doesn't necessarily take context into account. Where context should come in (I believe) is in the followup presentation of the POV that counters that these passages are not antisemitic (context in this case is part of the counter-POV argument). In summary, it should be presented this way: POV1 finds the passages x, y, z to be antisemitic; POV2 counters that these passages are not antisemitic because ...(1) context, (2) other reasons, etc. An analogous situation would be with Talmud quotes. Many nonJews take offense by certain verses in the Talmud (and similarly, many nonMuslims take offense by certain passages in the Koran). If I were to neutrally present this, I would use the same formula I gave above. Any contextualizing would happen in the counter POV, because people offended may not be (and in fact are likely not) considering the context, just basing perceptions on the direct text. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 23:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
                • Presenting context does not have the purpose of convincing the reader of what one opinion or its opposite. It is intended to remove bias, since the passages are already in a list of "anti-Semitic verses" (of some sort), so there is already a POV present and that is what the context is supposed to remove. Even with context many will think that they verses are in fact anti-Semitic, again... providing context does not have the purpose of convincing anybody of anything. I don't think an explanation as to why the passages may be anti-Semitic or why they aren't is necessary and it will lead into endless argument. I just don't see how providing sources out-of-context is of any benefit, especially when a casual reader may not know who they or who are. I can include them in a list of "anti-[insert anything here]" and provide the sources to "defend" my case, since there is no explanation on who "they" or "who" it may just work.--Vizcarra 23:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
                  • The brief intros are actually fine. You're probably right that the article doesn't need a debate about whether the passages are or aren't antisemitic. If such a debate were presented here, I would in that case prefer the formula I described above, but the "context" you added in the latest edit is just a brief detail identifying the addresser/addressee, which I have no problem with. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 23:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, by re-inserting the claim that Jesus was talking to Pharisees, you have in fact already violated the 3RR rule, which also deals with "complex reverts" and other attempts to game the system. Please respect the Arbitration Committee ruling against edit warring, of which you are well aware, and please respect the 3RR and revert yourself before it is too late. Jayjg (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually... no
from 5 AM November 3rd to 5 AM November 4th (24 hour period)
from 5 AM November 4th to 5 AM November 5th (24 hour period)
        • or:
from 2:47 AM November 3rd to 2:47 AM November 4th (24 hour period)
from 2:47 AM November 4th to 2:47 AM November 5th (24 hour period)
<<which also deals with "complex reverts" and other attempts to game the system." It takes one to know one. Some of us are here to improve articles, what you call "complex reverts" are my attempts to find the best way to phrase the section, with the collaboration of other editors. Not to "game the system".
<<respect the 3RR and revert yourself before it is too late>> Is this your answer to every disagreement? --Vizcarra 20:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Greeks anti-Jewish?

Where's the evidence that the ancient Greeks were anti-semitic. How can you tar a whole race of people like that??? The Jews themselves ass-kissed Alexander and in return he left them alone. They went on to write him into their religion as a mono-theist to make his dominance more palatable.

Anyway, I would like to see evidence of this ancient Greek 'anti-semitism' please. Or do the Jews really believed that every hegemon since the dawn of time has singled THEM out in particular for prejudice. Yawn. Story's getting a bit old now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.213.215 (talk • contribs) .

Alexander wasn't even Greek, meaning how he interacted with Jews is irrelevant to the issue. No one's going to listen to you when you pay no attention to real facts. (Poster has been trolling similarly [and even more inaccurately] on multiple pages and is responsible for at least one racist vandalism). Superm401 | Talk 18:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Uh, one could argue that there were no Greeks back then. There certainly was no state called "Greece." Be that as it may, who is saying that "ancient Greeks were anti-Semities?" This statement is wrong, not because ancient Greeks were not anti-Semites" for the same reason that it is wrong to say "Germans are not anti-Semites" — it is just meaningless to make such a huge generalization. The issue is not that Germans are or are not anti-Semites, but that there were and are German anti-Semites. Similarly, there were Greek anti-Semites. Or, let's be more precise: the Nazis were anti-Semites. The Hellenic regime of Antiochus Epiphenes was, if not "anti-Semitic" (depends on how you define the word) definitely "anti-Judaic" and persecuted the Jews. And there were during Roman times periodic conflicts between Greeks and Jews. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
There are and were plenty of anti-semetic Germans who weren't Nazis, and a few Nazis who weren't anti-semetic. You kind of contradict your generally valid point in that sentence. Superm401 | Talk 20:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I grant your point, but I also trust you understand what I meant to say, right? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Jewish race

Most social scientists argue that "race" is socially constructed, which means that whether the Jews consititute one race, many races, or no races depends entirely on historical and social circumstances. What is important in this article is not what "Jews" are (something no wikipedia article should arbitrate; we are not here to proclaim the truth, only to provide neutral accounts of verifiable views). What is important in this article is what "anti-Semitism" is. Anti-Semitic literature is full of talk of the Jewish race; the notion of race is essential to anti-Semetic discourse, and anti-Semitism is therefore a form of racism. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antisemitism/Archive_21&oldid=1136524810"