Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Early Christianity

I don't think that not wanting christian women to marry jews back in this time should, in itself, be considered antisemitic. They wouldn't have wanted Muslims or Hindus marrying christian women either. Jews were the only other religious group living in europe at that time so that probably explains the rule being explicitly against them. Most orthodox jewish families would disown a daughter if she married a gentile. Nobody labels orthodox jews as anti-gentile for this.

Recent Additions

Bait or, Bat Ye'or is not a reliable source for her views --Aminz 08:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsesne. How come a scholar cannot be a reliable source for his or her own view? Beit Or 08:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

For using them in wikipedia per WP:RS --Aminz 08:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What? Again, I just cannot understand what you mean, if anything. Beit Or 09:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Lewis, Cohen, Esposito all reject her as having extreme views and writing myth. --Aminz 08:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

References? I'm not aware of Lewis or Cohen rejecting her "as having extreme views and writing myth". Beit Or 08:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

References:

Bernard Lewis states that

"If we look at the considerable literature available about the position of Jews in the Islamic world, we find two well-established myths. One is the story of a golden age of equality, of mutual respect and cooperation, especially but not exclusively in Moorish Spain; the other is of “dhimmi”-tude, of subservience and persecution and ill treatment. Both are myths. Like many myths, both contain significant elements of truth, and the historic truth is in its usual place, somewhere in the middle between the extremes."cf. Bernard Lewis, 'The New Anti-Semitism', The American Scholar Journal - Volume 75 No. 1 Winter 2006 pp. 25-36.

Lewis says these are myths and that like many myths, both contain significant elements of truth and according to Mark Cohen, Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, they equally distort the past. ref: Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. by Mark R. Cohen. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01082-X, p.xvii , p.11

Lewis in his book The Jews of Islam listed one of Bat Ye'or books as emphasizing the negative aspects of the Muslim record.

This is the only explicit mention of her in the quotes above. "Emphasizing negative aspects" does not even remotely equal "having extreme views and writing myth". What Lewis means is that Bat Ye'or is correct about the facts, but the fact she presents do not amount to a full picture. If anything, this citation confirms Bat Ye'or's standing because in the same footnote to Chapter 1 of The Jews of Islam Lewis reviews works of Antoine Fattal, Arthur Stanley Tritton, Shelomo Dov Goitein, Norman Stillman, and other distinguiahed scholars. This is an enviable company to be in. Beit Or 09:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You can refer to Cohen's book or read Dhimmitude about this term. "The term entered English-language use after the 1996 publication of the book "The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam. From Jihad to Dhimmitude. Seventh-Twentieth Century"[2] and the 2003 followup "Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide"[3] by Bat Ye'or. She is widely thought to have invented the word[4] but she credits assassinated Lebanese Maronite leader Bashir Gemayel for the term."--Aminz 09:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Read this [1] Beit Or. --Aminz 09:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"Go read something" is an offensive comment, not a response to my argument. Beit Or 09:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Beit or, I didn't say go read... Anyways, all I added was well sourced to Lewis. Do you think Bat Ye'or contradicts Lewis and Cohen? --Aminz 09:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

John Esposito, a professor of International Affairs and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, criticized Bat Ye'or for lacking academic credentials.

Frankly, I can't care it less for the opinions of that Saudi-sponsored writer, who never produced a single valuanle piece of research. Beit Or 09:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

He is an scholar. And that's my point. --Aminz 09:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? What topics did he research? What did he contribute to our knowledge of Islam? Beit Or 09:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Being the editor-in-chief of The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, The Oxford History of Islam, The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, and Oxford’s The Islamic World: Past and Present is enough. He is quite wellknown.--Aminz 09:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

--

The previous version[2] is unsourced and when it is sourced, it is sourced to Bat Ye'or. --Aminz 08:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What about George Gruen? And are contending that one needs a secondary source for the Qur'an? Beit Or 08:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

For Qur'an yes, it is a primary source. please read WP:RS. Most of the sentences there are unreferenced and account for original research (please see WP:V and WP:RS). You can also have a look at the sourced material I've used and their references. --Aminz 08:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've pointed to you at leats one more good source and you have ignored it. Furthermore, inline references are not required, and this article has extensive literature in the "references" section. Beit Or 09:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The Qur'an on its own couldn't be used(it is a primary source) and if one references to a book, page number and book should be specified. --Aminz 09:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the documents Bat Ye'or presents are useful but her conclusions are not. And that's the point of others objection. She acts like a lawyer and tries to prove a pre-decided case rather than having a quest for truth. --Aminz 08:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's just your personal opinion, which has no significance. Beit Or 08:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Eitherway. --Aminz 09:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have to use Lewis et al to buttress your point, you must be in trouble.

There was no such a thing, yeah right

The version that starts with "There was not such a thing that would be called Antisemitism in Muslim lands before the establishment of the state of Israel" is severely POV and factually wrong. I am not saying the other version is perfect, but quote mining cannot not change facts. See Maimonides, Farhud, etc. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, that's true. please find secondary academic sources(preferably not a medieval one) for that to *make it neutral* (if you think it is not). You can at most argue that it is POV not that it is unfactual.

H.S. regarding quote mining, please see WP:Assume good faith (an official policy).

By mainmoinds you probably refer to his letter to the Jews of Yemen. Regarding that Mark Cohen however quotes Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson, a specialist in medieval European Jewish history, who cautioned that Maimonides' condemnation of Islam should be understood "in the context of the harsh persections of the twelfth century and that furthermore one may say that he was insufficiently aware of the status of the Jews in Christian lands, or did not pay attention to this, when he wrote the letter". Cohen, continues by quoting Ben-Sasson who argues that Jews generally had a better legal and security situation in the Muslim countries than in Christendom --Aminz 10:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I am going to sleep for now. bye bye--Aminz 10:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I do AGF, thanks for reminding. No, I am not talking about only one letter. Maimonides was a refugee from the Almohades. And "better than Chr-ty" does not mean there was no AS. To say "There was not such a thing" would be factually wrong. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

H.S., the point is that hostility or persecution is not equal to anti-semtism. Anti-Semitism is a theological hostility; to persecute Jews simply because they are Jews. Surely, Christians were also persecuted under Almohades. Anti-Semitism is a purely western concept alien to traditional Islam, Lewis says(please see the above link). Cheers, --Aminz 10:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please also read the above discussion. --Aminz 10:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish this was true, but it is not. And Farhud you decided to avoid. Even your version is full of "however" and omits important (but I guess inconvenient) points - you replaced them with template sect-stub. Won't work. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

H.S. the stub is for new-antisemitism. I dunno about Farhud. It happened in 19xx, please find a reliable source published by a renowned press /or written by a renowned scholar and add it. If you are in the process of finding it, then please add POV tag. Your approach is not proper. You are removing reliable sources and replace them with OR. That's unacceptable. --Aminz 11:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

H.S. A quote doesn't fix the OR problem. I need to check the source yet. The publisher is New York: HarperCollins Publishers, not a univ press or other ones which particularly publish scholarly books, meaning that it is not peer reviewed. The claim is so strange. In comparison with Christianity Lewis states:

"But until fairly modern times there was a much higher degree of tolerance in most of the Islamic lands than prevailed in the Christian world. For centuries, in most of Europe Christians were very busy persecuting each other; in their spare time, they were persecuting Jews and expelling Muslims—all at a time when, in the Ottoman Empire and some other Islamic states, Jews and several varieties of Christians were living side by side fairly freely and comfortably."

And this tells me more that there should be problems with your source. Will add some quote from Cohen soon. --Aminz 11:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark Cohen states that "Islam has, despite of many upsets, shown more toleration than Europe towards the Jews who remained in Muslim lands". cf Cohen (1995) p.xvii --Aminz 11:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Lewis states that in most respects the position of Dhimmis "was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval Europe": for example, in contrast, Dhimmis rarely faced martydom or exile, or forced compulsion to change their religion, and with certain exceptions they were free in their choice of residence and profession.--Aminz 11:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sourced text which was referenced by scholarly publishers like Princeton University Press is removed and text from HarperCollins Publishers is added, which is not even a scholarly press. And still we are asked to Assume Good Faith. TruthSpreader^Talk 11:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Even then, the added source doesn't mention the word "antisemitism". It should be specifically linked to anti-semtism. --Aminz 11:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The scholarship of the author should be checked. The paragraph, to my eyes, is contradicting Lewis's arguments. I don't have Lewis book with myself now though.--Aminz 11:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul Johnson (journalist) is a journalist! TruthSpreader^Talk 11:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Every book, which has ISBN doesn't make it a scholarly work. To the best of my knowledge, all polemics also have ISBNs for their publications. It is the publisher that distinguishes a scholarly book from others. TruthSpreader^Talk 11:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it doesn't. --Aminz 11:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

My own 2c of why his argument is not true: TruthSpreader might not agree with this argument though :) The regulation of Dhimmi, most of it, was designed later, not even by the four khalifa (the pact of Omar was written later). The jizya (Qur'an 9:29) verse refers to particular oath-breaking Jews and Christians at the time of Muhammad. Those Jews happened to worship Ezra as the Son of God, a heretic view, thus Qur'an treated them like polytheist (I have academic references for all these) (next verse to jizya verse: Qur'an 9:30). Thus most of the regulations was written later, partly copied from Byzantium, party from Persian, but initially in an attempt to be tolerant towards Dhimmis. But the problem was that the fair and usual definition of tolerance as understood and applied in pre-modern time was that: "I am in charge. I will allow you some though not all of the rights and privileges that I enjoy, provided that you behave yourself according to rules that I will lay down and enforce." Thus, that theory/practice idea is just off. Of course, later Muslims at times persecuted Jews, no question about that. --Aminz 11:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, if you want other people to take your comments seriously and respond to them, keep your comments succint and to the point. Beit Or 14:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is a sticky one, If we assume that "I am in charge. I will allow you some though not all of the rights and privileges that I enjoy, provided that you behave yourself according to rules that I will lay down and enforce." is a fair description of freedom and equality in pre-modern times then the Muslim attitude towards Jews goes beyond this. Jews were advisors, Judges and Ministers under several Muslim Dynasties this showed that if you abide by the laws of the land (which the Jews where part of) then you enjoy Freedom of religion and allowed to live within the law.

The fact of the matter is that Jews were not attacked because they are Jewish, Some Jews were targeted along with Christians and other sects because they were not Muslim and these incidents were very rare and did not constitute an official or unofficial practise amongst Muslims.

As for your Quran quotes these quotes refer to unique events in the past and no where in the text dose it say that, in furture, Jews should be targeted because of their faith or the way they look, talk or because they are rich or successful (which what anti-Semitism is) People of the Book are protected in Islam, so the rule is to protect and not to oppress.

JEWS AND CHRISTIANS were awarded special status in the Muslim Empire and in many cases were treated as equals; there were never any systematic hate or incitement to hate Jews in pre-modern Muslim regions. Muslim attitudes towards Jews were the antonym of Christian attitudes. Jews are only treated equally in Europe under some secular states (mostly out of guilt and shame). --Palestine48 05:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Was Islam less oppressive than medieval Christian antisemitism? Definitely.

Is this a true statement: "There was not such a thing that would be called Antisemitism in Muslim lands before the establishment of the state of Israel"? Definitely not. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Being oppressive has nothing to do anti-semitism. persecution <> antisemitism. And you are right, antisemtism was not entirely absent as scholars usually assume. I haven't read S. D. Goitein's argument carefully. I just browsed it. I remember Cohen was also pointing out to some signs of existence of antisemitism. You might want to read his book. In overall there is a consensus among scholars (not myth-writers) that antisemitism was alien to Islam and Muslim culture. --Aminz 00:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverting

This is not accceptable — "There was not such a thing that would be called Antisemitism in Muslim lands before the establishment of the state of Israel (However S. D. Goitein argues that anti-semitism was not entirely absent as it is assumed and aims to prove its existences through Geniza letters .." It's not properly written; the first sentence isn't sourced; and the Geniza letters are mentioned without being explained. Please stop reverting to it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, the other version is full of OR. You've already seen some of the sources. Please also have a look at the two last one. --Aminz 02:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, please read the above two sections. --Aminz 02:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit War

First of all, I would like to express my resentment at the assertion in an edit summary that I've promoted any original research here. I reverted the article once for the following reasons, and after all of about a minute and a half of reviewing the new version:

• The new version appeared to have removed a significant amount of information, which could just as easily have been included with {{fact}} tags, at least long enough for a concerned party to find sources for said information.
• The new version appeared to replace what had been on the page (which I had not read in detail) with a copious amount of apparently controversial information, which gave the appearance that the author was replacing sections of the article with his or her own opinions.
• The new version had been reverted to several times on the basis that it was the "scholarly" version; where the other version had been reverted to on the basis that the new version was removing too much information. This gave the appearance that the author of the new version was engaged in an edit war with multiple other editors, cementing my belief that he or she was a common vandal.

I edited the article as a good faith effort to combat what I had thought was vandalism on Wikipedia. I am now writing this in response to several blunt, rude, and frankly irrelevant comments on my talk page. I would like to apologize for ever becoming involved and step out, encouraging you folks to seek mediation rather than flooding the article history with an edit war. I'd also encourage you to learn to assume good faith. I've stated my reasons for thinking that Aminz was a vandal, and apologized. Evidence that I'm a vandal includes my failure to post here and the fact that some of the content in the version I reverted was sourced. If every removal of sourced content constituted vandalism, Wikipedia comes to a standstill, sorry. But here's my point: I've never read this article in full, I was making a good-faith mistake by reverting it, and I don't appreciate the influx of accusations and abuse on my talk page as a result of my very limited and brief involvement. I've apologized, not much more you can expect from me.

Hope you all decide to get a mediator. -Moralis 02:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Moralis, the information that was already there in the article was in contradiction with reliable sources and had to go away. They were OR. --Aminz 03:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hence my apology and refrain from further edits. I think you're failing to realize that I'm not arguing with you. --Moralis 03:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for there is a possibility that it turns out that I am wrong; and you are leaving. --Aminz 03:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi + Antisemtism ?

I also found this comment from an admin from way back: [3]. --Aminz 05:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

My revert

I reverted the latest edit again because the writing is poor, the sourcing poor, and some of it is clearly false. However, the version I reverted to is a little problematic too because the first part seems to be OR. We can't quote from the Koran directly; we have to find a reliable secondary source who makes that point. Also, I'm not sure it's a good idea to rely entirely on Bat Ye'or; she's controversial and it's not clear how qualified. I'm not saying she can't be used, because she does count as a reliable source, but I'd caution against relying on her as a sole source for any contentious point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the only sentence sourced to Bat Ye'or is the one her introducing the term "dhimmitude". The rest of the first paragraph is more or less common knowledge... Beit Or 20:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to source "common knowledge" items. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please point to an specific sentence which was false (per other sourced material you have of course). Please show one poorly sourced material. Also, Dhimmi regulation has nothing to do with Anti-semitism since it was also applied to Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus etc etc. Antisemtism is a theological hostility towards Jews and Lewis makes it clear *again and again* in his book, the Jews of Islam, that "In Islamic society hostility to the Jew is non-theological. It is not related to any specific Islamic doctrine, nor to any specific circumstance in Islamic sacred history." that it is quite different from Christian antisemtism. Normal Stillman states that during 19th and 20th century the anti-semitic ideas were imported into Muslim lands but were "too new and too palpably foreign for any widespread acceptance among Muslims" and were only found a reception among Arabic-speaking Christian. How many more sources and scholars is required to make the article *not poorly* sourced? --Aminz 21:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

These are not the sources per se that is problematic, but rather highly selective and tendentious usage of them as well as a tendency to dump quotes into the article, which makes for awful reading and renders the article unencyclopedic. Beit Or 21:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:Assume good faith. --Aminz 21:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Beit Or did not fail to assume good faith. Beit Or merely explained the flaws in your sourcing. An issue can be explained while assuming good faith and I see nowhere in the above post that AGF was violated. --Moralis 22:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you please explain exactly the flaws more exactly instead of just claiming it. --Aminz 23:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You are making a distinction without a difference. Persecuting Jews because they are Jews is antisemitism, plain and simple. Are European blood libels examples of antisemitism, but the Damascus affair not, because it involved Arabs? There were many of these incidents in the 1800s; Aleppo (1810, 1850, 1875), Antioch (1826), Beirut (1824, 1862, 1874), Damascus (1840, 1848, 1890), Deir al-Qamar (1847), Homs (1829), Tripoli (1834), Jerusalem (1847), etc. And that's just blood-libels, not other antisemitic incidents and actions. Also, keep in mind that Lewis is just one source, good on topics regarding the history of Muslim countries, but not the final expert on antisemitism. This has been explained to you before. Finally, you've not quoted Lewis properly anyway, nor attributed your claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not only Lewis, but also Stillman. Also Claude Cahen who said "There is nothing in medieval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism". what about "Nissim Rejwan, Israel's Place in the Middle East: A Pluralist Perspective, University Press of Florida, p.31" (see last paragraph here [4]) and "Joel S. Migdal, Boundaries and Belonging (2004), Cambridge University Press, p.55" (see [5] "The success of this system was reflected... in the virtual absense of anti-Semitism from Ottoman landscape")?

It is not me who hasn't provided sources, but rather it is the other side who either writes OR or uses journalists as a reliable source. --Aminz 00:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Stillman doesn't make that exact claim, and you seem to have confused "the Arab world" with "medieval Islam". Paul Johnson has written many best-selling works of history, and you still haven't answered the question - what is the Damascus affair? Did the Farhud happen "after the establishment of the State of Israel"? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Rejwan is a polemicist, and Migdal talks about a "virtual", not complete absence, and even then only from "the Ottoman landscape". Cherry-picking authors for specific out of context quotes doesn't really give a rounded view of the situation. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, I didn't meant by those sources to prove that statement. But rather to prove it in some cases. Stillman writes that antisemitism ideas when first imported in Muslim lands didn't recieve any reception because they were too new. , yes, again he doesn't say Anti-semtism didn't happen. Lewis says:"President Khatami of Iran, in his interview on CNN, pointed out—correctly—that "anti-Semitism is indeed a Western phenomenon. It has no precedents in Islam or in the East. Jews and Muslims have lived harmoniously together for centuries.", "Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism..."

And this is the second time you accuse me of cherry picking. Assume good faith please. --Aminz 00:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sure your friends wouldn't agree that antisemitism was virtually absent in Ottomon Empire which lasted for a long long time. --Aminz 00:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that we do not have enough coverage on pre-1948 anti-Jewish violence in the Muslim lands. It is not because there was none. This white spot needs to be fixed. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you like Encyclopedia of Islam? It addresses the topic on this article quite perfectly. Stop removing it. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what it is, but see WP:RS: "In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources." ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Read the Encyclopedia of Islam article please, and then tell me what you think. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

After that quote it doesn't seem trustworthy. In addition to the evidence already provided, see Shiraz blood libel. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That article is completely based on Litman (is he the husband of Bat Ye'or?) and I can not see how it might be related to theological hostility towards Jews. --Aminz 10:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

See denial. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz has cherry-picked a quote out of context from the article "Yahud" in the Encyclopaedia of Islam so as to make professor Stillman say something he never said. As a matter of fact, 80% of the article is devoted to vilification of Jews in various Muslim texts from the Qur'an to medieval literature. Beit Or 18:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussed here --Aminz 22:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Accusations over accusations. Bad faith edits over bad faith edits. POV warring over POV warring; and we have normal editors, Admins and ArbCom members. Soon everything will be solved. --Aminz 20:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Islam and Paul Johnson (journalist)

In a recent edit, assertions backed by the Encyclopedia of Islam were replaced by contrary assertions by Paul Johnson (journalist). Depending upon one's POV, the Encyclopedia of Islam might be considered authoritative, and Paul Johnson biased, or alternatively, the Encyclopedia of Islam might be considere biased and Paul Johnson authoritative. However both sources are reputable. It is my understanding of WP:NPOV that when reputable sources conflict, an article should represent both POVs. I therefore think it was wrong to remove either the content supported by the Encyclopedia of Islam or the content supported by Paul Johnson. --BostonMA ^talk 03:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

But Johnson has only a lower-second class degree in Jesuit method; not in Islamic studies or in Antisemtism studies. Furthermore he only has a lower-second class degree. I honestly haven't seen any scientific encyclopedia which uses popular conservative journalists. --Aminz 04:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore as discussed above, The publisher is New York: HarperCollins Publishers, not a univ press or other ones which particularly publish scholarly books, meaning that it is not peer reviewed --Aminz 04:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

First, Encyclopedia of Islam is a tertiary source, why would we rely on it when there are plenty of secondary ones? Second, Paul Johnson is a authoritative historian. Third, Bernard Lewis is another authoritative historian for sure (he wrote Semites and Antisemites), the problem is that Aminz picks only quotes corresponding to his POV. See discussion above about one that he insists upon, "There was not such a thing that would be called Antisemitism in Muslim lands before the establishment of the state of Israel". And now he is canvassing for voices to impose his POV. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Claims are repeated and repeated again. If you read the Lewis's article on new-antisemtism and how it formed he says:"Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism...", "President Khatami of Iran, in his interview on CNN, pointed out—correctly—that "anti-Semitism is indeed a Western phenomenon. It has no precedents in Islam or in the East. Jews and Muslims have lived harmoniously together for centuries."

Professor Norman Stillman says:

Increased European commercial, missionary and imperialist activities within the Muslim world during the 19th and 20th centuries introduced anti-Semitic ideas and literature into the region. At first these prejudices only found a reception among Arabic-speaking Christian protégés of the Europeans in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt and were too new and too palpably foreign for any widespread acceptance among Muslims. However, with the ever-increasing conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine during the period of the British Mandate, the language and imagery of European anti-Semitism began to appear in political polemics both in the nationalist press and in books (Stillman, New attitudes toward the Jew in the Arab world, in Jewish Social Studies, xxxvii [1975], 197-204; idem, Antisemitism in the contemporary Arab world, in Antisemitism in the contemporary world, ed. M. Curtis, Boulder and London 1986, 70-85). For more than two decades following 1948, this trend increased greatly, but peaked by the 1970s, and declined somewhat as the slow process of rapprochement between the Arab world and the state of Israel evolved in the 1980s and 1990s; it remains to be seen how the tensions arising in 2000 will affect the trend.

H.S. you go around and repeat this your claim of misrepresentation of sources. I may bring this to WP:ANI since it really bothers me --Aminz 04:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the relevant paragraph from Cahen in which you were suspicous of misrepresentation:

It cannot be denied that from the last three or four centuries of the Middle Ages there was a general hardening against dhimmis in Muslim countries, helped materially and morally by the change in numerical proportions. Before proceeding further, however, it must be noticed that this hardening of opinion was contemporary with that which appeared in Christendom against the Jews and against Muslims where there were any, without our being able to say to what extent there was convergence, influence, or reaction. On the other hand it must be emphasized that the populace were more easily excited as a result of the deterioration in the economic climate, and that generally changes in the Muslim attitude had been occasioned more by political than by religious considerations. Hitherto there had been scarcely any difference in the treatment accorded to Christians and Jews (at most they were distinguished by prescribed differences in dress); but it later came about that some categories of d̲h̲immī s were looked on as friends of foreign powers and were worse treated, and naturally some Christians were in this respect more of a target than the Jews. There is nothing in mediaeval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism.

--Aminz 04:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not threaten me, and do not quote out of context to represent your POV. BTW, sorry if this is news: Khatami is hardly an authority on the subject. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Despite certain users' POV, this section should not begin and end with Israel. Here are a few things we need to keep in mind when describing this topic:

• Status of Dhimmi
• Pogroms during the reign on al-Hakim
• Almoravids & Almohads
• Maimonides
• Yellow badge
• 1465 pogrom in Fez
• Destruction of synagogues and forced conversions
• Mellah
• Damascus affair
• Shiraz blood libel
• Farhud
• And of course we should say prominently about tolerance, especially in comparison with Christian Europe, and that Muslim lands often were a place of refuge. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Starting from beginning:

1. Dhimmi status is discussed in Dhimmi article. It has nothing to do with Anti-Semitism. Claude Cahen says: "there had been scarcely any difference in the treatment accorded to Christians and Jews (at most they were distinguished by prescribed differences in dress); but it later came about that some categories of d̲h̲immī s were looked on as friends of foreign powers and were worse treated, and naturally some Christians were in this respect more of a target than the Jews. There is nothing in mediaeval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism."--Aminz 05:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Neyshaboor

Well, Neyshaboor is a city in Iran. During the history, there are records of huge massacre of its population by rulers, by foriegner attackers ... Can we start the Anti-Neyshaboor article? NO! Because were it another city in the place of Neyshaboor, it would have been persecuted as well at times. It is very easy. The persecuters didn't care who lives in that city or what that city is called. --Aminz 05:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Good example! :) TruthSpreader^Talk 05:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

E.g. Upon the mongol attacks, all the population, 1.7 million men, women and childern were killed. --Aminz 05:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There is another city in Iran, Kerman. Not very long ago, maybe 500 years ago. The eyes of all the population were taken out on the order of an oppressor conquerer. The history is full of such massacres. Not specifically here. But I've never ever heard of anti-Kermani sentiment... --Aminz 05:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any references to the residents of Neyshaboor being consistently referred to as, say, "apes and pigs" by the residents of surrounding areas or by rulers? Do you have any sources discussing the phenomenon of anti-Neyshaboorism? If so, feel free to start ths article. Beit Or 06:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what Aminz is trying to say! Do you have reliable secondary sources i.e. WP:RS and WP:V claiming that antisemitism was part of traditional Muslim society? If yes, please show them! TruthSpreader^Talk 06:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The concept of conversion of some Jews into apes is accepted, but to deduce that Jews are decendants of apes is just a propaganda by some Muslims. And to deduce the antisemitism from it, is even worse, as it is pure Original research. TruthSpreader^Talk 06:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the "ape" thing is irrelevant but if I want to comment about it: Certain Jews were transformed into "apes" because they broke Sabbath. That some Muslims misuse it, doesn't make them anti-semitic. In Iran, people in jokes refer to Turks as "donkeys" and make fun of them (the connection is that they are fool like donkeys). It is bad but it is not anti-Turkism. --Aminz 06:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Just giving another example, though I respect every person on the planet, but in Pakistan, people always think that Pashtun are all gays, which is wrong and it doesn't make Pakistanis anti-Pashtuns either. TruthSpreader^Talk 06:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, In Iran, Qazvinis are considered gay and there are lots of funny jokes about it. --Aminz 06:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually the examples you just listed above are racist, xenophobic, and homophobic. What is your point exactly? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is very simple. Calling X by some name doesn't constitute Anti-Xism. As shown by Aminz on this talk page and also on User_talk:Humus_sapiens#WP:RS.2C_WP:NPOV.2C_WP:Assume_good_faith that WP:RS and WP:V compatible sources seem to agree that antisemitism was not part of traditional Muslim society. It is a new phenomenon and it should be dealt this way. Examples quoted by other wikipedian brothers doesn't constitute antisemitism, as it is purely original research. Such views are only getting momentum because of current Islamophobic attitudes, hence as a wikipedian, I would strongly advice that we should strictly follow WP:V and WP:RS policies when dealing such a sensitive issue. TruthSpreader^Talk 07:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Islamophobic attitudes is correct. I have read about it way back and don't remember correctly what happened. Apparently there are two well-established myths: one that Islam provided a peaceful heaven for Jews and the other is that Islam persecuted them. Jewish scholars, writing at the beginning of 20th century, like Gacs(I believe) were all very much towards the first myth, the peaceful heaven and equality. They were comparing Muslims with Christians and were for example pointing out to the Jews who became even close advisors of the Muslim kings without requirement of conversion. Were our brothers living in 1900s probably they would have had a over-positive estimate of Islam's treatment of Jews. During the conflicts between Jews and Muslims, the motivation for a dramatic change was available. I can't exactly remember how these view changed but I know that the works of Bat Ye'or was very influencial. Infact, Bat Ye'or was holding an extreme position, but its effect on academia was that it challenged the myth of the peaceful heaven observed in previous works. So, she did really contribute something to the academic circle. --Aminz 07:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That was Graetz. This is indeed over-politicized so let's try to keep cool heads. The events I listed above (+much more) have occurred. As MPerel correctly pointed out above: homophobic, anti-Turkish, and anti-Christian hostilities do not cancel out antisemitism. I have added another quote where Johnson cites Goitein.

You wrote "Jews had traditionally accepted their status as a Dhimmi with gratitude" - even if this was true, we can find slaves who "accepted their status with gratitude" because they did not know better. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's continue the talk on the content here. Aminz asked me to check Goitein, p.279. Unfortunately I don't have that book. Johnson refers to it and I tried to make this clear. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right! If someone treated slaves properly doesn't mean that he was a bad person. As it might be the best thing to do for that time. But associating a hideous concept of anti-semitism with traditional Muslim societies is wrong. As this concept is non-existent in Academic writings. I just came back from library, I looked into three book: The Oxford dictionary of Islam, The concise encyclopedia of Islam by AltaMira Press, ISBN 0-7591-0189-2, and Encyclopedia of Islam and Muslims world by Macmillan Reference USA and all of these doesn't even have a entry for antisemitism, more over this that even index doesn't have an entry for anti-semitism. TruthSpreader^Talk 08:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

All you have demonstrated is that these sources are either badly incomplete or badly biased or both. There is considerable scholarship on Muslim antisemitism, and even Lewis does not claim that antisemitism doesn't exist in Islamic societies. Beit Or 17:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have hard time finding it. But you didn't answer my question. Why it is okay for you to use those sources but not for me? --Aminz 08:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

oh, got it [6] . Johnson, the journalist, is refering to the page after this. Let's read it together :) --Aminz 09:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Page 279 is not accessable. Need to go to library. But you guys can see on page 278, it says that "antisemitism was not enirely absent from Medieval Islam, as has been assumed. Its existence can be best proved ..." So, I am really interested to see how page 279 can change this view dramatically as the journalist concluded. --Aminz 09:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I am reading page 278 but can not understand the point about "haters". On one hand, the source says it was specifically used for an Islamic sect, the Ismailis, but then a Jew had close relations with that sect and what happened later? If someone understands the argument, I would be thankful to share it with me. --Aminz 09:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the actions of admin Humus sapiens here. He removed the quote I inserted because he assumed the Encyclopedia of Islam was a "POV source." The encyclopedia is considered by many to be one of the most, if not the most, authoritative sources on Islam. Why did he assume this source was POV? Is it because I am a Muslim writing on a section that relates to Muslims in the article? BhaiSaab ^talk 21:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem was the POV, tendentious, and selective usage of this and other sources, rather than this particular source per se. Beit Or 21:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Not according to him: [7] "...and replaced it with tertiary source POV one..." BhaiSaab ^talk 21:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[8] "After that quote it doesn't seem trustworthy..." Why is not trustworthy? Because it doesn't agree with his POV? BhaiSaab ^talk 21:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not trustworthy because it was lifted out of context so as to support a POV entirely alien to the source. Beit Or 21:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? Prove it. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab, do you want them to add another bad faith comment to their record? --Aminz 21:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care. I am asking for proof to this accusation. First one says that the encyclopedia of Islam is a POV source, then another says that I am lifting the quote out of context - these assumptions are bad faith in themselves. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have got used to them. Welcome in BhaiSaab. --Aminz 22:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab, they are not going to accept it. Don't bother yourself. --Aminz 21:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Goitein concludes"

H.S. I don't consider the journalist to be a reliable source but anyways, in the quote, the phrase "Goitein concludes" appears. The phrase "Goitein concludes" doesn't appear in 1988 edition of the book. In fact, in 1998 edition, the word Goitein doesn't appear in the relevant page and it is not prosed as a conclusion attributed to Goitein. Which edition are you using? And can you please let me know the page in which the phrase "Goitein concludes" appears. Thanks --Aminz 09:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Just as the article says: 1987 ed., p. 205. I can email the scanned pages. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the 1988 version of the book p.204 [9]

Please have a look at it and let me know if it is different from yours. If yes, then he has changed this in 1988 edition. --Aminz 10:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

p.204 looks the same. "Pages 205-207 are not part of this book review." ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Goitein concludes" doesn't appear in p.204, am I right? --Aminz 10:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you please let me know in which page does it appear. --Aminz 10:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

p.205. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I got the sentence: "Goitein concludes that the evidence does not support the view that in egypt, at least, anti-semitic was endemic or serious." Please let me know if you are refering to this conclusion. --Aminz 10:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the quote after that 1121 Baghdad letter that spills over from page 204 to 205:

"During most of this period Egypt was a relatively safe place for Jews, though Alexandria retained its long tradition of anti-Semitism dating from Hellenistic times. The writer of one genizah letter, describing an anti-Semitic outbreak there when a Jewish elder was falsely accused of rape, added: 'anti-Semitism is continually taking on new forms and everyone in the town has become a kind of police inspector over the Jews to express their sinuth. 78 (this is the ref to Goitein -HS)

But in Fustat and Cairo, the genizah papers show that Jews, Christians and Moslems lived mingled together and went into common business partnerships. Goitein concludes that the evidence does not support the view that in Egypt, at least, anti-Semitism was endemic or serious. But then Egypt under the Fatimids and Ayyubids was a refuge for persecuted Jews (and others) from all over the world."

←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please put references at the end of sentences. Thanks. --Aminz 10:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried to make it clear. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

From Goitein firsthand: "Although the term [antisemitism] is perhaps inapprorpiate in medieval Islamic setting, it is used here to differentiate animosity against Jews from discrimination practiced by Islam against non-Muslims in general. The Genizah material confirms the existence of a discernible form of anti-Judaism in the time and the place considered here, but that form of 'anti-Semitism', if we may use this term, appears to have been local and sporadic rather than general and endemic." (A Mediterranean Society: An Abrudgment in One Volume, p. 293) As Goitein has correctly pointed out, the issue is solely about terminology: whether we call anti-Jewish sentiment "antisemitism" or apply some other term. Because scholarly sources usually use the term "antisemitism" to describe anti-Jewish sentiment, so will we. Please do not restart this pointless discussion about terminology. Beit Or 12:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The source under-discussion has already a problem of being reliable secondary source. We can't ignore all the other sources. By this, you want to conclude that others including stillman, Watt, and Lewis and many more just got confused in the terminology!!!! This source even if presented in the article, cannot be a dominant source when compared with all other sources which have been mentioned in the discussion. TruthSpreader^Talk 12:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, no one seriously disputes the existence of hostility towards Jews in medieval Islam; the only issue is whether to call this hostility antisemitism or not. I'm unaware of Stillman or Watt ever saying that there was no antisemitism in medieval Islam (I'm further unaware of Watt writing anything about antisemitism, and even if he indeed wrote something like that, I wouldn't accept this antisemite as a credible source on this issue). Lewis indeed redefines antisemitism so as to include only Christian and Chrisitanity-influenced varities of Judeophobia. Here he is at odds with the entire extant scholarship of antisemitism, which traces the origins of this phenomenon to the Hellenistic period rather than to the emergence of Christianity, as Lewis does. Beit Or 16:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hostility at times happened but a particular hostility that is directed against Jews because they are Jews is anti-semitism. As I said before there were rare instances of that. But it was rarely. Goitein also in the above quote said that they were sporadic and local. --Aminz 21:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's good that you have finally agreed that antisemitism existed in medieval Muslim societies. Beit Or 21:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I said that from the very beginning. Some scholars say it wasn't however others say it was rare. I even quoted Goitein in my very first edit which you were quickly removing.--Aminz 21:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Come on, I'm not that forgetful and gullible. This is your version that I reverted. It starts with a brazen claim: "There was not such a thing that would be called Antisemitism in Muslim lands before the establishment of the state of Israel." Why would you resort to such blatant misrepresentations? Beit Or 22:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You also reverted this. [10]. Most of its reverts were done by H.S. though. --Aminz 22:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence in this version is identical to the earlier one. In addition, you didn't add Goitein in your first edit, nor did you present your version as a dispute among scholars. Instead, you presented the purported lack of antisemitism among Muslims as facts, and then you quoted Goitein as feebly arguing that some minor antisemitism indeed sometimes emerged. So, please stop misrepresenting the article history. Beit Or 22:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Scholarly version

Here is the scholarly version [11]. Complete it using real academic works. No un-peer-reviewed works by journalists please. Thanks --Aminz 00:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And no bad-faith comments please. --Aminz 00:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Your version is simply inadequate. We already talked about it. You make it impossible to AGF. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well if you can't assume good faith, then you should step back from editing this article and stop removing reliable sources. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The WP:AGF policy does not give a green light to edit in bad faith.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And none of these edits are in bad faith. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

H.S. If you have any scholarly sources go ahead and add it. The POV tag is there for that. --Aminz 04:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The events I listed above are historical facts. Johnson's bibliography speaks for itself, but that is not the problem here. The problem is your inability to face the facts and to write NPOV. Hiding behind handpicked quotes and wikilawyering won't work. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You are making claims of fact that aren't supported by your sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

One example please. You can find the other version here [12]--Aminz 07:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Example: not a single source supports your ungrammatical claim that "There was not such a thing that would be called Antisemitism in Muslim lands before the establishment of the state of Israel."[13] Beit Or 07:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I can explain that but please address the diff I provided above. --Aminz 07:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism in the 21st Century

As I was reading through the article I realized that it is very brief about current Anti-Semitism. So according to our article Anti-Semitism today is either very minor, or it is almost gone. We all wish it was the latter, but that raises that matter of a better coverage. I would like to propose a series of Anti-Semitism articles, country by country. A history part would be included, as well as the 21st Century, where more could be written about the current situation in each country or region. This way, we would have better classified articles that can be updated easily as current events happen. Please let me know what you all think about this. It is just an idea yet, and it is up to you what you want to do. Thanks, (Edebundity 02:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC))

Anti-Semitism today is NOT "very minor" as you suggest, but actually seems to be growing quite a bit despite what official polls may say. I've noticed that there are more anti-Semites than ever popping up in the USA, many of them blatant and more aggressive than ever before; also, true to its history, many parts of Europe are still anti-Semitic (most notably France, Eastern Europe, Russia, the UK, and others), along with the entire Middle East (obviously...), Indonesia (the largest concentration of Muslims in the world), Australia, Canada, and much of (industrialized) South America. In fact, it seems that the only parts of the world that aren't glaringly anti-Semitic are Sub-Saharan Africa, the major Asian countries, and India (only because these parts of the world have little history of Jewish involvement in their cultures and economies, and thus hold no deep-seated grudge against them). So, hold on to your hats ladies and gentiles: better start diggin' a deep well in the ol' back-yard and hoarding canned goods, 'cause a storms' a'brewin' -- hee-haw. --Pseudothyrum 04:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to interject on what is perhaps a dead topic. But I find the claims surrounding 21st Century anti-Semitism to be a little strange. I am not sure how one can link anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Anti-Zionism is a rejection of a particular reading of The Torah and its implementation in Palestine, If one rejects the Torah as a valid source are they then anti-Semitic because they no longer support the religious basis of Zionism (I realize that there is a political aspect as well)? The point is Zionism does not represent the Jewish people as a whole:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2005843,00.html

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2237707.ece

There are a great many Jews who disagree with Israel's activities in the Holy Land. Jews are not monolithic, so they should not be treated as such by considering one aspect of Judaism as a requisite part of all manifestations of Judaism (ie Zionism). Unfortunately the rise in anti-Semitism is blurred by incidents such as the following attacks on Jews which turned out to be faked:

http://www.somethingjewish.co.uk/articles/1078_fake_attack_shock.htm

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=9860

To say in the introduction that atnti-Semitism is a hatred of the whole of the Jewish race and religion, and then to say in a later section that disapproval of religious and political ambitions in Israel is tantamount to the anti-Semitism previously defined does not make a lot of sense to me. I am wondering if in the spirit of fairness that someone should include some commentary on the fact that the label 'anti-Semite' is often employed for political purposes and to stifle opposition to Israeli policies. Some people would even say that Zionism itself is a racist ideology seeking to create an ethnically exclusive state on land inhabited by others. Anyone for a change to include a different viewpoint? AltraftonAT

Unsourced on antiSemitism in Africa

Very informative to include in the article (encyclopediac, but wasn't able to find sources immediately, I would love others to help me out). But, this is well circulated in the world press on the huge problem of antisemitism is widespread in Africa. Here are the removed posts below and bear with me this isn't what I believe, nor want to promote. Antisemitism in Africa has gone on for over 40 years, partially under authoritanian dictators like Idi Amin, according to biographers, said "everytime someone mentions Jews around Amin, he turns angry and foams in the mouth, and rant about the Jews manipulated his people". I want to point out some Rastafarian groups and Black Muslims are notably antisemitic, and associated both Jews and whites as "blue eyed devils", that black Africans are "the true Hebrews" or the Egyptians are Africans/Nubians, not Caucasians, can't be taken seriously by academia and are politically motivated claims. +

<<

Africa

Jews are sparse in number in sub-saharan Africa, except for enclaves of historical Jewish sects in Ethiopia, the Falashas, who traced their roots to the peoples of Canaan for 3,000 years and most of the Falasha applied for migration permits into Israel since the 1970's. Once there were thousands of Jews each in Kenya, Uganda and Sudan, nearly all of the European and Mid-eastern Jews left for Israel, while a few others went to Europe or North America. The massive poverty rates and political turmoil in the continent lead to some African national leaders to blame Jews and used antisemitism to justify the problems of countries, they believed, "are operated by a conspiracy against the African race". Antisemitism in Africa includes false rumors and allegations that the AIDS pandemic, despite the disease affects every continent and every race, is seriously centered in sub-saharan Africa, was bioengineered by either the U.S., the U.N. or "the Jews" to terminate millions of black Africans in part of white Europeans' continuous practice of "racial genocide". African nations are prone to accept unreliable antisemitic reports and revisionist history on slavery of black Africans to the new world was in due part of "Jewish merchants working for European colonial masters", also inflames the unsupported antisemitic rhetoric.

South Africa

Farther south are substantial communities of Jews, either of Sephardic and Ashkenazic origins, the majority of them live in South Africa, whom live socioeconomically mobile and fairly non-oppressed lives. The stae of Israel had great diplomatic relations and an alliance against Soviet communism with South Africa, even in the time (1950's and 1960's) when Apartheid, the rigid official race segregation system, was enforced as the law in that country. However, both far-right white Apartheid supporters and far-left black African nationalists accused South African Jews for their misfortunes (it's been claimed on some post-1945 Apartheid legislation is closely similar to the 1930's Nazi race laws, due to the "semi-fascist" affiliation of the Nationalist Party ruled South Africa in most of the 20th century) and grave economic damage of nations of the African continent. These political groups used or propagated classic antisemitic stereotypes of Jews as "liberals" or "seditious" to the South African government, who thwarted the end of Apartheid in the early 1990's. There was a wave of white South African emigres, including most of the Jewish minority once ranged over 150,000 in the 1980's, going to Europe or North America, and South African Jews found new homes in Israel. concerned on political crises and economic insecurity in the country in the past two decades, a byproduct brought on by huge racial disparities and inequalities of Apartheid. >>

Antisemitism in Asia

Also the updated edits on antisemitism in Asia are deleted, while the parts on antisemitism in China and India are repeatedly deleted or re-edited for someones' satisfaction. I don't know on the information on China or India and their situation on antisemitism is unsourced or violated wikipedia rules, but it has to stop! Here are these posts below, and again I don't want to look like I'm making Africans, Asians (east or south) or whoever else are "anti-semites"...not true! Antisemitism is worldwide and every race/religion can have prejudices towards other peoples, such as the Jews. The anti-zionist movement tries to make an issue out of Israel's existence as a "white/western colony" of "American imperialist interests" established over Arab/Islamic lands of the "third world" are appealing to some impoverished and downtrodden people. +

<<

Asia

Historically, the Jewish population was miniscule and sparsely dispersed across the Asian continent. The earliest record of Jews and Judaism in east Asia were trade merchants who took the Silk Road to a number of cities in central China in the 2nd century AD. Antisemitism is evident in lesser but noticable forms in China, India, Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore and Southeast Asia, where a small history of Jewish inhabitants is noted and Jews continue to live in east Asia today. The usual culprits of the primarily "New antisemitism" are far-left, nationalist and anti-Zionist activists. Communist China and other east Asian countries have strained relations with the state of Israel for over half a century. However, antisemitism in political and religious forms are very low in India, home to the Bene Israel sect of Judaism for over 1,500 years, and the same is true for the rest of Asia outside of Russia and the Middle East.

Japan

Main article: Antisemitism in Japan

Originally Japan, with no Jewish population, had no antisemitism; however, Nazi ideology and propaganda left its influence on Japan during World War II, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were subsequently translated into Japanese. Today, antisemitism and belief in Jewish manipulation of Japan and the world remains despite the small size of the Jewish community in Japan. Books about Jewish conspiracies are best sellers. According to a 1988 survey, 8% of Japanese had read one of these books. In recent years, the rise of the National Socialist Japanese Workers and Welfare Party is an anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi force to reckon with in the history of global antiSemitism movements. It was reported after the 1995 earthquake in Kobe and international assistance arrived to guard and repair the devastated city, Israeli disaster relief troops were harassed and threatened by some of Kobe's residents with malicious intent, even a few refused to accept emergency supplies from Israeli medical staff and antisemitism may be the cause of these conflicts. >>

Other concerns

Aside from the above-mentioned concerns, the section on Anti-semitism and Islam starts with a paragraph on Qur'an and Dhimmi. One needs to find a reliable source which draws connections between these events and anti-semitism, otherwise they are not relevant to this article. Similarly, (though the journalist isn't a reliable source) but his first quote should be mentioned explicitly in the context of anit-semitism (i haven't checked it). The usage of "traditional Islamic judeophobia" doesn't appear in the reference provided (whether it is reliable or not I haven't checked). This section as it stands is OR and POV.

I think this section should also uses reliable sources like Mark Cohen to show how politics affected the conception of some Jewish circles of Muslim anti-semitism; that they created a theme in which Muslims starting from the beginning were persecuting Jews and their arguments. What were the motivations and its influence in academic circles; the influential writers, etc etc. --Aminz 07:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Judeophobia is another name for Antisemitism. I find the current section [14] more or less NPOV, unlike the version you were proposing. Johnson is a reputable historian and he is not Jewish, therefore your allegation of "some Jewish circles" is irrelevant at best. And you conveniently "forgot" to address the list above. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Johnson is a Christian. In any case, it is not me who needs to address the list. You need to find reliable sources which connect those events to anti-semitism, not me. The proof should come from you, not me. And again, you need to find reliable sources connecting every claim (such as Qur'anic ideas or Dhimmi) explicitly to anti-semitism. --Aminz 18:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you consider Johnson a historian? What makes him historian? Which academic degree does he have? Just writing about history doesn't make one historian. --Aminz 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse my limited knowledge, but who is Johnson? Is he some famous person with whom I should be familiar? (Eddie 19:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC))

Just a journalist. --Aminz 22:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A journalist and bestselling historian. See Paul_Johnson (journalist)#Bibliography. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If best selling books is the criteria, then I am sorry, most of the bigots will fit into this category and would qualify as a reliable secondary source e.g. Ibn Warraq, Robert Spencer, just to name a few. TruthSpreader^Talk 05:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup. They're not bigots though, just smart. Arrow740 10:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A conservative journalist with no rigorous education, but his job is writing. Although one may find some of his works which are peer-reviewed, but his job is writing not research. --Aminz 04:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

An Oxford degree is usually deemed to be "rigorous" by most academic standards. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yea come on Aminz, not all of us could afford to attend Bob Jones Bible College.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Beit Or, your sources should explicitly connect an issue to anti-semitism. Just referencing is not enough. --Aminz 22:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, please read the definition of antisemitism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

We apparently have different views as to which incidents are anti-semitism. Every attribution to anti-semitism needs to be sourced (otherwise it is OR). Also wikipedia is not a source for wikipedia.--Aminz 04:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

See Denial. "Antisemitism: hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious or ethnic group". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

H.S. This is not an argument. Just to let you know, I didn't know what does anti-semitism means while ago and educated myself about it merely through reliable sources. So, I feel my position to be defendable. --Aminz 04:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Shows how much you know on the subject. You have a lot to learn then. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

H.S. You are not understanding the point! You are defining anti-semitism by one way or the other and then linking it with Islam, without relying on WP:RS and WP:V compatible sources. This is called Original Research. TruthSpreader^Talk 05:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The article has a plenty of reliable sources on Muslim antisemitism. Beit Or 05:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does have plenty of reliable sources, but conclusion drawn is definitely Original research. Does Qur'an alleges Jews for curruption of their scripture? Yes! But does that constitute antisemitism or does it have a link to antisemitism? Any answer from a source other than "reliable secondary source" will constitute "Original research", and this is what is happening in the article. TruthSpreader^Talk 06:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure it is, because "Antisemitism is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious or ethnic group". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

H.S. I stated above and I will reiterate: The connection between these hostilities and "Antisemitism" is your own personal invention which is inspired by non-reliable secondary sources. It is called Original Research. TruthSpreader^Talk 08:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. If you really badly want to see the word "antisemitism" printed near the Quranic attacks on Jews, see the works by Gerber or Lacqueur, or Encyclopedia Judaica, all referenced in the article. Beit Or 13:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify exactly what the problem is here truthspreader and Aminz. I am honestly having trouble following your point. Is it that the cited sources are saying something that you feel is actually true and therefore are not reliable? Elizmr 21:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can please check the history of this article and see the version of the article, which was proposed by Aminz and the one which is now, and see which one is more scholarly. :) TruthSpreader^Talk 05:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am in the library and trying to find the books Beit Or mentioned. I noticed "The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion". It says (p.53):

"In the Muslim world, antisemitism developments were far less overt, except in periods of religous extremism. There was little specific antisemitism, and Jews were treated (or ill-treated) like other infidels."

--Aminz 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I won't object inserting this quote. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between this quote and the previous ones? This source says "There was little specific antisemitism"; some others say:"There were no antisemitism" or that it was not absent as it is assumed. --Aminz 04:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have got Encyclopedia Judica. It would be very interesting for me to see what would be the reaction of the Beit Or, who goes around and accuses others of misrepresentation of sources.

Beit Or, just mentions one sentence from this source. He doesn't mention the conclusion that the source arrives at. That in sum, anti-semitism could be employed only with qualifications in reference to Islam. The source seems to me is not only getting at anti-semitism but explaining the general position of Jews and Christians under Islam. Let's start from the beginning. The source starts: "From the theological standpoint, the Koran also contained attacks against the Jews, as they refused to recognize Muhammad as the prophet sent by God. In certain respects Muhammad utilized the Bible in a manner similar to that of Christian theologians..." and then goes on explaining the positions of Christians and Jews under Islam: "The religions of the two "People of the Book" were officially recognized , and a special status combining subjection and protection was evolved for them." The source mentions that "Apart from the distinguishing colors of their insignia, the dhimmi Jews and Christians were subjected to the same measures and were obliged to pay the same tax. But in regions were Islam reigned, the forms of anti-Judaism and anti-Christianity each evolved in their own way." The source continues: When Islam began to spread, the majority of the subjected territories were Christian...One source of anti-semitism in Islam, therefore may derived from ancient Christian anti-semitism..Thus a number of anti-Jewish traditions and legends from Christian folklore penetrated, with appropriate adaption, into that of Islam. However,... In sum, the term anti-Semitism, which becomes a particularly blatant semantic misnomer when used in connection with the Arab world, also regarded as "Semitic" can be employed only with qualifications in reference to Islam."

And lastly, Beit Or has skipped all positive references to Muslim perceptions of Jews. He easily jumps over where the source mentions that only in exceptional cases Jews "were invested with the satanic character and attributes frequent in Christian literature." or that "There are Islamic literary sources in medieval age in which the contemporary Jew is endowed with positive characteristics." --Aminz 04:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Beit Or, please check other sentence before putting them in this article. I know that what you've taken from Encyclopedia of Islam isn't in the context of anti-semitism, so you might want to add it to other articles. I honestly don't have time to check your sources one by one. Please remove the ones you are not certain about. --Aminz 04:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, Aminz, what you want to prove with this quote dump. Beit Or 05:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote dumping can give one a pleasant feeling and assuage deep-seated, justified doubt. Arrow740 11:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Which part was unclear? --Aminz 06:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You have copied and pasted a chunk of text from the Encyclopedia Judaica. Apparently, you want to demonstrate something with its help, but I'm not sure what. Beit Or 20:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe I was very clear. The context of the discussion was the way you are using the sources. --Aminz 20:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time deciphering your comments. Perhaps, it's pointless to try and extract arguments out of you. Beit Or 21:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Anomaly?

"only thirty-nine percent of Americans felt that Jews should be treated like other people. Fifty-three percent believed that "Jews are different and should be restricted" and ten percent believed that Jews should be deported"

39 + 53 + 10 = 102

So one hundred and two per cent of Americans have opposing views on how Jews should be treated. Either there is such a percetage and I'm just being stupid, or another survey should be targeted towards discovering the average arithmatic of American data-collectors.

CO.

• You're assuming that the three groups are disjoint, but there's no reason that the second group does not include all of the third group. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆

Religious antisemitism vs. anti-Judaism

These two concepts are not exactly the same. Relgious antisemitism is hostility toward Jews as an ethnic group because of their relgious practices, whereas anti-Judaism is hostility toward Judaism as a religion. It is true that in many case anti-Judaism can lead to religious antisemitism. It is also true that real antisemitism can disguise itself as anti-Judaism.—but the two concepts are still not exactly the same. Just thought I explain this before making my edit. Taxico 06:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite sources supporting your view? Beit Or 17:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Not right now, so I'm taking back the idea momentarily. But the current version also doesn't cite any sources. Let's see if I can find anything. Taxico 19:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Is antisemitism racist?

A recent edit in the article points out that it is a fallacy to make Jews into a racial group, which indeed is true. But then again, all discrimination and bigotry is based on a fallacy, and there is no question that at least some antisemites think (or thought) that Jews were a separate race. So, in the mind of the bigot, Jews are a separate race, and he/she is therefore a racist. Can we agree on this premise? --Leifern 19:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Nah. It's just that "racist" is a convenient generic term for ethnic/cultural/religious-group-based bigotry; we could also fit "Islamophobia" into that category, for example. We don't need to assume motives on the part of the bigots to loosely use the term. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, this is an encyclopedia and it must be precise. Racism has a precise definition, and we should not throw this term around at whim. Beit Or 21:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, racism shows clearly that it does not have a precise definition: The term racism is sometimes used to refer to preference for one's own ethnic group (ethnocentrism), fear of foreigners (xenophobia), views or preferences against interbreeding of the races (miscegenation), and nationalism, and/or a generalization of a specific group of people (stereotype); regardless of any explicit belief in superiority or inferiority embedded within such views or preferences.--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, it has a precise definition, even if sometimes people use the word with a different meaning. The sentence you have cited simply highlights the problem with the Wikipedia article on racism, which fails to differentiate between an encyclopedia and a dictionary. Beit Or 21:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

as it is now the definition: Antisemitism is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious or racial group to me says that jews are indeed a racial group, why can we not strike out the word racial, since racial antisemitism is explained a few lines further down with explanation that the assumption of jews being a race is faulty... trueblood 21:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• That the reason they hate us is false doesn't change the reason they hate us. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

whatever that is supposed to mean, i want the article to be accurate.trueblood 22:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And the definition there is correct. Look at it like this: It is not true that Jews have horns. Some people, even in this day and age, believe Jews have horns. Judeocerophobia is hostility to or prejudice againt Jews as people with horns. See? Antisemitism is directed against what is perceived as a racial group; in fact, as the article points out, the term "antisemitism" was coined to distinguish so-called racial Jew-hate from religious Jew-hate; some people on Wikipedia have objected to the term "antisemitic" being used to describe Martin Luther, because he didn't know for race -- his vitriol was all religiously based. So if we're erring, we're not erring in the direction you think we are. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

to stay with your example, if the article were to state that antisemitism is hatred against jews, because the have horns, i would want to mention to jews ususally don't have horns.trueblood 16:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Usually, nope. Does the "etymology and usage" section insufficiently belittle the hornal, er, racial theory? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Since Jews are widely agreed to be an ethnic group (if not a "race," though that term is too charged and imprecise to be of any real usage these days), you could say that people who dislike Jews are "ethnicists" (as opposed to racists) and practice "ethnicism" (as opposed to racism) -- either way, it's all childish semantic games because it is clear to anyone that investigates the facts that Jews are ethnically/racially group, thus rendering them a "race." However, they are Semitic and thus originally of Arab-stock, and due to their long history in Europe and to some extent America, some Jews do contain a dose of "Caucasian blood." NOTE: this has nothing to do with the Jewish religion (properly termed anti-Judaism), only Jews as a distinct ethnic group (because anyone can technically convert to Judaism, but they cannot convert their DNA to gain "Jewish genes").

Those doubting the ethnic/racial status of Jews only need to look to the immigration laws of Israel, the "Jewish State" -- only proven ethnic/racial Jews are allowed to legally immigrate to the country; however, they don't HAVE to attend a synagogue or be religious in the least once there. In fact, the majority of Israel's Jewish citizens are secular, entirely non-religious, as are most of the Jews in America, Argentina, Russia, Europe, and so forth.

Also, note that for thousands of years, Jews married and had kids exclusively with other Jews -- in fact, like many other ethnic/racial groups, they were quite fanatical about the "purity of their blood," as many Ultra-Orthodox Jews and Hasidic Jews still are today; notice for yourself the clone-like appearance of Ultra-Orthodox Jews (Haredi Jews) and tell me that they haven't been marrying/breeding with each other for a very long time. Some Jews are still so strict that even in today's relatively 'free' Western societies they will refuse to marry and have kids with a "mixed Jew," much less a Gentile! This goes back to the whole idea of "kosher" -- certain things are not to be mixed: milk/meat, work/Sabbath (sacred/profane), and Jew/Gentile. According to strict Jewish doctrine, some things are "clean" (kosher), while other things are thought to be "unclean" (non-kosher). Thus, the strictest Jews view Gentiles as "unclean" and will not and never have racially mix with them -- in the distant past racial mixing was VERY uncommon because Jews largely lived in ghettos (often self-imposed, by the way) and thus Jewish women rarely if ever met with foreign men because it was such a closed community. Save the occasional rape of a Jewish female and/or straying of Jewish male, Jews definitely DID NOT breed with the Gentiles -- thus, they are clearly a distinct ethnic-group/race.

Intermarriage and the rise of "mixed Jews" (Mischlings) only began in the mid-19th Century or so, mostly in Germany with the rise of the Reform movement and the Haskalah, and later on in the former USSR, when the most idealistic Jewish Communists sought a classless/raceless/religionless society and thus sometimes married Gentiles. Jews didn't start marrying/mixing with non-Jews in semi-large numbers until modern times, around the time of the Industrial Revolution, when people of all races and religions were tossed together in to mass factories and worked together; the rise of public schooling also contributed to intermarriage quite a bit, especially as Jews have become increasingly secular and left behind private Jewish schools, Yeshivas, Jewish seminaries/universities, and so forth. It is interesting to note that today, in the USA, that since most if not all of the Ivy League universities and flagship state universities are heavily Jewish/Asian (many over 40%, some well over half), they serve almost the same purpose as a private Jewish school or university: to keep Jews from being exposed to Gentiles and Gentile society, thus decreasing the chance that they will marry and have children with them. I've read of anti-Semites calling elite universities "Jewish breeding grounds," of course reserving the most scorn for ultra-elite Harvard University, calling it instead "Hebrew University." Thus, the definite homogeneity by the Jewish gene pool, maintained through their religion and other forms of "social control," has endured over MANY generations despite exile from their ancestral homeland -- this attests to their status as a distinct ethnic/racial group.

The short answer is that YES, anti-Semitism is in fact a form of racism/ethnicism unless it is focused specifically on the religion of the Jews; however, the overwhelmingly vast majority of anti-Semites could care less about Judaism -- the people they don't like are the Jews themselves, the Jewish people whom they call the "Hebrew race." --Pseudothyrum 06:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

wow, thank you for sharing that. i.ve often wondered about them orthodox jew all looking alike. now i know, they are cloned.trueblood 06:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with you people? Of course it's a race. You think hitler killed any Judaism practicing Aryans? No, in fact he had jewish people on his athletic teams for the olympics so long as they had blonde hair and blue eyes, because he's too much of a bastard to actually represent the race he thinks is perfect. However, there's no doubt that it is in fact a race, otherwise Hitler wouldn't have had anything to chase after. As well, I think it's extremely racist to say that it's not a race and as well worse than the persecution of them as a race. I personally have racial jewish heritage and there is no disputing genetics.

While this self-indulgent rant doesn't lend any support to the distinction of "Jews" as a wholly separate ethnicity (provide more evidence than somehow feeling your own genetics and paragraphs of hearsay), this may serve as an excellent demonstration of pseudo-ethnic arrogance that is often stereotyped to be practiced by all Jews. Unfortunately this practice of self segregation may very well be at the heart of the history of anti-Judaism. It doesn't take much for this sort of thinking to transform into helicopter pilots getting direct orders to strafe Palestinian children. What's wrong with US people? Sorry, but a dozen or so generations of dad giving lectures to his kids about the dirtiness of "those who are not like us" is not sufficient grounds to establish a separate ethnicity. Invent a method for analyzing DNA that somehow isolates your religion-defined ethnicity, and a time machine, and then you can gather enough evidence to prove what you are so certain of. There is no disputing time travel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.73.96.170 (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Move page

The standard spelling is anti-Semitism. I think the page should be moved. Theshibboleth 13:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Both spellings are widely accepted. The decision on Wikipedia is to go with the current one. --Leifern 13:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the "anti-Semitism" spelling is both confusing and a misnomer. It's a misnomer because the "anti-" prefix is usually used to mean "opposition to" (e.g., anti-Communism, anti-Socialism, anti-imperialism, anti-nationalism, etc.). It is primary used to mark opposition movements to certain ideologies (e.g., Communism, Socialism, imperialism, nationalism, etc.). But there's no ideology called "Semitism", so it doesn't make sense to talk about "anti-Semitism". The confusing part is that "anti-Semitism" (wrongly) reminds people of Semitic peoples, but antisemitism is only used in reference to Jews. So I think antisemitism is fine. Taxico 14:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It still has the anti prefix, the only issue is whether or not to hyphenate the prefix. This is commonly done with prefixes which end in vowels to prevent comprehension confusion. I keep reading "antise" before my mind has to back up, realize the "e" does not make the "i" long, and that this is stand-alone. Websters, which spells it with the hyphen, also has "anti-Arab" and "anti-Asian" not antiarab and antiasian. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia consensus was to use "antisemitism", as suggested by many scholarly sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Here's the discussion about this from last time. Two weeks ago, was it? Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 23#Requested move --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And how many people dropped by here a week to inform you that it was mispelled before it was changed? -- Kendrick7^talk 08:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is this requirement coming from? I am against switching to a more confusing version. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the big deal anyway? Antisemitism, anti-Semitism. They're all the same! We're talking about the same exact thing. All the other pages redirect to this one. You can use "anti-Semitism" when editing this article (or any other article). Is all this discussion really necessary? Do people really want to put this to vote and spend 7 days days fighting over a hyphen??? Well I don't. I've got better things to do, and there's a lot more that needs to be done here. I'm done discussing this. Forever. Taxico 10:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Most supporters of the previous move claimed to be doing so because they are not the same. Not believably, but that is what they claimed. Gene Nygaard 20:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

assimilation

since i am half involved in an edit war that evolves around a question :is proposing assimilation (for jews) antisemitic (see Rudolf Steiner) i thought i bring that up here. would it be worth including a section on assimilation. as far as i know it was widely discussed in germany in the 19th century.trueblood 06:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. There is some content to add about pressures to assimilate in Russia as well. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"banks, newspapers, ... and accumulation of wealth"

Anti-Semitism seems to be often tied to the idea that Jewish people control the flow of money and media, but the article only briefly mentions this, and even then only in the section on Catholic anti-semitism. I was wondering if someone could give some background on this alleged conspiracy. Was there any statistical truth that Jewish people owned a disproportional high number of banks and media? If not, why did people think that they did? If so, are there any theories about how they got this control? And why was this control such a big deal to people? --Arctic Gnome 18:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You're exactly right, and YES there is much statisitical proof that Jews hold a disproportionate amount of power despite their small numbers; however, as you can see, this is a VERY touchy subject for most Jews because your honest question on this page was soon deleted and/or ignored. Try to gather some facts/statistics from reliable sources, work out a few paragraphs on the topic here on this talk page, and we'll get a section going on this "disproportionate influence" of Jews in the modern world (especially in America in the 20th-21st Centuries). The Jewish lobby page sums up some arguments regarding this: "The Jewish lobby is a term referring to allegations that Jews exercise undue influence in a number of areas, including politics, government, the media, academia, popular culture, public policy, international relations, and international finance. It is used most commonly by the far right, far left, and Islamists." Just dig and you shall find... --172.163.93.102 16:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a bit more: Yuri Slezkine's mainstream academic book The Jewish Century is a GREAT resource for this theory of anti-Semitism, especially in Europe/Russia: it gives a reason for German anti-Semitism circa 1900: [paraphrasing] -- "Around 1900, despite being only 1% of the German population, it is estimated that Jews controlled around 20% of Germany's economy." Remember, this author is a respected, mainstream historian at prestigious UC-Berkeley, and his book published by Princeton UP. Given these amazing numbers, it's quite understandable then why the German people would be indignant toward this minority that wielded so much power within their borders. Slezkine's book focuses on Jewish economic success in the 20th Century, linking their incredible economic and cultural influence in Europe with a brand of anti-Semitism that would culminate in the Holocaust.

Also, here's some info copied/pasted from the History of the Jews in Hungary article, possibly pointing to reasons (largely economic) for rampant Eastern European/Hungarian anti-Semitism (Hungary's Jewish population topped out at around 5%; many of them were eventually killed in Auschwitz in the 1940s): << In his book The Jewish Century (Princeton, 2004; ISBN 0691119953) writer-historian-professor Yuri Slezkine paints a portrait of remarkable Jewish success in the first few decades of the 20th Century in Hungary. He writes that: "...in 1921 Budapest, 87.8 percent of the members of the stock exhange and 91 percent of the currency brokers were Jews, many of them ennobled..." (48). He continues on to write that: "...in interwar Hungary, more than half and perhaps as much as 90 percent of all industry was controlled by a few closely related Jewish banking families" (48). Soon afterward, he says: "In 1930, about 71 percent of the richest Hungarian taxpayers (with incomes exceeding 200,000 pengo) were Jews (48). Slezkine says that Jews were disproportionately represented amongst college students in 19th-20th Century Hungary: "In Hungary, where Jews constituted about 5 percent of the population, they represented one-fourth of all university students and 43 percent at Budapest Technological University" (49). Jews were also disproportionately a part of the professional class of post-WWI Hungary: "In 1920, 59.9 percent of Hungarian doctors, 50.6 percent of lawyers, 39.25 percent of all privately employed engineers ans chemists, 34.3 percent of editors and journalists, and 28.6 percent of musicians identified themselves as Jews by religion (If one were to add converts to Christianity, the numbers would presumably be much higher) (50). >> He also writes that "In large parts of Eastern Europe, virtually the whole 'middle class' was Jewish (pg. 50). There is TONS of information regarding Jewish success and wealth in both Russia and the USSR in the book too; far too much to put here. For other countries, check out the book for the mind-boggling statistics similar to those listed above.

As for America...well, that's trickier: much information is often suppressed or kept strictly hush-hush here in the USA despite the "freedom of press" and "free-flow of ideas/information" we hold so dear; many Jews seem to feel quite embarrassed regarding their success in America, preferring to keep it quiet lest it inflame anti-Semitism (jealously at the success of Jews is often a factor in anti-Semitism as well). Kevin B. MacDonald and many others have done some research in this area, though his work has branded him as an "anti-Semite" by most Jews. However, he quotes fully accurate and neutral sources to back-up his assertions -- here's a bit from an article [15] on Jewish influence in the USA: "Recent data indicates that Jewish per capita income in the U.S. is almost double that of non-Jews, a bigger difference than the black-white income gap.62 Although Jews make up less than 3% of the population, they constitute more than a quarter of the people on the Forbes list of the richest four hundred Americans. Jews constitute 45% of the top forty of the Forbes 400 richest Americans. Fully one-third of all American multimillionaires are Jewish. The percentage of Jewish households with income greater than $50,000 is double that of non-Jews; on the other hand, the percentage of Jewish households with income less than $20,000 is half that of non-Jews. Twenty percent of professors at leading universities are Jewish, and 40% of partners in leading New York and Washington D.C. law firms are Jewish.63 / In 1996, there were approximately three hundred national Jewish organizations in the United States, with a combined budget estimated in the range of $6 billion—a sum greater than the gross national product of half the members of the United Nations.64 For example, in 2001 the ADL claimed an annual budget of over $50,000,000.65 SOURCES: 60. Lynn 1992. -- 61. Salter 2002. -- 62. Thernstrom and Thernstrom, 1997. -- 63. Silbiger 2000. -- 64. Goldberg 1996, 38–39. Remember, that MacDonald is quoting MAINSTREAM sources, many of them by Jewish authors! He is more of a compiler/gatherer of information in this particular article.

See Karl Marx's supposedly 'anti-Semitic' essay On the Jewish Question, which equates blind and irresponsible capitalism with Jews (even though Marx was himself a Jew!). Also check out the recent paper by respected (not quack) scholars out of Harvard: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, along with the general article Israel lobby in the United States. --172.163.93.102 17:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah. And so what? It's hardly news that Jew-haters find the the financial success of Jews bothersome -- and conclude somehow that there must be some Great Joosh Conspiracy or something. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't find the original questioner to be offensive, the question was phrased in a straightforward informational manner. That said, the concept that somehow Jews "control" one thing or another because they are proportionally overrepresented is silly. So the percentage of Jewish professors is 20% and Jewish lawyers is 40%; the percentages of nonJews are 80% and 60%. Most folks would come to the conclusion that the 60% probably is more in "control" than the 40%, no matter how overrepresentative the 40% is.

The Bush administration provides a typical example. People name like 4 Jews in high positions, and use this as evidence that the Bush administration is a puppet of the Jews, despite dozens of nonJews in similar or higher positions, including of course Bush and Cheney; and despite the fact that Jewish Americans voted against Bush 60% of the time in both elections and against the Republicans 80% in the last election.Gzuckier 15:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Apropos, I just saw a documentary on Hitler that called attention to his attempts to negotiate with Jews, or use Jews to negotiate with the US and UK, to reach a peace. The point that the documentary made is that Hitler really seemed to believe that all Jews were organized into some vast conspiracy controling the West and that such negotiations really could lead to a settlement with the US and UK. He simply could not recognize that for the most part the US and UK didn't care about the fate of the Jews and "the Jews" did not have the power to influence them. It didn't matter that, for example, Morgenthau was FDR's Sect'y of Treasury. Hitler seemed to have this mental map in which Morgenthau, other prominent Jews, and prisoners of the concentration camps were all connected. They weren't, and they aren't. The point is, Morgenthau may have had power and influence, but that does not in any way mean that this vague abstract group called "the Jews" have power. I think the key to the antisemitism of the above comments is their insistence on reducing those lawyers, bankers, and so on as "Jews" (with the implication that they think and act as a group) when (1) people have many different identities besides race or religion, and those other identities are often more salient, and (2) even people who strongly identify the same way can have conflicting desires and interests and are often - in any meaningful practical way - are just unconnected. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is convincing proof that antisemitism is a form of insanity; you can't even get jews of the same synagogue to agree on much. Gzuckier 20:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the idea of a Jewish conspiracy is silly. But if Jewish people do own more banks and newspapers than would be proportional by their population, it’s an interesting social situation that’s worth looking into. It’s just like the question of why men are disproportionably overrepresented in government; no one thinks that there is an organized male conspiracy, but it’s still something that’s worth studying academically. --Arctic Gnome 17:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, certainly; and it has been looked into, and will probably continue to be. It doesn't need a lot of examination in this article, though, except inasmuch as the perception of such success and the illusion of control are used by Jew-haters as justification for their bigotry. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think however the article has a POV suggesting the antisemitism is somehow an irrational hatred on Jews and minimalizes such causes as presented by the anonymous contributor in those lengthy paragraphs just above. From these data some may conclude a Jewish conspiracy (and in this case I personally agree with the one who wrote above this is rather a proof of insanity) but some may only grow worried and eventually propose countermeasure of affirming the discriminated (the agents of discrimination can be very deeply buried historically, culturally, withour proper studies it's hard to put a blame on; what counts however are the results - disproportionate participations) categories (in this case, some non-Jewish categories) without being a "Jew-hater". Because, no matter what this article claims, the accusations of antisemitism are loosely used on many people criticizing or growing concerns or taking non-violent measures on Jews or Jewish communities. Daizus 15:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Howcome there's not a "causes" section

I was looking through the archives section and I saw this has been brought up several times. I'm sure a lot of scholarly writing has been done on theories of underlying causes, but none of this is discussed in the article. I'm wondering why this is.

I'm thinking the reason this isn't included is because there are only three possibilities for the nature and origin of antisemitism, none of which are politically correct:

1. The notion that anti-semitism is widespread and has been widespread throughout the world for as long as there have been Jews isn't really true, and the prejudice/zenophobia against Jews hasn't actually been worse than that against other minority groups.

2. Anti-semitism is caused by jealousy because Jews are actually superior to gentiles.

3. Jews have actually done more bad things than other minority groups and this has provoked prejudice against them.

There could be other possibilities I haven't thought of, but I haven't really seen any others discussed. But at any rate, it seems a major failing of this article to discuss a phenomenon in such depth without looking at its underlying causes... 69.29.30.178 22:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• If you can provide some material from a verifiable reliable source discussing the causes in the terms you suggest, we can use it. The second one there is the only one that makes even a slight bit of sense, though; the other two are air. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it's nice to know which one you prefer ;-) I'm not wed to it being discussed as one of the three, it's just that *underlying* causes in general need to be discussed. There may well be other possibilities, I just haven't heard of any. If you know of others then please enlighten me. You seem quite interested in the whole issue of antisemitism, so surely you must have some thoughts as to its origins. Care to share?... :-) 69.29.65.78 04:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My own opinions, of course, aren't relevant to the article, so: no. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty funny, because I have read some of the historians and sociologists who have theorized causes of anti-semitism and they never bring up any of the three "possibilities" the anonymous user brought up. Alas, I read that stuff back in college and do not remember (Yehuda Bauer was one important person but only one and there are many more). Needless to say the best scholarship does not offer global theories of anti-semitism but specific theories to explain specific forms and moments of anti-Semitism (blood libel in the middle ages, pogroms in early modern eastern europe, and the Holocaust) but their specific explanations of course have broader implications. I wish we had an editor who actually knew this literature and could incoprorate it into the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The first possibility I raised was that antisemitism (in most parts of the world and for most of the history of the Jewish people) hasn't been more severe than bigotry against any other minority group. This would fit with your thesis of no one global big cause but rather smaller local causes at different places and times. However, if you reject possibility #1 and assert that bigotry against Jews has tended to be more severe than bigotry against other minority groups - both throught the history of the Jewish people and throughout the different majority cultures of the world - then there has to be a larger *underlying* cause of this. The two explanations I have heard are listed as possibilities #2 and #3. There may well be others, and if you've heard of any then by all means discuss them. 128.206.59.141 18:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right about point #1 - I would only add that your point #1 is two points. But just to be clear, the reason I was dismissing your comment was this: your points do not explain why there is no section on "causes." I interpreted your point #1 to be a possible explanation for why there is no "causes" section. If we agree that Jews have not always suffered from anti-semitism, and that anti-semitism has taken different forms and has been expressed with differing levels of intensity depending on time and place, this is not a reason for not having a "causes" section, it just means the causes section would have to be subdivided into different causes for different forms of anti-semitism. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And of course, the most likely theory; Antisemitism is just one form of paranoid mental illness which has been historically less socially unacceptable. Gzuckier 16:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

So then why has this "form of paranoid mental illness" (at least according to many) been more directed at Jews throughout the world than any other minority group? Or is antisemitism no more special then any other form of zenophobia and bigotry?... 128.206.59.141 18:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Anon. user 128.206... has a point -- NO OTHER ethnic/racial/religious group has been as despised as the Jews during their history; Jews have been expelled from over 80 countries/territories (and these are only the ones we have documented), not to mention slaughtered en masse in many of these same countries/territories. Surely there is a definite reason for this other than "mass psychosis" or "paranoid mental illness," unless extremely different cultures and people spanning thousands of years have been infected with this mysterious "illness"? Surely there is a definite reason this particular group has drawn the ire of every group of people they settle amongst.

I personally believe the reason to be economic exploitation and parasitism rather than simple "religious intolerance" -- real and/or perceived economic exploitation and the Jews as a parasitic element of society was the main reason for their mass expulsion and/or murder in Spain and Portugal in the 1400-1500s (Spanish Inquisition & Alhambra decree), Medieval England (Edict of Expulsion), Nazi Germany (forced emigration and/or mandatory ghettoization and subsequent deporation), and Russian 'containment' within the Pale of Settlement along with anti-Semitism within the USSR when Stalin deported/killed thousands of Jews and implemented numerous anti-Semitic measures (Joseph Stalin and antisemitism) post-WWII. In fact, it seems that the only places where the Jews have yet to be kicked out of are the countries of the "New World," i.e. North and South America. Even then though certain instances exist (see Ulysses S. Grant's General Order № 11 (1862)), especially in South and Central America pre-1900, The West prides itself as being 'tolerant' and generally respectful of others, except when they feel like they are being taken advantage of.

I speculate that if the Jews had settled in large/semi-large numbers in Japan and had, over time, gained vastly disproportionate cultural and financial influence as they have in most everywhere they've settled, that anti-Semitism would have eventually reared its ugly head there as well; but since Japan is so fanatically closed, they would have never been allowed to settle there in the first place. In fact, Jews seem to thrive in so-called 'open' societies; the more closed a society is (such as Japan), the less likely Jews are going to be able to gain any influence in that country/territory because that host population is itself wary of outsiders, much as the Jews are. However, the more 'open' a culture is, the more Jews thrive culturally and economically, despite the fact that, paradoxically, Jews themselves are actually a very 'closed' group, shunning 'outsiders' and Gentile influence. Herein lies the double standard of Jews and Jewish culture: if Jews aren't allowed to participate in the economic/cultural life of a country that place is deemed 'anti-Semitic' -- however, it's a given that Jews will never allow the Gentile societies they live amongst to participate in their own cultural/economic life because they are very 'closed' communities. --172.166.75.105 10:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should just create a sub-page where anti-semites can just spout their crap.

There was not only religious intolerance towards the Jews, but the Christianity and Islam faught over land and territory while the Jews had gained rights in the same country. Throughout history there was almost absolute religious intolerance directed at everyone, besides the Jews. The Jews were alowed to stay and appeared as a seperate group promoting it's own interests as well as recieving rights from the governors. The Jewish comunity is extreamly closed and will not mix with other societies. This may not be in every case a relevant explanation but once a hate and prejudice are well established they are more often reverted to in times of need. A culture living inside you yet different, is often an useful scapegoat for any failure or problem.85.64.221.101 20:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Bias

This article comes across as Jewish-extremist propaganda and a hit piece against Islam and other groups. This is not scholarly. The offending parties have all documented themselves through circular logic and ad hominem attacks against other more objective editors above. Case in point, we actually have an editor stating that he agrees "Jews are superior to gentiles." Racism and this type of fascist supremacism has no place here. Sarastro777 06:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Not sarcasm either, apparently. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You and Mel Gibson apparently share a unique understanding of sarcasm. Sarastro777 06:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be funnier if you spelled your ID Sarcastro. Gzuckier 16:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to discussion on the article, and not personal attacks, what particular parts of this article do you believe are "Jewish propaganda?"--Sefringle 05:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's not feed the trolls.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Very mature Moshe, but the insult is a poor substitute for a coherent idea. Maybe you can work on that. Moving on...I mentioned the areas already, but to give some specifics examples:

"Muhammad's attitude towards Jews was shaped by .."
This is the author's opinion, as he/she obviously does not converse with Mohammed. There is also no source

"Muslim holy text defined the Arab and Muslim attitude towards Jews to this day.."
This implies there is a single unified attitude, which is untrue. This is otherwise known as a stereotype... or an example of prejudice where one assumes ALL Muslims think <x>

Tip of the iceberg and the worst form of intellectual diarhhoea!

Sarastro777 03:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, actually, the first one is footnoted at the end of the next sentence, though to be honest I'm not sure what the footnote is referring to -- it simply says "Lacqueur (2006), p. 192", so someone needs to fix that reference. As far as the second is concerned, are you suggesting that the Qur'an does not define Muslim attitudes in general, or just not toward Jews? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the second sentence, it does not state what you just asked me... as far as qualifying with "general" (which is a weasel word). The quotes contain obvious references to Jews, though whether those quotes were written because Muhammed "hated Jews" (was anti-semitic) is another matter. Any so-called "anti-semitic" behavior they allegedly inspired needs to be specifically documented and not summarized with a stereotype about "arabs and muslims" Sarastro777 04:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• The rest of the section does exactly that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying the racist stereotypes are okay in the intro because the rest of the section is written more reasonably?? Sarastro777 06:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Journalist

Please replace Johnson, the journalist, with another source. It is a violation of WP:RS, particularly edits like these: [16]. --Aminz 08:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Johnson is a best-selling historian, and qualifies as a reliable source. Please give up your campaign against him. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. Surely more reliable than Lewis in your view [17] or more reliable than Encyclopedia of Islam and all other sources per other campaigners. Johnson is no more than a popular journalist with no real academic degree whatsoever. His books could be used only when they are peer-reviewed, meaning that they are published in a scientific press. Can you find even one other source (of course not another journalist but a real academic source) which agrees with him or with you? I am not asking much. --Aminz 03:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Aminz: Your activism won't make the facts disappear. Your problem is not with Johnson but with historical facts. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

*Facts*!?!?! --Aminz 05:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, facts. You know, like the fact that he has an honors degree from Oxford (whereas you claim "he has no real academic degree whatsoever"). Or the fact that he wrote over two dozen history books, well recieved within the profession. That sort of thing. As Jayjg said, it's time to give it up.Isarig 19:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, academic degrees!!! second lower class degree in Jesuit method... I am not going to repeat my arguments here again. --Aminz 21:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Who do you think you are fooling with this clumsy sleight of hand about "second lower class degree "? It is an honors degree, from one of the most prestigous universities in the world. Your claim that he has "no real academic degree whatsoever" is false. you are encouraged to stop this personal crusade based on shameless lies. Give it a rest . Isarig 21:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Instead of analyzing PJ's univ. degrees, here are a few facts Aminz so conveniently "forgot": persecutions of Jews during the reign of al-Hakim, Almoravids, Almohads, Yellow badge, Mellahs, Damascus affair & Shiraz blood libel, Farhud, etc. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Antisemitism is not equivalent to persecution of Jews. It is a discriminative persecution. Historically, whenever Ottoman empire was strong, Jews and Christians were happy and were treated more tolerantly and when the situation was bad, they were put under pressure. And traditionally, the best place for Jews to live in the world was under Islam rule. --Aminz 22:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You already lost this argument in #Anti-Neyshaboor section. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It is rather obvious you cannot say that with any factual support. While it is true that at times Jews faired better under Islamic rule than they did under Christian rule, there were alos times where they faired much worse.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That's Lewis's view. On average, the Muslim rule was the best place in world for Jews. Anyways, it is obvious to me that some editors replace quotes of renowned scholars for those of worst.[18] And I am losing my hope if this discussion can ever be fruitful. --Aminz 00:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well if your definition of "fruitfulness" is that other editors must be compliant with your every outlandish request then I am rather happy you are losing that hope.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Judaism in the New Testament

Despite being text in the Bible, people are seeing it the wrong way. Not all the Jews were said to be evil. There have been other verses in the Bible where there are Jews whom did accept the Holy Spirit and remained Jewish. I hope for somebody to add a verse countering the interpretation that Jesus and his desciples were talking about all Jews or a sentence that describes what Jesus and his desciples meant. No biased comments, please. --Eiyuu Kou 16:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Pro-India garbage

This is utterly fantastic reading ;)

"There have been no antisemitic incidents from the Hindu majority in India in the nearly 3-millennium history of Indian Jewry"

I find that quite hard to believe though..but of course let's blame everyone else for the anti-semitism in our country. First the Christians:

"Anti-semitism first came to India with the Portuguese Christian Missionaries in the 16th century"

And how about the muslims?

"Contemporary anti-semitism in India comes largely from Muslims through Pakistan-based Islamic terror outfits like Lashkar-e-Toiba, operating illegally in India, who have declared Jews to be the "enemies of Islam"" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.238.16.12 (talk • contribs).

The section contains several references. Do you have something better than empty bitterness? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Tag

The tags are supposed to specify the issue as accurately as possible. All the tags are created by us. Should you state a policy requiring the tag to go, it can be removed. --Aminz 23:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

History of Muslim anti-semitism; another source

The Encyclopedia of religion, in the anti-semitism article states the following about Islam (will post this on the antisemitism article as well) :

"The premodern world of Islam was quite different from premodern Christendom. The most obvious difference is the variety of populations encompassed within the world of premodern Islam, which was a rich melange of racial, ethic, and religious communities. Within this complex human tapestry, the Jews were by no means obvious as lone dissenters, as they had been earlier in the world of polytheism or subsequently in most of medieval Christendom. While occasionally invoking the ire of the prophet Muhammad(c.570-632) and his later followers, the Jews played no special role in the essential Muslim myth as the Jews did in the Christian myth. The dhimmi people, defined as those with a revealed religous faith, were accorded basic rights to security and religous identity in Islamic society and included Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians. Lack of uniqueness ameliorated considerably the circumstances of Jews in the medieval world of Islam.

In the post-World War II period, however, the Jewish Zionist enterprise did take on elements of uniqueness: it was projected as the sole Western effort at recolonization within Islamic sphere. This perception has triggered intese antipathy for Zionism and its Jewish supporters, often viewed as indistinguishable, and has resulted in the revival of harshly negative imagery spawned in the altogether different sphere of medieval Christendom. Popular Muslim writing and journalism now regularly introduce themes such as ritual murder, Jewish manipulation of finance, and worldwide Jewish conspiracy, themes taken over with little difficulty from an entirely different ambience. Once again, these themes have proven flexible, readily transferable from milieu to milieu.

--Aminz 23:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is the author, Aminz? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is signed by "Alan Davies(1987) and Robert Chazan (2005)" --Aminz 00:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Does it say anywhere who they are? Usually there are descriptions under a list of contributors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find them, but I am searching them in Google. I found Alan Davies here [19] --Aminz 00:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Robert Chazan is here [20] He is Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University--Aminz 00:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Various Academic Sources on Anti-Semitism; My final try

From Encyclopedia of Islam (EI), the standard encyclopaedia of the academic discipline of Islamic studies

"there had been scarcely any difference in the treatment accorded to Christians and Jews (at most they were distinguished by prescribed differences in dress); but it later came about that some categories of d̲h̲immī s were looked on as friends of foreign powers and were worse treated, and naturally some Christians were in this respect more of a target than the Jews. There is nothing in mediaeval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism." --Aminz 04:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

-- Reviews on the article the above quote was taken from -- S.D. Goeith in A Mediterranean Society p.586 (University of California Press)

"For Islam, see the concise, up-to-date, and authorative article "Dhimma" by Claude Cahen in EI, which registers also the relevant material."

Various Scientific Encyclopedias on Medieval History confirm Encyclopedia of Islam

Encyclopedia of The Medieval World History on Anti-Semitism writes a great deal about Christendom but nothing about Islam. --Aminz 00:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of The Middle Ages on Anti-Judiasm Again, there is no mention of Islam. It is all about the attitude of the Church and Christian populace. --Aminz 00:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary of The Middle Ages on Anti-Semitism There is a long detailed article. I couldn't find one, even one mention of Islam here. It is all about Christianity. --Aminz 00:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Oxford Encyclopedia of World History on Anti-Semitism

has a short article on antisemitism and does not mention Islam at all. --Aminz 00:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion

"In the Muslim world, antisemitism developments were far less overt, except in periods of religous extremism. There was little specific antisemitism, and Jews were treated (or ill-treated) like other infidels." --Aminz 04:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The words of renowned scholars of Islam

• Prof. Bernard Lewis : "Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism...". --Aminz 04:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Prof. Norman Stillman : "Increased European commercial, missionary and imperialist activities within the Muslim world during the 19th and 20th centuries introduced anti-Semitic ideas and literature into the region. At first these prejudices only found a reception among Arabic-speaking Christian protégés of the Europeans in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt and were too new and too palpably foreign for any widespread acceptance among Muslims. However, with the ever-increasing conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine during the period of the British Mandate, the language and imagery of European anti-Semitism began to appear in political polemics both in the nationalist press and in books." --Aminz 04:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Prof. Robert Chazan (Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University) and Alan Davies (Professor in the Department for the Study of Religion at the University of Toronto) write the following about Islam in their article on Anti-Semitism: "The premodern world of Islam was quite different from premodern Christendom. The most obvious difference is the variety of populations encompassed within the world of premodern Islam, which was a rich melange of racial, ethic, and religious communities. Within this complex human tapestry, the Jews were by no means obvious as lone dissenters, as they had been earlier in the world of polytheism or subsequently in most of medieval Christendom. While occasionally invoking the ire of the prophet Muhammad(c.570-632) and his later followers, the Jews played no special role in the essential Muslim myth as the Jews did in the Christian myth. The dhimmi people, defined as those with a revealed religous faith, were accorded basic rights to security and religous identity in Islamic society and included Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians. Lack of uniqueness ameliorated considerably the circumstances of Jews in the medieval world of Islam. In the post-World War II period, however, the Jewish Zionist enterprise did take on elements of uniqueness..." --Aminz 04:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• S. D. Goitein, a preeminent scholar in the areas of Jewish-Arab relations and Islamic culture: "Still “anti-Semitism,” that is, hostility directed against the Jewish community, was not entirely absent from medieval islam, as has been assumed."..."Although the term [antisemitism] is perhaps inapprorpiate in medieval Islamic setting, it is used here to differentiate animosity against Jews from discrimination practiced by Islam against non-Muslims in general. The Genizah material confirms the existence of a discernible form of anti-Judaism in the time and the place considered here, but that form of 'anti-Semitism', if we may use this term, appears to have been local and sporadic rather than general and endemic."

Under the footnote for "as has been assumed", Goitein writes: "Even by such an eminent authority as Claude Cahen (in the EI article quoted above)" --Aminz 04:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

No quote in the world can remove historical facts. By now you should remember the list: dhimmi, mellah, etc. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The list by itself is Original Research. --Aminz 05:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You wish. Read the def. Just as Christian Islamophobia, homophobia, etc. do not absolve Christian antisemitism, Muslim persecution of other minorities does not negate persecution of Jews under Islam. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you need to find a source which relates a specific incident to anti-semitism, otherwise it is original research. --Aminz 05:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Antisemitism: hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, racial, or ethnic group. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

H.S. Thanks for your comment but I have finally decided to continue this through user:RfC as we both value our times and don't want to waste it over fruitless discussions. --Aminz 09:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This page shows how you value time. Don't expect that a few quotes can erase history. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

H.S. At the beginning I thought you really are not aware of the academic view on Anti-Semitism, and that's why you are removing the quotes from EoI etc etc. But now, after presenting such strong evidences that possibility does not exist anymore. Surely none of the above scholars are anti-Jewish or paid to write so. Definitely not Mark Cohen or Bernard Lewis. It would be impossible that academic authorities like Claude Cahen write something this much contradicting the truth, since their articles will be peer-reviewed and they will be exposed. In fact, it threatens their career. I think the truth can be found through academic books, and not through media or people. That's why I changed my mind when I read about anti-semitism in modern times. Yes, I accepted it. Not only that, I have accepted too many significant facts about my own religion through Academic articles. H.S. please, for the sake of God of justice, haven't I provided enough evidence to establish my case? --Aminz 22:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That's funny that you're accusing one of the most prolific editors on antisemitism-related topics of not being "aware of the academic view on Anti-Semitism [sic]". Actually, none of the persons you have cited, with a possible exception of Lewis, is a scholar of antisemitism. Neertheless their views are acknowledged in the article. Can you explain why you keep demanding that the denial of antisemitism in medieval Islam is stated as truth? Beit Or 22:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Beit Or.

Aminz, I am afraid that you still misunderstand the nature of this dispute. I am pretty sure what B. Lewis is arguing is that there was no modern antisemitism, racist variety. But no one would deny that there were mellahs, Damascus affair, farhud, etc. The historians commonly say that in general, Jews fared better under Islam than under Christianity (and we say that as well) but in general & better does not mean no persecution took place ever. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The quotes that Aminz has brought to the discussion are coming from reliable academic sources. H.S. "one of the most prolific editors on antisemitism-related topics" has only brought a cadre of weasel words and uncited personal opinion (i.e. "but no one would...", "..in general..", "..[all] jews fared better.." All of this as worded is not even suitable for mention on Wikipedia. Please refrain from attacking other editors adding actual legitimate academic information with citation. Making up arbitrary requirements such as "not a legitimate specialist in anti-semitism" when convenient is not appropriate. Obviously someone that specializes (has a Ph.D.) in History and Hebrew Studies would be knowledgeable/qualifed in such areas. Certainly moreso than Alan Dershowitz, the lawyer that got O.J._Simpson off free from his murder escapade. Sarastro777 16:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Misrepresenting Joel Migdal

Here is what Aminz has written: "According to scholars such as Claude Cahen in pre-modern times, there was not such a thing that would be called Antisemitism". Among the sources used for this sentence is Joel S. Migdal, Boundaries and Belonging (2004), Cambridge University Press, p.55. However, this is what Joel Migdal says in relaity: "The success of this system — insofar as the empire's Jews were concerned — was reflected in the virtual absence of anti-Semitism from the Ottoman landscape." Note the differences: first, Migdal speaks of "virtual" rather than "complete" absence of anti-Semitism, and secondly, his comment is confined to the Ottoman Empire, whereas Aminz has stretched Migdal's words to all territories in pre-modern times. Beit Or 11:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This source can be moved into the views of those scholars who believe anti-semitism wasn't completely absent (i.e. its next sentence). Cahen and Lewis are those who put it flatly. --Aminz 11:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitism "root factors/causes": Christian gnosticism, Communism, Yiddish, Original Monotheistic Religion?

Factors that seem noticeably lacking from this discussion of anti-semitism:

• It seems unusual that, both in this article and in the article on Christian anti-semitism, no mention is made of gnostics or gnosticism. While Christianity as it developed in the early centuries, certainly had some negative views towards Jews, the gnostic movement which was flourishing at just the same time as early Christianity was developing, had a much richer source of descriptions of Jews as being evil. While early Christianity, when it finally consolidated, agreed to accept the Hebrew Bible into its canon (the "Old Testament"), the gnostic Christians who were around at the same time, opposed this, on the grounds that the God of the Jews, the God of the Hebrew Bible, was the Devil, the evil god that created sin and the material world. It's all the more unusual that no one mentions this in the articles on anti-semitism, when much of the material that the article references (the Nazi material, for example), is claiming that Jews are satanic and evil. Do people not see the possible historical influence that these early gnostic ideas may have had on the later history of anti-semitism in Christian countries? And it is also true that these gnostic ideas did not die out, that they continued to influence Christian countries through the centuries. (There are many works outlining the history and spread of gnosticism - see "Hans Jonas: the Gnostic Religion", for example).
• Wasn't there a relationship between the Nazi desire to defeat the Soviet/Communist "threat", and the destruction of the Jews? Didn't the Nazis (and the members of the Anti-Comintern Pact)see the Jews as being potential allies of communism, and for that reason they were an internal threat that could easily be destroyed, as part of the Nazi's greater war against the Soviet Union? In other words, the "Jewish Communist" was a cause of anti-semitism, similar to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, "Jewish Communists" executed in the United States in 1953 (only 8 years after the Nazis were defeated).
• Does no one see the obvious relationship between the over 10 million speakers of Yiddish in Europe, and the anti-semitism which was spearheaded by none other people than German speakers (Austria and Germany)? German anti-semitism can certainly be explained in a large part by the German speaker's perceived threat of a huge ocean of non-Christian, non-European Jews, speaking what would to the German ear be a bizzare, incomprehensible dialect of German, and written, moreover, not in European, Latin letters, from left to right, but instead in Hebrew letters, from right to left. People also often forget today, how widespread Yiddish educational instutitions and the Yiddish press were in Europe before the Nazis took power. It is nearly impossible for someone living in the U.S. today to imagine the situation that existed between the German speakers and the Yiddish speakers in Germany - and this relationship is clearly a factor that influenced German anti-semitism.
• What about the obvious fact that Judaism preceded Christianity and Islam, and Christianity and Islam claim to replace Judaism? Since Jews just weren't up to being replaced, this resulted in Christian/Islamic persecutions of them, as they stuck out like a sore thumb in Christianity/Islam that the Jews and Judaism really hadn't been replaced by the newer religions? This is further backed up by the noticable fact that ancient religions existing today that *did not* claim to replace Judaism, are not fundamentally anti-semitic at all.
• These things listed above are all almost completely obvious possible root causes of anti-semitism, and there should be a subsection of this article that discusses root causes such as these.

Jimhoward72 13:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NOR, and WP:Verifiability, thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting thesis to relate the gnostic idea of the demiurge to anti-Judaism, but I don't know what you could get out of original sources. I doubt there's anything existing on this to put in an encyclopedia. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I may never be able to track it down, since I don't have time/inclination, but I know that the idea has been around for many years (that there is a possible influence of gnosticism on anti-semitism). It's probably discussed somewhere, in some book, but it would take a student/scholar of anti-semitism to find it.Jimhoward72 07:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please answer me a question

Is it, by definition, anti-semitic to criticise the policies of the state of Israel? Thank you. BernardL 16:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously not, since a good number of Jews are critical of different policies. It is anti-Semitic if the critic holds Israel to a different standard than other countries, or believes that the policies criticized owe to the fact that the people who formulated them and carry them out are Jewish (rather than other considerations which could just as well apply to non-Jews). There may be other circumstances under which it is likely that criticism of Israeli policies is anti-Semitic - let's see what other say. But to sum up my own opinion, while I think it is very likely that someone who is anti-Semitic will therefor also be critical of Israel, this does not mean that someone who is critical of Israel is necessarily anti-Semitic. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am a Jew. I lived in Israel for many years. I am very critical of many of Israel's policies. I am not antisemitic. What is the problem? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. There are very many of us who believe that Israel governmental policies toward the Palestinians have, for much of the last 50 years, been shameful -- and an embarrassment to the Jewish people. Anyone calling me an anti-Semite is in for a fight. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Chronology

Why does this article begin with a summary of 20th century events?

Is not history chronological? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.123.174.31 (talk • contribs) 15:28, December 27, 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Anti-Judaism

I was thinking of going ahead and merging the content of Anti-Judaism in here, and redirecting, as there have been no objections. If anyone minds, please let me know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I object. They are different. Please give me time to remember the academic sources talking about existence of anti-Judaism without any anti-semitism. --Aminz 04:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were a fan of Bernard Lewis? He calls anti-Judaism antisemitism. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I am still. His writings sound very certain and assertive which I like. His views are realistic. But I remember (but don't remember where) seeing somewhere existence of anti-Judaism without anti-semitism. Could you please show me the reference in which Lewis calls anti-Judaism antisemitism. Thanks --Aminz 04:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

He calls it religious antisemitism, and contrasts it with racial antisemitism (also called modern or classical antisemitism) and ideological antisemitism (also called new or contemporary antisemitism). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the difference is, so my vote is to move whatever is relevant from the Anti-Judaism article here and delete the Anti-Judaism article.--Sefringle 07:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It is the consensus view that the antisemitism has passed through several stages with religious and racial antisemitism being two of them. There should definitely be a separate article on religious Judaism; whether it should be called Anti-Judaism or Religious antisemitism is a separate issue. I'm inclined to support the latter title as more descriptive. Beit Or 08:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Religious antisemitism would be be better title too.--Sefringle 22:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we need reliable sources stating consensus before naming these article, to make sure it is NPOV. --Aminz 08:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Judaism & Antisemitism: AJ is one expression of AS, therefore I support merging them or at least making clear that AJ is a subarticle of AS.

Anti-Judaism & Religious antisemitism: AJ is hostility to Judaism. E.g. the USSR, officially an atheist state, persecuted all religions to various degrees, Judaism in particular. OTOH, I understand RA as AS on religious grounds. That would exclude atheists, IMHO. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we need reliable sources indicating consensus of scholars on the statements we make. --Aminz 01:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's wrong with the status quo here. Labelling all the millions of people throughout history who believed or taught that Jews were going to hell, which would arguable include Jesus Christ, as anti-Semites seems to be casting a really wide net for defining the term. Seriously, when you want to add Jesus to Category:Anti-Semitic people (or I guess Category:Religious Anti-Semites) you're going way overboard. It's bad enough when neo-Nazis compare Hitler to Jesus in favorable terms, you really want the wikipedia to back them up on that? -- Kendrick7^talk 06:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to rename the article (though I'd have to say, we might as well fork since we seem to be talking past eachother about arguably different things) pleae go thru normal channels. This isn't the right place to make decisions on renaming an unrelated (at beat, tangentally related) article. It seems like my points above were simply ignored. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I absolutely think the anti-Judaism article should be merged here, it is essentially describing a type of anti-Semitism rather than something unique on its own. Meanwhile, the question of Judeophobia, which is actually what anti-Judaism would be described as (being pre-Christian Europe persecution of Jews) receives little to no treatment -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 22:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and forked Religious anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism. Theological opposition to Judaism is not anti-Semitism, and I don't even understand the reasoning behind wanting to create such confusion. A lack of familiarity with the tale of the boy who cried wolf comes to mind. Next you'll be declaring Isaiah was an anti-Semite, I suppose, but I'm going to go ahead and sneak toward an exit row with the last parachute now. There seems to be plenty of scholarly sources on google books for me to work with; I shouldn't have a problem clearly sourcing a clear deliniation here. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reverted your POV forks, per Wikipedia:Content forking, and will continue to do so unless you achieve consensus for that action. If you feel the Religious antisemitism article needs a more nuanced viewpoint, please feel free to add properly sourced information there, but don't fork articles based on your personal prejudices. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't fall under content forking because these are two different topics, as should be obvious from the diveregent leads. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The topic is the same, the dispute has been going on for weeks, and deliberate content forking is disruptive. Please work on improving the content of Religious antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The topic is not the same. In point of fact, the sourced scholarly content that's been in dispute that points out that they are not same has been quickly and repeatly removed by Slim as "nonsense"[21]. And if y'all would stop reverting me, I could get some work done to further differentiate these two topics based on numerous scholarly sources. None of my arguments above were addressed in the slightest. I feel completely justified in continuing my work here. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The topics are identical; "Religious antisemitism" is simply another term for "Anti-Judaism", the predecessor to "modern" or "racial" antisemitism. You may feel justified in violating policy, but I would strongly advise against violating WP:3RR again, as you have already done. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Semetism "is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, racial, or ethnic group, which can range in expression from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution." Anti-Judaism simply doesn't fall under that rubric. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Anti-Judaism is indeed another word for "Religious anti-Semitism", however, religious anti-Semitism itself is a distinct form of anti-Semitism, different (though intrinsically linked) from racial anti-Semitism -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 18:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Judaism does not "range in expression from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution." The belief that Judaism is a false religion is quite succintly different. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Lacqueur

Please add the actual reference for the book written by Lacqueur in the Reference section. --Aminz 09:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

His name was misspelled. Please look for Laqueur. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Existence of Dispute

Users: Beit Or, Humus Sapeins and Jayjg are removing POV tag from the section while some other users believe that there is at least a dispute (including the following one: In Academia there are exactly two POVs: 1. There was traditionally no antisemitism 2. There was little sporadic antisemitism ; many sources writing on Antisemitism either don't mention Islam, or if they do they briefly in one or two sentences state one of the two above POVs. The section should make this clear; other disputes have been also raised above in this talk page about the proper usage of the source currently used and that when some passage is quoted, the author should have specifically drew the connection between the sentence and antisemitism). Overall there is a lot of dispute. And recently an RfC (first a user-conduct but later an article one) was filed (see [22]). Given all these, the POV tag is removed by above mentioned 3 users for whom the RfC was filed.

Please sign your name in the following if the above evidences prove the existance of some sort of dispute over the neutrality:

1. Aminz 12:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
2. TruthSpreader^reply 12:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
3. ALM 15:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
4. The existence of this section is a proof that a dispute is existing. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
5. It is ludicrous to pretend, after all of this discussion on the talk page, that there is no dispute. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 00:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
6. The existence of this section is a proof that a dispute is existing --Striver - talk 17:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
7. I think there is a dispute about the length at which some views should be presented. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
8. A dispute exists between Aminz and the regular editors to this page about the length and order in which some views should be presented. It does not necessarily follow that the disputed tag must remain until each individual editor is entirely satisfied.Proabivouac 02:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
9. The above discussion proves that there is some dispute. User:Aslamt 02:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Aminz has been edit warring and defying consensus on this page for a long time. Now, in an apparent effort to increase the vote count above, Aminz has resorted to vote solicitation.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] For the users ALM scientist and FayssalF, who have signed above, these were the first ever edits to this article. Beit Or 18:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I know, yes. Talk pages are set to discuss content, not behaviour but i'd like everybody to forgive me. Yes, talk pages are set to communicate, while keeping in topic, being positive, staying objective and dealing with facts. Making proposals/observations is a good faith goal. Edit warring is not an illegit act Beit Or. This is a kind of a request for comment. For this reason wikipedians and anonymous contributors have the right to give their opinions.

That was not my vote. That was my opinion. Consulting someone for comment is not a horrible and sanctioned human act. My opinion (vote if you want) will typically not carry much weight unless i include my rationale for making it which i did already. My rationale is up to your verdict. Bringing policies (and guidelines if you want) over, i personally and formally confirm that i believe there is a dispute going on over this topic. As a Wikipedian, having not edited this article ever makes me believe i am a good observer. Reverting encyclopaedic content such as this gives me more conviction that i have much rationale on my damaged brain. The least needed indeed. Cheers -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 22:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If you believe that this version of the section on antisemitism in the Muslim world reflects the opinion of the majority of active editors on this page, please sign below:

1. Beit Or 18:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
2. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
3. --Leifern 01:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
4. My "vote" here is counter-meatpuppetry; when theirs are discounted, you may discount mine as well.Proabivouac 04:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 06:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
6. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
7. The stacked-votes that Aminz has solicited are meaningless. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Almost all pages reflect the opinion of the majority of active editors on the page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
9. A dispute created to push a POV is not necessarily a dispute. There is much here that needs thought. -- Avi 21:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Comment: It's very clear that there is a dispute here, and a dispute in good faith, so some means should be found of resolving it other than seeking to remove tags placed, apparently in good faith, on passages people object to. The whole passage on "Anti-semitism in the Muslim World" seems to me to be very problematic as it stands. Aminz seems to have brought reasonable sources which are being rejected for reasons that aren't altogether clear to me. His version appears to start with a declaration that there's, more or less, no such thing as Islamic anti-semitism. OK, not very NPOV, but the current version seems to err in the opposite direction. Here are some of my queries.

The first sentence seeks to establish a connection between the Quran and anti-semitism in the Muslim world. The first element in this argument is sourced to Encyclopaedia Judaica. The last sentence in the paragraph is cited to Walter Laqueur. Are the intervening elements, particularly the second half of the first sentence also covered by the citation to Laqueur? In any case, should not the alternative viewpoint, that Islam is not inherently anti-Semitic, also be allowed a look in at this point? The point is not to create a case, after all, but to set out agreed facts and, in a neutral way, points of controversy. I think this passage falls down rather badly here, as it stands.

Second paragraph: is the first sentence being sourced to Lewis?

The third, fourth and fifth paragraphs all detail material in the Quran and Hadith that is hostile to Jews. Is there any source relating this to anti-Semitism, or is it being included as an instance of anti-semitism?

The material about dhimmis does not seem relevant. Dhimmi status applied to all tolerated non-Muslim population who were not militarily allied to Muslims, and there is no evidence that I am aware of, and certainly none given here, to indicate that it was an instance of anti-Semitism. But from the current version here, not only would one think it was anti-Semitic, one could easily understand that these were measures specifically taken against Jews. Palmiro | Talk 03:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I have yet to arrive at a conclusion about this material and its placement. However, I consider this impromptu poll entirely illegitimate. Several of the support "votes" have no involvement here, and may be presumed to have appeared only to support their co-religionist against a certain other religion. As this pattern, both the reflexive animus and the inclination to meatpuppetry, is seen across a wide range of AfDs and other poll-like processes, these votes cannot be seen as saying anything meaningful about this particular dispute.Proabivouac 03:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, that I don't know the details of this article, but it seems to me that there is some sort of dispute concerning it. However, this is no reason to engage in edit warring.

Bet Or, I don't see that there is anything untoward with soliciting opinions of other WP editors as Aminz has done.

In any case, I don't want to get involved in the internals of this dispute; however, please report future 3RR violations to the admin page rather than to my talk page.--CSTAR 04:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Per my comments, the trouble isn't Aminz' solicitation of opinions per se, but the way some users habitually respond to such solicitions. I'd guess this to be the real grievance underlying Beit Or's procedural objection.Proabivouac 04:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to generalize behaviors. Maybe it's a fiction, but I still try to believe that WP:AGF has some currency. Whether we can presume anything about anybody's motives and at the same time adhere to this principle, is not clear to me. As to the legitimacy of the poll, we should keep in mind instead another principle: Wikipedia is not a democracy. For now, I think it's safe to say that 3RR blocks for this article will not be determined (by me at least) on technicalities.--CSTAR 04:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The position that during more than a millennium of Islamic rule over vast territories there was no persecution of Jews is indefensible. See dhimmi, Almohades, mellah, Damascus affair, Shiraz blood libel, farhud, etc. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No evidence has been given that there is any connection whatsoever between the dhimma and antisemitism. There is also a difference between acknowledging the existence of antisemitism in Islamic territories and accepting the case that this article makes, partly implicitly and partly explicitly, that antisemitism is intrinsic to Islam. We seem to have a genuine case of differences in scholarly opinion here which, as far as I can see, the article does not accurately reflect; it reads to me as if it is making a case for one point of view. Palmiro | Talk 11:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It is undisputable that Muslim antisemitism was traditionally quite different in nature from its Christian counterpart and that in many times and places of the Islamic world antisemitism was much less intense than in Europe, but the claim that in pre-modern times antisemitism did not exist among Muslims at all is a polemical hyperbola. Indeed, Lewis makes such a claim, but his argument wholly depends on his ad hoc redefinition of antisemitism. He redefines antisemitism not simply as prejudice or hostility against Jews, but only such prejudice and hostility that demonizes Jews and ascribes to them the attributes of cosmic evil. We acknowledge Lewis's position, but his definition of antisemitism is highly idiosyncratic. Beit Or 11:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not really up to us to give our views but to accurately reflect scholarly views, and we should accept that scholarly views may be quite nuanced and may include widely varying opinions. The problem is that the article does not currently acknowledge Lewis's position, as far as I can see, and in addition Cahen's has been suppressed although the citation to it and a later reference to him remain. Palmiro | Talk 12:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It was acknowledged in the first sentence of the last paragraph in the discussed section, and I've just added more details. Cahen is not suppressed, but all we have from him is one sentence from the article "Dhimma" in the Encyclopaedia of Islam: not exactly a lot to add from not exactly a work on antisemitism. I find that his position is treated appropriately in this article. Beit Or 14:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It was not. As Palmiro said: "This article makes, partly implicitly and partly explicitly, that antisemitism is intrinsic to Islam." But let's go through the dispute resolution process below. I have a lot of sources to put forth. --Aminz 19:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't see how not giving someone's position can be held to constitute "treating it appropriately" if that opinion is one given in a relevant article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. That is one source you simply cannot dismiss. Palmiro | Talk 19:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Humus Sapiens. The only reason I'm here is because of an appeal to lift a 24h block on one of the participants (which appeal was denied by me and another admin). On the face of it, it really would be unbelievable that in the broad range of space and time you mention millennium of Islamic rule over vast territories there were no incidents of persecution of Jews (and others for that matter). Whether that's the content of the dispute, is not clear to me (e.g., does the persecution have to be systematic etc.,). However, as a complete outsider to this article, there is evidence on this talk page that some argument about something in the article exists. Unless you can show the argument is purely frivolous, to me that seems like a dispute. As a compromise, may I suggest to the disputants that they specify in non-inflammatory language what the nature of the dispute is in a short paragraph and put it in a blockquote paragraph at the top of the talk page (i.e., this page). Would that be acceptable? However, as I said above, most admins will take a very dim view of edit warring, so please stop adding (or removing) tags. --CSTAR 17:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Just one point CSTAR: if there is a bona fide NPOV dispute with various users claiming the current version is not neutral, then it is simply not acceptable to remove tags, and I think it would be justifiable to reinsert them - providing tags is precisely an interim solution to avoid edit-warring on content, and non-abusive tags simply should not be removed. Palmiro | Talk 19:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

CSTAR Anti-Semitism is not merely Persecution. The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion states: "There was little specific antisemitism, and Jews were treated (or ill-treated) like other infidels." --Aminz 19:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That is one of the essential points in issue. This article is about antisemitism. Where Jews were ill-treated, not because they were Jews, but because they were not Muslims, and other non-Muslims were similarly treated, then there is a considerable burden of proof to be surmounted before it can be shown that antisemitism is at issue. Palmiro | Talk 19:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. Claude Cahen says: "there had been scarcely any difference in the treatment accorded to Christians and Jews (at most they were distinguished by prescribed differences in dress); but it later came about that some categories of d̲h̲immīs were looked on as friends of foreign powers and were worse treated, and naturally some Christians were in this respect more of a target than the Jews. There is nothing in mediaeval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism." Even Christians were more of a target than Jews since Ottoman Empire was in fight with Byzantium and Christians were more suspect of spying.--Aminz 00:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Palmiro Re providing tags is precisely an interim solution to avoid edit-warring on content, and non-abusive tags simply should not be removed. I am inclined to agree with this in general. An exception of course, would be if the dispute were entirely frivolous. Again, it doesn't seem to me that it is frivolous, since at least one well-known scholar seems to support the "opposing" position. But I admit I'm in an area in which I have no competence. --CSTAR 20:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The views of that scholar are acknowledged in the article. The essense of the dispute is that Aminz wants to claim the absence of antisemitism in Muslim lands as fact, which would be clearly a violation of NPOV. However, even this is enormous progress compared to Aminz's initial version in which he attempted to claim, using the same sources he is citing now: "There was not such a thing that would be called Antisemitism in Muslim lands before the establishment of the state of Israel. However many scholars believe that antisemtism arosed in Muslim lands after establishment of the state of Israel though this is disputed."[31] Beit Or 20:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That was the very first draft I prepared (in which I had mainly seen only Lewis and Claude Cahen and Mark Cohen). I later changed it into this [32] which included the POV of Goeith. I added the POV tag for inclusion of other POVs. This version was later modified slightly again when I found more sources. Nevertheless, all these were removed by calling EoI an unreliable source and accusing me of misrepresenting Lewis. Thanks God that we can see the self-confession above that Lewis does say what I said. Next Step is acceptance of the article in EoI as a significant POV on this topic. --Aminz 23:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I think the question is whether or not the tag is useful. What is the reason for including it? Is it to be a permanent feature? Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the purpose of the tag is to inform the reader that the information provided is more likely to be un-neutral and I think it stays as long as there is serious disagreements. --Aminz 02:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you want to keep the tag unless you have it your way. Beit Or 15:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Another evidence for lack of antisemitism among Muslims:

• Encyclopedia of The Medieval World History on Anti-Semitism writes a great deal about Christendom but nothing about Islam.

• Encyclopedia of The Middle Ages on Anti-Judiasm. Again, there is no mention of Islam. It is all about the attitude of the Church and Christian populace.

• Dictionary of The Middle Ages on Anti-Semitism. There is a long detailed article. I couldn't find one, even one mention of Islam here. It is all about Christianity.

• The Oxford Encyclopedia of World History on Anti-Semitism there is no mention of Islam.

--Aminz 00:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

And regarding relation between Dhimmi and Anti-Semitism, this comment from User:Grenavitar is interesting. [33] --Aminz 00:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Step by Step Dispute Resolution

I have specified 5 basic statements which I believe are the important initial steps before getting into any consensus. Please specify your vote. This is a request for comment.

Part a)

Step 1.

• Claude Cahen's article in Encyclopedia of Islam is a reliable scholarly source.

Evidences why EoI is reliable:

1. Encyclopedia of Islam published by Brill Academic Press is the standard encyclopaedia of the academic discipline of Islamic studies.

2. The article in Encyclopedia of Islam is written by Claude Cahen. Prof. Mark Cohen refers to Cahen as "a distinguished Islamic historian" and Shelomo Dov Goitein refers to him as "an eminent authority" on Dhimmi (non-Muslims living under Muslim rule). Shelomo Dov Goitein describes the article by Cahen in EoI as:"For Islam, see the concise, up-to-date, and authorative article "Dhimma" by Claude Cahen in EI, which registers also the relevant material."

Diffs where EoI was removed: [34], [35], [36]

Diffs showing the arguments by Humus sapiens why EoI couldn't be used: [37] (it is not reliable because of what it says), [38] (EoI is a POV teritary source)

Comments:

• Comment': Of course the Encyclopaedia of Islam cannot be dismissed, indeed it must be taken into account insofar as it includes relevant material. It is regularly cited in academic writing on Islamica and represents the sum of, if you like, Western Orientalist knowledge. Palmiro | Talk 01:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only a reliable source but a significant one. Prof: Mark Cohen calls him a distinguished Islamic historian. When Shelomo Dov Goitein wants to contradict Cohen, he writes: Antisemitism was not absent as it is assumed (+footnote). In the footnote, writes even by such an eminent authority as Cahen" (please see footnote 14 here [39]). This shows the significant of Cahen's POV.--Aminz 01:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My comments were about EI rather than about the individual contributor, though I don't disagree with you. I assume this is the second edition, by the way? It's not clear from the citation you give. Palmiro | Talk 12:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Step 2. Bernard Lewis and Mark Cohen are reliable sources.

This is just to make sure we are on the same page.

Comments:

Step 3. The book: "Israel's Place in the Middle East: A Pluralist Perspective" By Nissim Rejwan, Published by University Press of Florida is a reliable source.

Arguments:

1. The publication is a university press, meaning that it is "peer-reviewed". The University Press of Florida states that further this book has won the year’s best book of non-fiction published in the category of Israel Studies from "Jewish Book Council’s 1998 Morris J. and Betty Kaplun Foundation National Jewish Book Award" [40]

That the publication is from a university press does not necessarily mean that it is peer-reviewed. As I understand, not all university presses peer-review works they publish. The University Press of Florida does not claim to apply peer-review on its website. While this author sounds like a bona fide source, it isn't immediately clear how relevant the book is to the question. A secondary source is best used for questions it deals with directly - it seems like this may not be an ideal source for this article. Is it an edited volume or a monograph, or what? But I may be wrong. In any case, I'm not sure from the citation in the last version of the page it appeared in, what it was being cited for. Palmiro | Talk 01:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Precisely that's the difference between university presses and other presses. Univ presses practice peer-reviewing. Prof. Carl Ernst pointed this out in relation to the books of Robert Spencer. The link was [41] but it is inactive now. But I am sure many users have seen that. Rijwan in this book says:""Anti-Semitism, then, is an exclusively Christian phenomenon and, as such, a predominantly Western one. It is therefore both historically wrong and morally inexcusable to try to apply the term to non-Christian and non-Western societies."--Aminz 01:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism is an exclusively Christian phenomenon if the author chooses to define it that way. This reminds me of attempts to define racism as something only white people can be guilty of. To the extent that it is a viewpoint articulated by some notable academics, it may be included as such, subject to due weight; but I would be leery of presenting it as fact. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Lewis agrees with it here [42]. "For most of the fourteen hundred years or so of the Arab Jewish encounter, the Arabs have not in fact been anti-Semitic as that word is used in the West... because for most part they are not Christian." SO it is a POV. --Aminz 01:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Nissim Rejwan is currently a research fellow at the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Comments:

Step 4. Users who agree that we should reflect what reliable sources say not what we think. For example when Bernard Lewis says: "Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism", this should not be removed because an editor personally thinks "Prejudices is antisemitism" [43]. Every claim that something is antisemitism must be back up by a reliable source. The users can not say on their own that the incident X was antisemitism. Not every persecution nor every prejudice is antisemitism.

Comments:

Step 5. Unless some quote is specifically linked to anti-semitism, it shouldn't be used. In fact the editors should not draw connections between concepts, incidents, etc etc. The source should link these together.

Comments:

Next Steps Would Come Later. Thanks for your time reading this.

Part b)

Application of the above statements (to be discussed later)

From Step 5:

• 5.1 Assuming that the work of Paul Johnson (journalist) is reliable, the following quote from him isn't linked to antisemitism. (please see the whole page here [44]): "In theory, ... the status of Jewish dhimmi under Moslem rule was worse than under the Christians, since their right to practise their religion, and even their right to live, might be arbitrarily removed at any time. In practice, however, the Arab warriors ... had no wish to exterminate literate and industrious Jewish communities who provided them with reliable tax incomes and served them in innumerable ways. ... The Arab Moslems were slow to develop any religious animus against the Jews. In Moslem eyes, the Jews had sinned by rejecting Mohammed's claims, but they had not crucified him."

Discussion:

• 5.2 The Lewis quote is not in the context of anti-semitism (please see the page here [45]): "The words "humility" and "humilitation" occur frequently in the Qur'an and later Muslim literature to describe the condition to which Jews must be reduced as a just punishment for their past rebelliousness, the punishment that shows itself in the defeat they suffered at the hands of Christians and Muslims. The standard Quranic reference to Jews is the verse 2:61,"

Discussion:

• 5.3 The whole paragraph on Dhimmi isn't relevant: "Islamic law demands that when under Muslim rule non-Muslims should be treated as dhimmis - from the Arab term ahl adh-dhimma. The writer Bat Ye'or introduced the modern word Dhimmitude as a generic indication of this Islamic attitude. Dhimmis were granted protection of life (including against other Muslim states), the right to residence in designated areas, worship, and work or trade, and were exempted from military service, and Muslim religious duties, personal law and tax on certain conditions such as paying the poll (jizyah) and land taxes as set by Muslim authorities. At the same time they were subject to various restrictions in relation to Muslims and Islam (for example, Muslim men could marry dhimmi women and own dhimmi slaves, but the opposite was not true), the Qur'an or Muhammad (such as desecrating scriptures or defaming the Prophet), and proselytizing. Jews and other non-Muslims were at times subjected to a number of other restrictions such as restrictions on dress, riding horses or camels, carrying arms, holding public office, building or repairing places of worship, mourning loudly, wearing shoes outside a Jewish ghetto, etc."

Discussion:

Comments. Arminz, though I appreciate your stating the position in (what seem to be) clear terms, could you avoid setting it up as a plebiscite? --CSTAR 20:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I very much agree with this remark of CSTAR's. Palmiro | Talk 21:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

CSTAR, I am sorry but I don't quite understand your suggestion. I was bothered for a long time with arguments like: Encyclopedia of Islam is not reliable source, Nissim Rejwan is a polemic, Bernard Lewis doesn't say the claims attributed to him, etc etc. If everybody agrees that these sources are okay, then I am fine. Please decide on the above 5 statements once and for all. Please change its format if you think it is not appropriate. --Aminz 23:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to the format. But I don't think it should be made into a plebiscite. The content of articles is decided by various criteria. Popular opinion isn't one of them.--CSTAR 00:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

CSTAR, I believe you are well-versed in math. Can we consider these 5 statements as "axioms" and build up everything on that, brick by brick. --Aminz 23:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Presenting justification for your claims (which it seems you are trying to do) is worthwhile. But this is not the same as deduction from axioms in a formal system.--CSTAR 00:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

So, please let me know your concrete suggestion. For example in Step 3, can we use the source? User:Jayjg says it is polemic. We should either use it or not. Similarly, in Step 1, User:Humus sapiens says that EoI is unreliable because what it says and is a POV teritary source. We should either use it or not. We can not certainly both use it and at the same time calling it unreliable. That's why I am confused. --Aminz 00:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

CSTAR, would your concern be addressed if Aminz changed Users who agree/Users who disagree to Comments, pro and con or something? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, I agree with some of your points, but the concern I have, and that I think is also related to the one CSTAR presents, is that your way of presenting them here is sort of trying to force other people to take positions, take part in a poll or vote along lines you have decided unilaterally. CSTAR doesn't believe in polls; I simply don't think it's going to work. It might be simpler to state your position (these five propositions, for example) and just ask for comments. Also, some of your propositions, e.g. Step 4, are simply argumentative. Remember this is not a court of law! Palmiro | Talk 01:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Tom harrison. Instead of Poll, discussion of opinions regarding sources would be preferable. But please I have no expertise here, so I can't be of much help.--CSTAR 02:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Scholars of Islam are not scholars of antisemitism, and expertise in one area doesn't grant you expertise in the other. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be more specific: Are you rejecting Encyclopedia of Islam, Bernard Lewis and Mark Cohen as reliable sources for this article? --Aminz 10:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither are scholars of antisemitism necessarily scholars of Islam; while this article is about antisemitism, the section under discussion here is about antisemitism in Islam and in Islamic history, and scholars of Islam who have written about the history of Jews in Islamic lands or Islamic attitudes to the Jews and to Judaism are obviously eligible to be used as sources. Palmiro | Talk 12:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

To be more specific, Aminz, I think you are abusing your sources, as you regularly do, selectively quoting them in ways that distort their actual positions. Bernard Lewis, in fact, puts it quite well:

The reality was of course more complex, less idyllic, less one-sided. There had been times of persecution under the Muslims and times of prosperity under Christian rule in Spain - and many Christian states, as well as Turkey, had given shelter to Spanish Jewish refugees. Even at its best, medieval Islam was rather different from the picture provided by Disraeli and other romantic writers. The golden age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam. The myth was invented by Jews in nineteenth-century Europe as a reproach to Christians - and taken up by Muslims in our own time as a reproach to Jews.

Like most powerful myths, this story contains an element of historic truth. If tolerance means the absence of persecution, then classical Islamic society was indeed tolerant to both its Jewish and its Christian subjects - more tolerant perhaps in Spain than in the East, and in either incomparably more tolerant than was medieval Christendom. But if tolerance means absence of discrimination, then Islam never was or claimed to be tolerant but on the contrary insisted on the privileged superiority of the true believer in this world as well as in the next. Bernard Lewis. Islam in History: ideas, people, and events in the Middle East, Open Court Publishing, 2001, ISBN 0812695186, p. 148.

Lewis uses unique definitions of antisemitism; Aminz , you abuse this to try to pretend that the medieval Islam did not discriminate against Jews. Does that make my views somewhat more clear? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[46] (P.S. this reference doesn't mean I completely agree with the quote) --Aminz 15:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Aminz is working in good faith and not abusing his sources, certainly not habitually. Quotes are necessarily selective. If he finds most compelling the parts of Lewis that most closely correspond with what Aminz thinks is true, that is hardly surprising, and no more than could be said of most of us. We inevitably start with our own understanding, and look for, and at, scholarly sources that mesh with our understanding. We do have to go beyond that for anything but a superficial treatment.

Jayjg's extended quote raises points about Lewis' position that need to be addressed. I favor including Lewis' opinion on this page, but we need to be careful to correctly and completely articulate Lewis' opinion, where it matches our own as well as where it does not.

Finally, as elsewhere, this page is about antisemitism as a whole. We have Islam and antisemitism and Arabs and antisemitism, and probably others, for more detailed and nuanced consideration of these issues. Just about any true statement or notable opinion can be included somewhere in Wikipedia, but not anywhere or everywhere. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What I find particularly interesting in this regard is that - as far as I can without further context for the quotation - the Lewis quote Jayjg gives says nothing about antisemitism. It speaks of Islamic tolerance generally, and of Islamic certainty of superiority generally, but not of hatred or prejudice against Jews.

Jayjg then says: "Lewis uses unique definitions of antisemitism; Aminz , you abuse this to try to pretend that the medieval Islam did not discriminate against Jews." This, to my mind, and I hope I am not misrepresenting Jayjg, brings up some very relevant issues which have been already mentioned on this page. First of all, in my view, Lewis's definitions of antisemitism are worthy of discussion in relation to questions of antisemitism in the Islamic world. There can be few writers of greater stature in the field to have addressed the issue in such detail. But secondly, with all due respect to Jayjg, I don't think anyone has claimed that medieval Islam did not discriminate against Jews; but the salient point is surely whether it discriminated against them as Jews or not, whether antisemitism was at issue or not. Whether it discriminated against them insofar as they were non-Muslims - and that it did is not, to the best of my knowledge, questioned - is of no apparent relevance in an article about antisemitism. Palmiro | Talk 00:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Jews weren't simply "non-Muslims," but members of a carefully-delineated class which included them explicitly and by design, not by default.Proabivouac 01:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no question that "prejudice and sometimes hostility existed in the Islamic world" as you can see here [47], I wrote: "According to scholars such as Claude Cahen while prejudice and sometimes hostility existed in the Islamic world, there was no antisemitism". But as Palmiro said, antisemitism is something quite different. And this page is centered on antisemitism. It is like trying to say find a "black big ball". If something is black and big but it isn't round, then it is not a "black big ball". And if we say there is no "black big ball", that wouldn't mean that there is nothing black and big. --Aminz 01:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC

So, they were prejudiced against and hostile towards Jews, and discriminated against them, but were not anti-Semitic. It's been noted already that your position is based upon an idiosyncratic definition of anti-Semitism; a look at the linked dictionary confirms this.Proabivouac 02:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask you a very simple request: Find an scholar who unambigiously says: There was a lot of antisemitism in pre-modern Islam. Good deal?--Aminz 02:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no background in this literature, so defer your challenge to others, with this caveat: we are not obliged to comform to specialist definitions in our use of well-known terms. The dictionary I linked is hardly the best one, but even so is closer to a reliable source on English-language meanings and usage than are Cahen or Lewis. If our sources document prejudice, hostility and discrimination against Jews, it is not our original research to organize these under a secton dedicated to anti-Semitism anymore than it would be to fairly paraphrase sourced material in any other instance. That specialist definitions have been offered by these scholars is notable, interesting and informative, and deserves mention.Proabivouac 19:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see "Step 4" above. It is original research to draw connection between an incident and AntiSemitism. Proabivouac, don't you feel that the "black big" thing you are refering to is not a "black big ball". --Aminz 03:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Article on ethnic segregation?

Does anyone know what happened to the article on ethnic segregation? It is now red, and several pages (including the info box in this article) link to it ([48]). Keesiewonder 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Tag Removal

Please don't remove the tag[49], [50](at least 6 editors agreed that there is some dispute). Also, please avoid attribution of "meatpuppet". --Aminz 00:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What term would you use instead?Proabivouac 02:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

And what word would you use for your backing up of Jayjg? I haven't seen you commenting on this page either. --Aminz 02:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Unlike you, I didn't recruit meatpuppets to this discussion. In fact don't recall ever interacting with Proabivouac before. That would be the key difference. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this a wee bit argumentative? And you an admin, an experienced user and who knows what else to boot?--CSTAR 07:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Aw come on, we all know what's going on here, what's the point in pretending we don't see it?Proabivouac 07:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't. As I said, maybe I believe in a fiction WP:AGF. If we contribute here (and certainly jayjg does) then we at least pay lip service to this fiction. I'm sorry I actually believe in it.--CSTAR 07:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with WP:AGF. Believers are nothing if not good faith. They will tell you themselves, I am a believer, I am here to glorify the prophet, I believe everything said against him and against my religion is a big lie, etc. It is only others who will interpolate, well, perhaps they don't mean that so strongly. Perhaps they include wikipedia policy among their goals. Etc.

Under the pretense of listening, you are not listening.Proabivouac 08:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, like the proverbial guy in police headquarters says under the lamp, "I don't know what you're talking about." I'm an atheist. I don't believe in prophets.--CSTAR 08:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My comments above were worded too broadly. Hence, I have struck them out, and I apologize if I've offended any to whom they don't apply.Proabivouac 23:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, you have a theory. Please justify the following fact by your theory. If you can't, please take it back, good deal? isn't it?

I requested for comment from the following editors:

• User: Itaqallah: [51] (Muslim)

• User: Merzbow [52] (atheist)

• User: Truthspreader [53] (Muslim, long involved in dispute in this article)

• User: FayssalF [54] (Muslim but Admin and a respected person in the community)

• User: Tom_harrison [55] (Christian)

• User: Jossi: [56] (Jew)

• User: Jpgordon: [57] (Jew)

• User: Netscott [58] (atheist)

As you can see 2 atheist, 2 Jew, 2 Christian and 3 Muslims (one of the wasn't new but an old involved party). Please justify these numbers using your theory. Thanks --Aminz 09:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: Support of some co-religionist,co-workers, co-genders, etc etc editors is something that should not surprise us if happening at some level especially in religous related articles, (in work), etc etc. It is natural and it happens everywhere in this world. In family, work, and yes in wikipedia. Let me be more clear: Even among Admin in wikipedia. They evaluate each other with a different standard. My point is that making a big deal out of it is not proper especially when that of a particular group is unduly intensified. I can show you cases which were basically the same situation but you remained silent (e.g. recent voting at Dhimmitude). Double standards is the source of problems. --Aminz 10:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that if Aminz hadn't decided to establish a poll, nobody could have objected to his asking other interested editors to comment on the issue. As nobody seems to be paying any much heed to the results of the poll, perhaps we can close this argument. Full disclosure: I propose to ask some editors whose neutrality and knowledgable editing I respect to look at this discussion, and the passage, and see if they wish to make any comments. This is part of the normal wiki collaborative process, after all... Palmiro | Talk 12:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That's correct. At the same time, it might be asked whether these solicitations would have been thought worthwhile had the poll not existed. Aminz, as I'd stated earlier, the problem is the way in which some users react to these solicitations, including some whom, no doubt, whom you hadn't contacted, but saw it on someone else's talk page. Other editors (such as myself, in most cases) ignore solicitations to engage in disputes we know little about, so contacting a hundred of us has no mitigating effect. At this point, the problem has been recognized and appears to be under control, so as per Palmiro I retire from this discussion.Proabivouac 00:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice Aminz's characterization of FayssalF: "Muslim but Admin and a respected person..." Beit Or 10:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what both of you (you and Aminz) mean! The wrong part of that is that my affiliation doesn't matter. Indeed, i am not a Muslim as in Muslim. I am neither a believer nor a practicant. So, please guys stop these insanities and focus on the content of the article instead. When i was solicited, i came to give my opinion re what's going on in the article. I gave my opinion (which was not a vote) as a user (not as an admin or as a muslim or as a respected user) and left. I came back now and i still see that you are still wasting your time. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't start this:) That "but" meant "also". And you are a respected editor in wikipedia at least in my dictionary. --Aminz 15:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding section "Antisemitism and the Muslim world"

It seems to me that there is some divergence in the scholarly opinions that have been cited or suggested for citation here regarding the existence and prevalence of antisemitic ideas in Islam and in Islamic history, and also that part of this is due to differing analytical approaches, e.g. the distinction some draw between anti-Judaism as a religious sentiment and antisemitism as it existed in the Christian world.

I would suggest that in order to reflect these issues in a neutral manner, what is needed is a different approach to the topic. Rather than constructing an argument supported by scholarly sources, the section should begin with an overview of scholarly opinions, stating the different views and elucidating the different analytical frameworks that those views are based on (Lewis's views, for example, would bear discussion). I think this would be more conducive to a clear, informative and neutral treatment of the topic.

Then, on the specific issue of Qur'anic material, rather than presenting a set of examples of quotations from the Qur'an regarding Jews and Judaism and commentary on this, we should explicitly indicate the relevance of such passages to Islamic views and to the treatment of Jews in islamic lands, as seen by scholarly opinion, and when scholarly opinion diverges on the subject, we should say so. It seems more than possible that these passages have been used, and perhaps understood, in different ways and to different extents in the course of Islamic history, but it is not really possible to gain any impression of their real significance from the section as it stands at the moment. Palmiro | Talk 13:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a valid point. I'm trying to steer the section in this direction. Beit Or 20:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.Proabivouac 23:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

+ one. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't see anything that I would not agree with. The first question I think we need to answer at the very beginning of this article is that "Was anti-Semitism among Muslims according to scholars, and if yes, how much". The views can be sorted according to their significance. --Aminz 15:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Highly relevant articles to consider creating

In light of all the articles on antisemitism here and in the antisemitism template, I'd like to propose a few more and I suppose that this is the place to do it (if it is not please redirect me to another location or page on Wiki). Considering we already have articles like "Anti-globalization and antisemitism," "Universities and antisemitism," and even "Japan and antisemitism," I think the following articles can be good, highly relevant additions to the already generous offerings on this subject:

• Anti-Americanism and antisemitism: especially part of the "New antisemitism," Hollywood and antisemitism, Israeli-U.S. policy in the Middle East, etc.
• Anti-Communism and antisemitism: so-called "Jewish Bolshevism," Nazi theories of Jewish controlled USSR, actual Jewish prominence in the Soviet Union, the House Un-American Activities Committee targeted many supposed "Jewish communists" in Hollywood (Hollywood blacklist), current manifestations of this in some parts of modern Eastern Europe (former Soviet bloc) & Russia, etc.
• Anti-Capitalism and antisemitism: so-called "Jewish controlled" industries, Nazi boycotts of Jewish businesses, etc: just search the internet -- there are links everywhere on this subject.

The final two could go under a larger heading titled something like "Economic antisemitism," because Jews have been accused throughout their recent (and sometimes ancient) history of being both "greedy" capitalists and "exploitative" communists.

All of these areas have strong support for articles; there are easily dozens of reliable, scholarly websites/articles for each of these proposed articles, not to mention many books on these topics. I can start posting some good links that I've found here if some people like here feel like collaborating to create these articles over the next few weeks/months. Thanks. --Pseudothyrum 18:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

anti-zionism = anti-semitism?

That is ridiculously absurd, but hardly a surprise to find at wikipedia, sadly. Ernham 03:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see New antisemitism, where this issue is discussed. Also, what particular parts of this article are you referring to when you mention this? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 08:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think he's bemoaning the lack of care taken to distinguish the virulent hatred of Jews that "antisemitism" signifies from the concept invented by a few rightists and pro-Israelis that goes by the name "new antisemitism". One is a demonstrable thing, with a long history. The other is a smear. Lumping the latter in with the former helps reinforce a current political stance and line of thinking (the same line of thinking that tends to smear any critic of Israel's policies in the territories that it disputes with others and other territories around it as "antisemites", as though criticism of Israel was always motivated by hatred for Jews). The editors pushing that view even occasionally become confused, claiming in one place that there is (rather than that some people with an axe to grind say there is) a "new antisemitism" -- a confederation of Muslim and Left in Jewhating -- but in others that Muslims have in any case always been antisemites. This isn't the place to argue whether the increased fever of leftist criticism of Israel, which is apparent, has tipped over into antisemitism (or into stances that encourage antisemitism), which I'd tend to agree it unfortunately has, but it's a debit to Wikipedia that articles are slanted in this way. Grace Note 08:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Different views

Here are the list of different views

• There was no antisemitism: According to scholars such as Claude Cahen and Bernard Lewis.

• Anti-semitism was not entirely absent as it is assumed by Cahen. If the term 'anti-Semitism' could be used for the particular form of anti-Judaism understood from the Geniza letters, the antisemitism appears to have been local and sporadic rather than general and endemic.: According to S. D. Goitein

• There was little specific antisemitism except in periods of religous extremism: The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion states.

• Leon Poliakov maintains that the term "antisemitism" could be used in relation with Islam only with qualifications.

If there is no other view, we can summerize these and explain this as the intro for the section. --Aminz 11:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, I cannot believe you are still beating this dead horse. The question is more of a terminology than of a substance. Here is a short historical timeline [59]. I suggest we create a series of articles dedicated to these events, because this seems to be the only way to deal with denial. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Whenever you find an scholarly source which connects whatever incident you have in mind to antisemitism, then we can add it. Period. --Aminz 10:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, this is becoming unseemly. You seem to want to use some word other than "antisemitism" for massacres of Jews, spitting at them in the street, stone throwing, and forced conversion. It was Jew hatred, pure and simple, and the facts are undeniable, so please let this pointless argument go. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Not any prejudice is antisemitism. Not any persecution is antisemitism. Not everything in the Islamic texts about the Jews is antisemitism. And that's the point. Some scholar should make the connection. It is original research for us to do so. Not every "black big thing" is a "black big ball". --Aminz 11:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You keep bringing up this Lewis's view over and over again, People have already told you many times that this view is highly idiosyncratic and not supported by other scholars. There is no point in continuing the arguments; you just ignore all views but yours. Beit Or 13:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lewis's views are highly idiosyncratic, and few scholars of antisemitism agree with him. But even Lewis admits that there was antisemitism (in his "cosmic evil" sense) by the 19th century. You seem to want to deny there was ever any antisemitism in Muslim countries before Israel (just a few prejudicial massacres, nothing to fuss about), and after Israel, it was anti-Zionism, not antisemitism, which is of course completely legitimate, even when it involves calling Jews monkeys and pigs. This means that Muslims all over the world were the only people never to have fallen victim to the virus of antisemitism. This is an absurd and offensive view, which is demonstrably false, yet you've been trying to push it into multiple articles for months, trying to get Lewis mentioned wherever possible, revert warring when you're opposed, and tagging when you don't revert. Please read material by someone other than Lewis. There's no point in only ever reading things you agree with. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Not any prejudice is antisemitism. Not any persecution is antisemitism". No, just prejudice against and persecution of Jews. Which, unsurprisingly, is what that section deals with. Time for you to deal with it to, rather than denying it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, is it not possible that Jews were persecuted not because they were Jews, but because they were not non-Jews? Aminz, I think we'd all be better off if you focused on ensuring that the views to which you sympthize are duly and fairly mentioned, rather than insisting that they dominate the section. Currently, they are the very first things mentioned (which seems to me undue weight); I can't see why you would demand more.Proabivouac 09:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that's possible, but there is a fair bit in the Qur'an and hadith specifically about Jews; Islam has views of Jews that are unique to Jews alone, not to every "non-Muslim". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, those who do not agree with Lewis's view or Cahen's view state that they are in minority. If it is not so and many incidents in pre-modern Islam were antisemitism, then it should be easy for them to find one scholar saying: There was a lot of antisemitism. The Oxford Dictionary of Judaism says there was little antisemitism because Jews were treated like others. Thus, I don't think these views are in minority. Please prove it instead of stating it again and agian. --Aminz 07:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Issues with the historiography of this series of articles

From the WP article on history.

"In the preface to his book the Muqaddimah, historian and early sociologist Ibn Khaldun warned of seven mistakes that he thought that historians regularly committed. In this criticism, he approached the past as strange and in need of interpretation. The originality of Ibn Khaldun was to claim that the cultural difference of another age must govern the evaluation of relevant historical material, to distinguish the principles according to which it might be possible to attempt the evaluation, and lastly, to feel the need for experience, in addition to rational principles, in order to assess a culture of the past."

I'm wondering whether the reason that discussion on this article is currently stalled is because this point has not been sufficiently considered. Some serious attention should be paid to whether the term "antisemitism" can be usefully applied at all before the 19th century? I don't have a simple answer to the question and suggest that this article should summarise the usage of the major authors on the topic. Whether it can or not be applied retrospectively, is there a sound logic for separating the Christian and Muslim histories rather than following a chronological structure?

Also, the debates relating to this article might be more easily resolved by considering its place within the series. History of antisemitism is actually just a timeline. A useful adjunct, but mainly unsourced and wrongly titled. Yellow badge is also a timeline. And New antisemitism is as bedevilled by controversy as is this article.

Would it not be far more logical to have this article as an overview presenting the main definitions used by important writers, referring to a strong sub-article on the history, which would in turn have its own sub-articles on the relevant historical periods?Itsmejudith 23:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Judith, your point is well made, but what we do here is simply report what the major sources say. If they apply the term "antisemitism" to events before the 19th century (and most seem to), then so do we, because we simply repeat what they say. Again, if the major sources separate Christian and Muslim histories, so must we. New antisemitism actually isn't "bedevilled by controversy," and nor is this one; the number of editors complaining is very small and they do not, so far as I can tell, have specialist knowledge. I'm not familiar with this page, but I do know that New antisemitism very faithfully reflects what the major, published, scholarly sources say, and that is what we must do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that while some authors would apply the term in that way, others are not happy to do so. Lewis would come into the latter category, at least as far as the Islamic world goes. And as he is the major historian of Jewish-Islamic relations his view should be reflected here.

Not all major sources separate Christian and Muslim histories; in fact most of the recent scholarship seems to have the explicit aim of taking a broader look and placing events in context. (Cohen's Under Crescent and Cross for example.) And indeed the timelines in History of antisemitism and Yellow badge in this encyclopedia keep to a strictly chronological structure, interweaving events from all geographical locations. Keeping these two stories separate gives an unwarranted impression that it was Christianity and Islam as religions that implemented repressive measures against Jews. This ignores the important messages of some historians as to how attitudes to minority populations were related to the development of secular, state power, or to the clash between two empires, or even to technological and economic development.Itsmejudith 10:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say Lewis doesn't use it? He describes early Jew hatred as religious antisemitism. I don't follow your other points. Can you provide citations and tell us who exactly is saying what? SlimVirgin ^(talk)

Slim you know that there are some passages where he picks apart the differences between attitudes to Jews in medieval Islam and modern forms of antisemitism. Now, is Lewis the source for the distinction made in the lead between three types of antisemitism? There is currently no source given for this division and there should be, because it is not up to us to do this kind of conceptual work. And although there are multiple sources for the idea of New antisemitism there is none for "religious antisemitism".Itsmejudith 20:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Judith, as a matter of interest, why don't you provide sources yourself when you feel one is needed? There are lots of sources to choose from for this, but I've put up Flannery because it's a regarded as a classic and the title is self-explanatory. No page numbers; most of the book is relevant. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't understand my other points. Let me put it this way: this article is trying to reduce a massive body of knowledge spanning centuries and continents to a short, verifiable, easily accessible article. The structure has to be right to be able to do this adequately. Cf Islam, which I've been working on recently to help it towards FA status. The history section is recounted chronologically and it summarises a main article on History of Islam with a similar structure. That frees up the rest of the article to have a topic-by-topic structure dealing with definitions, main features, and an overview of the situation today. Perhaps that could work here.Itsmejudith 12:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You could certainly write a chronological section to introduce the subject if you think that would work. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I can well understand the point that one could perceive the current structure of the articles to not clearly indicate the historical differences between the various forms of anti-semitisism that have existed over time, and that differentiation is an important one to make. Certainly, Karen Armstrong recently devoted an entire book to discussing the histories and differences between Christian, Jewish, and Islamic fundamentalism. On that basis, I do think that perhaps changing the structure of these articles to a historical one, indicating the growth, changes, and development of anti-semitism more clearly, would probably be a reasonable idea. Badbilltucker 18:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What I'm going to do in response to these comments is to try and develop History of antisemitism as a chronologically structured article including, but not restricted to, the timeline.Itsmejudith 20:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• It is interesting to note that Antisemitism and Judeophobia are two different things denoting similar practices, with the latter being more accurately applied to pre-19th Century hatred/persecution of Jews. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 21:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Chabuk, I do find your insight interesting. Can you point me to more information? Or do I just need to patiently watch and read this page, for it's in process? (Here, my talk or email is all fine with me.) Thanks! Keesiewonder 21:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What Chabuk calls "Antisemitism" is actually Racial antisemitism. What Chabuk calls "Judeophobia" is actually Religious antisemitism. The latter preceded the former; Wikipedia has articles on both. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, thank you both very much. Based on what you've told me here, I do therefore find it confusing that on Wikipedia, Judeophobia redirects to anti-Semitism. Keesiewonder 00:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Some people prefer the term "Judeophobia" for antisemitism, because it is more "etymologically accurate". However, it has never really caught on. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and Off-Topic Tag

The Off-Topic tag was added because many parts of this section are related to the status of Jews in Muslim lands which is not related to antisemitism. Dhimmi regulation for example. Some passages were taken from places where the author has not been writing about AntiSemitism.

While the neutrality concerns were raised sometimes. One example is "There are Islamic literary sources in medieval age in which the contemporary Jew is endowed with positive characteristics." from Judica Encyclopedia. The "Jews blasphemously claim that Ezra is the son of God" is directed towards particular Jews who were taken heretic beliefs (e.g. David Waines An Introduction to Islam, p.27). The distinction between particular Jews and Jews is important. Furthermore, the issue of Quranic polemics can be best covered in Quran and polemic (as in Encyclopedia of the Qur'an). Their particular relevance should be established. According to some scholars, the Qur'an is reflecting many of the polemics which some sects of Christianity and Judaism were addressing toward each other at the time of Muhammad. Anyways.

BUT the first step is not discussion of neutrality but rather which sections are relevant to antisemitism. After reaching concensus on that, we can discuss neutrality. Please have a look at the step-by-step dispute resolution suggestion+its follow up. It gives my idea of how the relevant passage should be detected. --Aminz 13:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Intrestingly, however, even Lewis. who does not believe in antisemitism in medieval Islam discusses the treatment of the Jews as dhimmis in his works on antisemitism. In addition, see also the point on Jews being the lowest class of dhimmis. This issue is relevant no matter which point of view you take. Beit Or 13:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you refering to the book written by Lewis. It is a book. The articles on antisemitism may touch these issues but are not significantly centered on them. --Aminz 07:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The hypothesis that there was a group of Jews in Arabia who believed Ezra to be a son of God was proposed by some historians, but it is not supported by any evidence and is not shared by the leading scholars. Beit Or 13:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Quran was raising that possibility if I remember correctly. So, I am not sure what leading scholars think. But in any case, this is the very definition of NPOV: Not all POVs are mentioned. --Aminz 07:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is quite clear that you will continue to deface the section until the wording is exactly what you wish. You do this on many articles. It is disruptive. Please stop, and deal with issues on the Talk: page instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, I pray that God give to all of us a truth-seeking heart. --Aminz 07:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, from what I can tell, Lewis hesitates to label institutional discrimination against Jews as "antisemitism" because the discrimination was extended to Christians as well. That is surely a valid point of view, but he clearly does not dispute the premise that Jews were at best subject to discrimination and at worst murderous persecution under Muslim regimes because they were Jewish. The article goes to some lengths to differentiate between different types of antisemitism, among them those that are based on religious rather than racist premises; so it must follow that dhimmitude and other discrimination properly belongs in this article. Otherwise, someone else might equally logically make the argument that Hitler's race theories had nothing to do with antisemitism since they also included persecution of "Slavs," Gypsies, and others considered "inferior." --Leifern 22:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Prejudice and sometimes hostility were there but not antisemitism according to Lewis. The proper word is persecution, not antisemitism. Antisemitism is a word with a particular meaning. Not every persecution is antisemitism. --Aminz 07:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is antisemitism. Aminz, the more you deny facts and use meatpuppetry, the more you discredit yourself. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• If Aminz is arguing that pre-Christian Europe persecution of Jews was not anti-Semitism, but rather Judeophobia (ie. Jew hatred), I agree with him. Both in the Muslim Near East and the Ancient Near East, persecution of Jews was not a reaction to "Judaism" racial or religious but was a function of ANE culture - political competition, geography, sometimes culture, etc. As I've mentioned elsewhere, there should really be an article on this phenomenon (probably taking the place of the anti-Judaism article (which in my opinion is nonsense) or the Judeophobia redirect. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 15:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wilhelm Marr invented the term "antisemitism" as a substitute for "Judeophobia" or Judenhass as it was known in German. Please do not invent new meanings for existing words. Beit Or 16:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not inventing new meanings for anything, and I am perfectly aware of the origin of the term. I am explaining that anti-Semitism is in fact a different (though intrinsically related) phenomenon to Judeophobia. Furthermore, you would do well to keep in mind WP:AGF before accusing dedicated editors of lying. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 17:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Beit Or did not accuse you of lying, but merely asked you to refrain from inventing new meanings for existing words. To wit, from the American Heritage dictionary, [60]

1. Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.

2. Discrimination against Jews.

Some scholars have proposed specialized definitions which diverge from this, which deserves to be - and is - mentioned. However, expertise in history does not qualify one to change standard usage, for which American Heritage dictionary, for all its shortcomings, is far and away the more appropriate and reliable source. If the use of "antisemitism" in this article seems to you insufficiently nuanced, it is the fault of the English language, not of Wikipedia.Proabivouac 19:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• We currently have a situation over multiple articles where various editors are protesting that pogroms, murdering Jews, spitting on them, stoning them, teaching children to call them monkeys and pigs, expelling them or refusing to let them leave, forcing them to wear special clothes, publicly condemning Judaism, suggesting that Jews killed Jesus and Muhummad and bombed the World Trade Center, forcing them to live in certain areas, banning them from certain professions, suggesting that synagogues be set on fire or, indeed, setting them on fire ... and so on ... are not examples of antisemitism. We can call it anti-Judaism, or Judeophobia, or prejudice, or persecution, or perhaps even Judenhass, but we must not call it antisemitism, because antisemitism "has a special meaning." Come on! Would editors please stop imposing their personal opinions on this topic, and read what the scholarly sources write about it — and that means reading a great deal more than Bernard Lewis. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Shall we all calm down and have a cup of tea? I haven't seen anyone trying to justify oppression, violence and discrimination - perhaps I am not looking at the same articles. Proabivouac has expressed a sensible point with which I would like to politely disagree. In my opinion we are getting confused because "antisemitism" can have both an everyday meaning and a technical meaning within the social sciences. Compounding that grounds for confusion, the technical meaning is by no means fixed but varies considerably between authors. What it seems to me needs to happen at this stage is that we agree which authors are most important and then we go away and consult how they use the term. Slim has read much more on this topic than most of the rest of us will ever have the time to do, so perhaps she could please list the two or three authors she thinks are absolutely essential and some others whose views should be reflected.Itsmejudith 23:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, I like this suggestion (though I am having coffee right now). I'm just someone who is trying to learn more about these topics ... and have thus been watching some of these articles. I would like to hear which books Slim would point someone to, and I will carefully read whatever version of the WP exists when I have some quality leisure time this weekend. Keesiewonder 12:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign the first time; glad I checked; sorry :-( ...)

Is this an attempt to misstate my arguements above vis a vis the difference between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism? -- Kendrick7^talk 23:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an attempt to summarize, not misstate, the arguments of several editors, yourself included, that the word "antisemitism" must be avoided at all costs when it comes to the left/the religious/Muslims/whatever. What we must do, as Judith suggested, is publish the views of scholarly sources, and not our own opinions; and we must also not (Aminz, nota bene) read ONE source that we happen to agree with and henceforth promote him as the greatest thing since sliced bread. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have never made any such argument. In fact, I personally added Martin Luther to Category:Anti-Semitic people just the other day [61]. You seem to have nothing better to offer than calumny here; and I apologize if you are under the mistaken impression that there aren't a hundred sources which distinguish the two concepts, beyond the one you repeatedly deleted as "non-sense" (after putting the words "religious anti-Semetism" in the sources mouth) [62]. I am not the least bit amused by the backdoor method to move and rescope anti-Judaism; but I have no problem with splitting the difference and letting you have your article on religious anti-Semitism. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have a hundred sources, please produce them. I think you'll find a few, but not many, and they tend not to be specialists; the vast majority of scholars of antisemitism do not make the distinction. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've always understood anti-Semitism had to have something to do with hatred by definition. If someone believes that performing a religious ritual every seventh time the Earth spins on its axis is a silly primative superstition, that's certainly an anti-Judaic belief, as keeping the sabbath is a central tenent of Judaism (last I checked). I don't know what your ivory tower intellectuals want you to believe on this score, but I'm simply not convinced that anyone who holds such a belief is an anti-Semite. I hope you understood how absurd that seems to me. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, how are you able to form an opinion without having read anything about it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick7, it is Criticism of Judaism that you're looking for. Beit Or 12:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Veiled ad hominem attacks seem to be epidemic on this discussion page. I'd appreciate it if we could deal with facts here and not personal issues. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 04:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, this is relevant. On any page to do with Jews, antisemitism, and Israel, I'm struck by how few people have actually read anything, and yet how strong the opinions are that people express. I'm wondering how they do it, and more importantly, why they feel Wikipedia talk pages should be clogged up with their uninformed personal opinions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean theology, New Testament studies that sort of thing? Does the phrase please don't throw me in the briar patch mean anything to you? -- Kendrick7^talk 05:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea what you're talking about. If you want to discuss theology and the New Testament, this is not the right page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, and this wasn't the right page to hijack an article Christian theological anti-Judaism in the first place. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about antisemitism, and Christian religious antisemitism is a huge part of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and labelling Jesus Christ an anti-Semite isn't POV pushing at all

. I've tried to be reasonable here, but now you are just making things up. I'll have to find out what my fellow Christians think of your ideas. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that the article does anything like label Jesus an anti-semite. To the contrary, it emphasizes that Jesus and his early followers were Jews speaking to other Jews in the tradition of some earlier prophets; the Tanakh is full of self-rebuke. That these words were later used to persecute Jews is something Jesus et al. could not have foreseen, and the article does a great job of holding them blameless.Proabivouac 19:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The anti-Judaism of the gospels (especially John) is discussed in academia without end. By insisting on equating anti-Judiasm with anti-Semitism it's fairly clear where the chips fall. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the gospels were only against a small group of scribes and pharisees. Are you using some other theological agenda to try to hijack this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The could be seen as an oversimplification depending on your view of replacement theology. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you have a particular definition for antisemitism (to me persecution or prejudice itself is not antisemitism). According to your definition, in classical periods there was a lot of antisemitism. Can you find a reliable source saying there was a lot of antisemitism in classical periods in Islam? --Aminz 07:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a particular definition. I use the definitions offered by scholars. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

So, do you think Dhimmi laws such as requirement for distinctive clothing were antisemitism? --Aminz 07:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Respect, Aminz, but I'm not interested in what Slim thinks about this. I am interested in what she thinks about which scholars - in which disciplines - are relevant. To rephrase your question, and pose it to all editors here present: is there a source for the view that the dhimmi laws (let's say, for the sake of clear definition, as expressed in the "Pact of Umar" document) amounted to antisemitism?Itsmejudith 11:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You could read the article. :-) See from here onwards. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

*rubs eyes* uh, what the hell? Removing the new antisemism section?

You've said:

It is quite clear that you will continue to deface the section until the wording is exactly what you wish. You do this on many articles. It is disruptive. Please stop, and deal with issues on the Talk: page instead. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet, you deleted] the entire new antisemitism without discussing it on the talkpage? Well, I guess this shows your true colors? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The section Jayjg deleted was essentially about criticism of new antisemitism mostly from very dubious sources. It existed solely to advance the straw-man argument that criticism of Israel is not necessarily antisemitism. Naturally, removing this POV harangue from the article was entirely warranted. Beit Or 07:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In what sense is the opinion that "criticism of Israel is not necessarily antisemitism" a straw man argument? Surely it is widely enough held to be mentioned in the article?Itsmejudith 11:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a straw man argument becuase no scholar of antisemitism has ever said that any criticism of Israel is antisemitism. Antisemites, however, frequently hide behind this assertion. First, they demonize Israel and denounce it as the root of all evil in the world; then, they claim that they are maligned as antisemites for "criticizing Israel". No, they are called antisemites for their fixation on Israel and its demonization, for carrying posters like the one you can see in New antisemitism and for calling the only democracy in the Middle East "an apartheid state". To say that Israel was wrong to withdraw from Gaza because it only encouraged terrorists is perfectly legitimate criticism; to say that the Israeli government rules America or distributes poisoned food to Palestinians is antisemitism. Please read WP:SOAP to see why "criticism of Israel is not necessarily antisemitism" does not belong to Wikipedia. Beit Or 12:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I may be beginning to follow something here. I once was in the company of someone who would say something provoking to me, i.e. figuratively, slap me in the face. Then, they would be upset, even angry with me, that I was not comforting them because their hand hurt. (There's probably some scholarly or clinical terms for this. ) Ok. If this kind of exchange happens, I suppose sometimes 'we' can address the one whose hand hurts. We need also not forget about the experience of the other who also had a 'bad' experience ... and not necessarily for any 'good' reason. (There's probably some sociological or other scholarly term for this kind of forgetting.) I'm not sure if this analogy is relevant at all to the discussions on this talk page ... but it did occur to me as I try to sort through the dialog. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 13:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or says: ...To say that Israel was wrong to withdraw from Gaza because it only encouraged terrorists is perfectly legitimate criticism; to say that the Israeli government rules America or distributes poisoned food to Palestinians is antisemitism... I say who says that. Aren't we talking about the same Israeli gov't? Have we stated Jews or the Israeli lobby in the United States? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what the deeper question you're asking is, but..."to say that the Israeli government rules America or distributes poisoned food to Palestinians is antisemitism... I say who says that."? Well, for a start:

These poison gas attacks were perpetrated just two years ago, by Israeli troops against civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Although they are documented by a small mountain of detailed and consistent open-source information, they remain a silent, ignored, seemingly untouchable story. At least eight separate attacks were reported from February 12 through March 30, 2001, first in the Gaza Strip and later in the West Bank. Several hundred civilians are reported to have suffered from exposure to the gas. Many required prolonged hospitalization. Six weeks after the initial attacks, a doctor caring for victims at Ali Nasser Hospital in Gaza said, "We still have 10 cases who we would like to send abroad for treatment."

The poison gas canisters were unfamiliar, marked only with a few numerals and Hebrew letters. The smoking gas they released was non-irritating and initially odorless. After a few minutes a sweet, minty fragrance would emerge. One victim recalled that "the smell was good. You want to breathe more. You feel good when you inhale it." The smoke often spewed in a "rainbow" of changing colors, ending in a steady billow of black soot.

citing 20+ references, http://www.antiwar.com/orig/brooks3.html;

They brought Russian Jewish girls with AIDS to spread the disease among Palestinian youth. --- Abdel-Razek Al-Majeeda, Commander of the Palestinian General Security Service in Gaza, quoted by the official PA newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda, May 15, 1997

Israeli authorities… infected by injection 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus during the years of the intifada. --- Palestinian representative Nabil Ramlawi at a session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva (Jerusalem Post, March 17, 1997)

http://www.likud.nl/govern22.html

Aptly and with due reference to the subject of "poison", the book presents its case initially through the events of March 21 1983 when Palestinian girls at Arrabeh school near Jenin were reportedly poisoned en masse by .....Israel. Further events following at later dates with 56 Arab girls at Jenin's Zahra School likewise being taken ill and in April another 310 Arab girls at Hebron being hospitalized.

Despite investigations revealing that the reported poisoning was merely a case of mass hysteria, the book reveals how the International media reported Palestinian/Arab accusations as fact, irrespective of the circumstances and their lack of authenticity. Little if any time being given to provide the Israeli version of events and the fact that poison pollution teams had examined the schools but found absolutely no trace of poison in any case. Reporters instead are shown to be only too prepared to publicly declare the horrendous allegation that Israel had used Nazi methods in these alleged incidents.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Poison-Modern-Manifestations-Blood-Libel/dp/0739102079

If the Israeli government wanted a law tomorrow annulling the Ten Commandments, 95 Senators (at least) would sign the bill forthwith -http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=8874

If the Israeli government wanted a law tomorrow annulling the Ten Commandments, 95 Senators (at least) would sign the bill forthwith -http://www.davidduke.com/general/uri-avnery-former-israel-knesset-member-confirms-walt-and-mearsheimer_540.htmlprint/

If the Israeli government wanted a law tomorrow annulling the Ten Commandments, 95 Senators (at least) would sign the bill forthwith -http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05082006.html

If the Israeli government wanted a law tomorrow annulling the Ten Commandments, 95 Senators (at least) would sign the bill forthwith -http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/29563

Results 1 - 80 of about 111 for "If the Israeli government wanted a law tomorrow annulling the Ten Commandments".

Gzuckier 18:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My question was directed to Beit Or re their OR classifying by themselves things that are not part of anti-semitism. I was wondering about who considers the Israeli government rules America or distributes poisoned food to Palestinians is antisemitism as anti-semitism. That criticism doesn't carry the word "Jew" but involves the State of Israel. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see New antisemitism. Beit Or 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes and it talks about the opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland. In that i may agree. That is not our case. I am talking about the example you gave above Beit Or. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the whole article, not just the lead, as well as this link. Beit Or 20:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a straw man argument becuase no scholar of antisemitism has ever said that any criticism of Israel is antisemitism. Antisemites, however, frequently hide behind this assertion. First, they demonize Israel and denounce it as the root of all evil in the world; then, they claim that they are maligned as antisemites for "criticizing Israel". No, they are called antisemites for their fixation on Israel and its demonization, for carrying posters like the one you can see in New antisemitism and for calling the only democracy in the Middle East "an apartheid state". To say that Israel was wrong to withdraw from Gaza because it only encouraged terrorists is perfectly legitimate criticism; to say that the Israeli government rules America or distributes poisoned food to Palestinians is antisemitism. Please read WP:SOAP to see why "criticism of Israel is not necessarily antisemitism" does not belong to Wikipedia. Beit Or 12:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you think it is a strawman argument! It is an argument, period, and because it is verifiable, it must be documented on Wikipedia. Just because you think it is a fallacious argument does not mean that it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. This isn't your article, this isn't your soapbox.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 23:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not only me who thinks it's strawman argument, not worthy of serious consideration. Please read New antisemitism and references thereto. Beit Or 12:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, when I read "the Israeli government rules America or distributes poisoned food to Palestinians" what comes to mind for me is "ignorance" or "conspiracy theory." For me, one who can say the Israeli government does these things may or may not be anti-Semitic or anti-Judaism. If when pressed on this concept, the one who said this about the Israeli government also believed this, it would be pretty hard for someone to convince me that the person was not anti-Semitic and/or anti-Judaism. Keesiewonder 11:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a conspiracy theory and a prime example of antisemitism, too. You seem to be trying to claim that as soon as Jews become Israelis, you can invesnt any conspiracy theory against them without being called an antisemite. This is precisely the defense that the new antisemites are employing: regurgitating old antisemitic fables is not antisemitism, as long as they substitute "Jews" for "Israel". Archives of Talk:New antisemitism are full of discussions of this issue; please read them before rasising this point again. Beit Or 12:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're addressing, Beit Or, but I'm not trying to "claim" anything. I observe many people who base their life on ignorance or conspiracy theories. I do not believe in any conspiracy theories ... not that I'm aware of anyway. And I'm not exactly ignorant. IMO, people who think this: "the Israeli government rules America or distributes poisoned food to Palestinians" or who think Israel is responsible for 9/11 or some such nonsense, in my opinion, are ignorant or have been sucked in by a conspiracy theory. Just my observation, perhaps. And just because I observe others doing it, does not mean I am one of them. Keesiewonder 12:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

According to your logic, those who believe that Jews use blood of non-Jews for Passover are also just ignorant. One can be ignorant and antisemitic at the same time. These are not mutually exclusive attributes. Quite the contrary. Beit Or 13:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'd say they are ignorant, not just ignorant, if that's what they believed about Passover. If when given the truth, they insisted they were right (i.e. non-Jew blood is a part of Passover), then I'd say they are anti-semitic. Much hatred of the "other" is often based on unfamiliarity ... And, much is not. But, of course, all criticism of Israel is not anti-semitism. Keesiewonder 00:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we get back to the substantive point? I heard Jonathan Sacks in a BBC radio interview say that not all criticism of the Israeli government was antisemitism. If I can find that he said something similar in writing, would you accept it as a reliable source and worthy of inclusion?Itsmejudith 13:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Itsmejusith, why not read New antisemitism or at least my remarks above? The claim that not all criticism of Israel is antisemitism has been repeated by miscellaneous antisemites ad nauseam. It's a straw man argument because no one is saying that any criticism of Israel is antisemitism. Beit Or 13:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

From the Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry

into Antisemitism, already cited in the New antisemitism article: "The committee unanimously recognised that criticism of Israel should not, in itself, be regarded as antisemitic but equally recognised that anti-Jewish prejudice in any context should not be overlooked." So it is a notable opinion and should be included.Itsmejudith 15:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is this: there is no value or sense to adding this quote to the article unless we also have a quote from a verifiable and appropriate source - off the top of my head, examples would be leaders of major Jewish organizations like the WZO, AJC, or B'nai Brith, or a leader of a major Israeli political party, or an acknowledged (published in peer-reviewed journals or academic press) scholar of anti-Semitism)- claiming that any or all criticism of Israel is ipso facto anti-semitic. IF we have such a quote, then the quote from Itsmejudish becomes pertinent. But if we can't find any such quote, it's pointless. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This article in Ha'aretz (reproduced on an Israeli website) presents and discusses a range of views of prominent UK Jews. Some interviewees did think that criticism of Israel could usually or always be classified as antisemitism, some held the opposite viewpoint, while others had intermediate and nuanced opinions.Itsmejudith 16:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

user:Beit OR wrote "Antisemites, however, frequently hide behind this assertion. First, they demonize Israel and denounce it as the root of all evil in the world; then, they claim that they are maligned as antisemites for "criticizing Israel".

I think your counter-argument fails because you have selected an example of extreme views namely those who "demonize Israel and denounce it as the root of evil in the world." By the same token the example of legitimate criticism that you provided is relatively tepid. In between there is a large spectrum of critical opinion. For example, there are those who reject the notion of an Israel lobby controlling U.S. Policy as absurd, yet who nevertheless argue that Israel is the main agressor in the region and/or that the occupation has been illegitimate and that justice requires that major reparations be made to the Palestinian people. Yet even some of those who hold these kind of critical positions get labelled as anti-semites. I could go on, but for a little more clarification would you please tell me if you consider the following statement to be anti-semitic?

"Six years since the outbreak of the latest intifada and the effective collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, the human rights situation in the Occupied Territories – the Gaza Strip and West Bank, including East Jerusalem – has deteriorated to an unprecedented level. Prospects for a just and durable resolution of the conflict appear to be remote.

The undercurrent of violence, abuses of fundamental human rights and disregard for international law, which have marked the 40-year Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, have become firmly entrenched and relentless. Civilians in both Israel and the Occupied Territories have borne the brunt of the confrontations.

Some 4,000 Palestinians, most of them unarmed civilians and including some 800 children, have been killed by Israeli forces in disproportionate and reckless bombardments as well as shelling and shooting by Israeli forces into densely populated residential areas and refugee camps throughout the Occupied Territories in the past six years. In the same period some 1,100 Israelis, 700 of them civilians and including 120 children, have been killed by Palestinian armed groups in shooting attacks, suicide bombings in civilian areas and indiscriminate rocket attacks. Tens of thousands of Palestinians and thousands of Israelis have been injured, many maimed for life.

In addition to the loss of life on both sides, Palestinians throughout the Occupied Territories have suffered a plethora of other human rights abuses. Israeli forces have destroyed thousands of Palestinian homes, vast areas of cultivated land and much crucial civilian infrastructure, including electricity power plants, roads, bridges and water, sewage and telephone networks. Ever increasing restrictions imposed on the movements of Palestinians and of goods, within as well as in and out of the Occupied Territories, have made any semblance of normal life impossible."

thanks in advance for your attention to this matterBernardL 16:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a biased account that commits essential rhetorical fallacies and factual errors, but I don't find it antisemitic, in and of itself. If it were the worst we'd see of "criticism" of Israel, we wouldn't be having this debate. But in the context of the barrage of condemnation, it might - inadvertently, to be sure - contribute to prejudices against Jews in general and Israeli Jews in particular. --Leifern 16:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The section is supposed to be a summary of New antisemitism, but instead is completely original material often quoting dubious sources. If you want to summarize New antisemitism in there, feel free to do so, but please don't insist that poorly written original research go in the main article. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry Jayjg but you simply cannot remove the entire Anti-Zionism/Anti-Semitism section. If you have problems with some of it, edit those parts, but for the most part, it is referenced with verifiable sources and it certainly adds to the article -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 04:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"It's sourced somewhere" is not an argument for keeping. The section was inserted solely to push a certain POV and to promote anti-Israeli advocacy. Beit Or 10:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why I have to keep explaining this. The section is supposed to be a summary of New antisemitism. Instead, it's filled with entirely new material, much not found in the New antisemitism article, and often from poor sources. This article is already 131k, four times the recommended size of an article. If anything needs to go, it's a poorly sourced "summary" section that doesn't even summarize the sub-article it's supposed to represent. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

So tell me jayjg, why are you deleting the entire section? Why not tag it with cleanup or complete rewrite? Or how about just fixing it yourself? Just because a section is poorly written is not grounds for it being removed. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The section was written extremely tendentiously, using poor sources. If such a section indeed has a place in the article, it must be rewritten from scratch. Beit Or 07:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Because the summary of New antisemitism that currently exists in the article is adequate for now, and long enough. Compare it with the section above, which summarizes Racial antisemitism. They are almost exactly the same length. As I've said before, this article is already 131k; it doesn't need more material, particularly on subjects that have excellent sub-articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Jay, something your comment ignores is that Racial antisemitism is not an epithet used by some rightists to smear leftist anti-Zionists but describes a clearly definable thing, much in evidence throughout history, which even those who perpetrate it would not deny exists! IOW, the real thing is much more important and worthy of discussion, at greater length, than the quasi thing invented by your favourite pro-Israeli mouthpieces. That you wish the summary to reflect only that view of it is another issue, which should be dealt with on the page for the article in question, but let's face it, never will be. Grace Note 07:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither is New antisemitism "an epithet used by some rightists to smear leftist anti-Zionists". Beit Or 08:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, what you've removed is two three sentences. Two sentences is a summary. Both of the sentences are properly sourced. If you really have qualms about the length of the article, meet me 2 4 titles down to where I propose moving of certain sections of the article.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 08:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The sources are very dubious, and the entire paragraph is blatantly POV. Beit Or 12:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the original research using unreliable sources, but the rest is pretty marginal as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Reducing antisemitism

There have now been efforts - discussed in this talk page - to eliminate from the definition of antisemitism:

• Discrimination and persecution of Jews on religious grounds (anti-Judaism)
• Discrimination and persecution of Jews with a pretext in the concept of dhimmitude
• Discrimination and persecution of Jews with a pretext in anti-Israeli activism

If all these objections to the scope of antisemitism carried the day, we'd be left with a definition of antisemitism that was only based on theories of race. Is there anyone who actually believes that this is the only form of discrimination and persecution of Jews - because they are Jews - that qualifies as antisemitism? --Leifern 14:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree in eliminating the definitions of antisemitism as it is still prevalent and travels globally some times unchecked. Documentation of hate of any kind should not be reduced (here in this article or else where), minimized or hidden. Upon reading the The Age I see antisemitism is alive and doing very well, even put into DVDs for export "A DVD of preachings by a radical Australian sheikh, in which he refers to Jews as pigs "[63]! PEACETalkAbout 16:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I shouldn't have tried to place that in without clear sight (just had eye surgery..still not good). This issue is of particular interest to me as I had the impression for some time that there was this strong lobby/activism in the Jewish community and so they didn’t need assistance.

Then our local Jewish temple was vandalized and well I was a bit surprised about the political reaction “silence”. So, some were asked to write what we thought was bringing about the vandalizing with a clear hate message. Shortly after that article was published the mayor and council members went about on foot, door to door on a whistle campaign to stomp out the problem. My point being that it was the “minimizing” that allowed the hate to continue and everyone seemed to have forgotten that this temple had suffered an act of arson in the past, and more importantly that it was part of the “whole” community. So, I hope I have clarified my position and my sincere apologies to if anyone I left the wrong impression. TalkAbout 22:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)PEACE

Disambig to New Antisemitism

I hope this can be taken as a neutral question: Is there a good reason for putting this link at the top? My understanding is that New Antisemitism isn't just a phrase for current Antisemitism, but refers to a specific theory surrounded by a lot of controversy. Wouldn't the link more appropriately go simply by the discussion of New Antisemitism in the article? Mackan79 04:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain this? I'd just remove it, but I see it's been there for some time, so someone must want it there. I'm just not sure why it's there, or why people should be directed away from Antisemitism as if it's a dated term, or why people would be directed specifically to that subject. Mackan79 04:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want to remove it, and why are you focusing on this issue?

New antisemitism is the concept of a contemporary form of antisemitism, a concept shared by pretty well all the major scholarly writers on the subject. That's why the link is there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well at least hear me out. Basically, "Antisemitism," I think, is a rather monumental topic, like Christianity or Racism or Africa (each subjects with their own banners, etc.). Everybody knows what these subjects are when they come to them. So just as a general matter, it strikes me as odd then to link from such a broad topic to a subissue at the outset. It almost implies that "Antisemitism" as its own term is dated, or at least that many would arrive here by accident when they're actually looking for New Antisemitism, neither of which seems correct.

There's also a NPOV problem, though, simply because the New Antisemitism is controversial. Thus, it sets WP up as seemingly promoting a controversial theory, from a topic much broader and completely accepted. This could really be misleading, even, by impliedly linking to contemporary antisemitism, when "New Antisemitism" is, by definition, much more specific. Thus, a person clicks the link thinking, "Ah, Antisemitism today, perfect," but shows up on an article which then defines it as something coming from the left, not the right, etc. Of course, that's politically significant. I'm simply saying I'd avoid the problem, since New Antisemitism really isn't a discussion of contemporary antisemitism, but actually a specific theory regarding contemporary antisemitism, to which many object. Best, Mackan79 05:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Describing a controversial theory does not mean that Wikipedia is promoting it, as you suggest. We have articles on many controversial theories -- Marxism, say, or sola scriptura.

The article New antisemitism makes it clear that it is discussing the concept of a new antisemitism, a controversial concept. The article does not assert that there is definitively a new antisemitism; rather, it describes the ideas propounded by those who use the notion. --FOo 09:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, and my problem isn't with the discussion. I'm simply wondering, with such a limited scope, why was it picked as the one thing to send people to at the top of the antisemitism page?Mackan79 19:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you familiar with any scholars of antisemitism who object, Mackan? There aren't many who do, so it's really not that controversial. There are political activists on the left who dispute it, but that's because it's by and large aimed at them, and they're not experts on antisemitism. No one who studies antisemitism (that I know of) believes that it only comes, or even largely comes, from the right, and we link to the page that most comprehensively discusses some of the ideas about where current/contemporary/new antisemitism emanates from. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the New Antisemitism page makes pretty clear that it's controversial in many respects. Even if many scholars don't object per se, I'm pretty sure they acknowledge the controversiality. And some do object, strenuously. At the same time, the New Antisemitism isn't just a scholarly issue, it also has huge spillover in the political realm. Again, though, isn't it also misleading to put this specific theory up at the top, as if it's simply a discussion of contemporary antisemitism, when it's actually a specific theory on contemporary antisemitism to which many people, scholars and otherwise, strenuously object? Mackan79 19:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There certainly are scholars who think that the New antisemitism concept is not useful, or causes more problems than it explains. This fact is discussed on that article itself. Any reference that this article makes to that article should make it clear that that article is about the notion of "new antisemitism", rather than merely being about recent antisemitic acts. --FOo 01:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so if the narrowness of scope is so clear, why is it the one link at the top of the article? I think you're in kind of a catch-22 here. Personally, I don't think the narrow scope is entirely clear without previous knowledge on the subject. But to the extent we're acknowleding this limited scope and this controversy, that's hardly a great reason to put it up at the top, as "the article you may find more useful than this one." Shouldn't we just settle for discussing New Antisemitism and linking to it where it's discussed in the article? Mackan79 01:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mackan, who are the "some" scholars of antisemitism who object "strenuously" to the concept of new antisemitism? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

New Antisemitism presents several. Klug, Zipperstein, and Raab appear to disagree to various extents. They certainly acknowledge the controversy. Finkelstein, Ali, Beaumont and Chomsky appear to strenuously disagree. Beyond that, the article describes controversy all over. "Critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that it is used to silence debate. [6]" "The association of anti-Zionism with new anti-Semitism has been controversial." "People of goodwill who support the Palestinians resent being falsely accused of being anti-Semites." The whole page is a back and forth between various commentators. Isn't that a controversy? Mackan79 03:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

All you're doing is presenting my own work back to me. Finkelstein and Chomsky are not scholars of antisemitism. Klug, Zipperstein, and Raab do not "object strenuously." Klug in particular makes clear that he believes that the ideas and incidents included under the heading "new antisemitism" are indeed new and are examples of bigotry; his main concern is that he feels there's no clear lineage from classic antisemitism to the new concept.

This brings me back to a question I've asked you before. What is your interest in articles about antisemitism, Jews, and Judaism? You seem not to be familiar with the issues, yet you arrive at the articles with strong views. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If you know so much about New Antisemitism, why am I having to convince you that it's a controversial theory? I respect your respect for scholarly sources, and you have scholarly sources to show that the theory is controversial. But the New Antisemitism is much more than a scholarly theory on antisemitism. It's also a political theory, which has received extensive discussion in the political realm, all of which is just as relevant to WP as the experts on antisemitism, particularly in showing that the theory is controversial, as in contentious, as in politically contentious, which is the only point I'm making. I don't believe I'm in any way underqualified to make this point. In fact, I think it's actually a point much more related to political science than it is to scholarship on antisemitism.

To your second point, however, would you please stop asking me hostile questions on talk pages? You're the only person who has acted like I need to present a resume in order to edit on WP. You have no right to ask, and it is not even proper, for me to offer up my personal history or political leanings as some basis for my making a suggestion on this or any article. I understand your concern about cranks, but you simply can't go around assuming bad faith and personally interrogating everybody whose edits you don't deem to sufficiently show whatever it is you want them to show. I'll respond further on your talk page, since the discussion simply doesn't belong here. Mackan79 15:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't leave any more notes on my talk page. I'm pasting your latest below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't like your line of questioning

Re: Talk:Antisemitism, I think you should know why these questions are inappropriate. 1. Politics and personal views aren't supposed to be a part of this. 2. There's no right answer. What do I say, "No, I'm very familiar with arguments about antisemitism"? Or do I say "No, I really don't know anything about antisemitism." Either answer simply give you more ammunition, to which I can't respond, since we're both only anonymous users on the internet. Do I tell you, "Actually, Norman Finkelstein is my brother, and I don't like the way people attack him." Or "My uncle is a Palestinian refugee, that's why I don't like Israel, not because I'm antisemitic." Or "Actually I have 12 degrees from Harvard in Middle Eastern Studies." If I said that, would you leave me alone? Of course not: there's no right answer. That's why we're supposed to deal with the articles, not the users. 3. Every time you ask me this, you're telling the group that you, SlimVirgin, admin and longtime user, believe that I, Mackan79, am here for illegitimate reasons. If I respond by saying I've already explained this to you several times, the idea is only rubbed in further. This is not fair. It dissuades other people from having a dialogue with me, because they see that you don't want them to.

As I said, I understand why you would be suspicious in general, as antisemites seem to make their appearances, but you simply can't WP:ABF. That's what you're doing with me, for no reason other than that I've shown an interest in articles related to Israel and Judaism. My edits have not been POV. My comments have not been POV. I do consider your questions to be personal attacks, however. I'd appreciate if you had further questions about my interests that you ask me on my talk page, which would show that you're actually interested, not interjecting them into content disputes. I think this is a very reasonable request. Thanks, Mackan79 15:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are often POV and, more importantly, show no knowledge of the subject matter you're editing. In addition, you seem to focus on Jews. That raises certain questions, and they are legitimate questions, not only about the editor, but also about content. You're asking people to spend time answering your questions on talk, which are often wrong-headed because you haven't read the literature, and although this is very time-consuming, you expect them to do it without a peep. If they don't, you start reverting on the grounds that no one is replying to you, and you ask other people with no knowledge of the subject to join in reverting with you in order to keep it going. You then complain that people are unjustly suspicious of you. Please think about the reasonableness of that position. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You said my edits are often POV and that they display my ignorance. Can you please give me any examples? I would appreciate this very much, since you have now accused me of it on my talk page and in other places. Thanks, Mackan79 20:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I gave you an example above. I asked you a question about new antisemitism. You responded by quoting back to me a Wikipedia article that I've written. You seem to have no knowledge of your own about these issues, and so I wonder where your interest stems from. You're under no obligation to answer, and I'm under no obligation to stop wondering. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Slim, please read back what you have written. You can wonder all you like about Mackan's motivations, but wondering aloud is tantamount to assuming bad faith. I don't wonder aloud about why you edit the articles you do. People might wonder why I have recently spent time editing articles about small Indian towns and districts. I wonder myself. I have virtually no knowledge about them; there might be an element of unhealthy fascination. However, the important thing is that while my ignorance has been a barrier in some ways, on balance I have improved the quality of the encyclopedia. I could explain to you how my interest in the anti-Semitism articles arises, but you would tell me that it wasn't relevant for the talk page.Itsmejudith 21:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The crucial difference, Judith, is that Wikipedia, and the world generally, isn't overrun by people trying to cause trouble for small Indian towns. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Slim, I think you're personally attacking me, and I think it's without justification, and I think it's inappropriate. I believe you're directly violating both WP:Civility and WP:AGF. It's impossible for me to prove my good faith to you, when you have no idea who I am. This is why WP requires that we act civilly to each other. Is this simply not possible for you to do? I really feel like we could, and that it would be for the better.

In any case, right here, I'm suggesting that New Antisemitism is a controversial theory. I really don't think I'm out in the woods on this one, or that this shows some strange bias. In the end, isn't it really pretty clear, to the extent you probably don't even have to be an expert to see the controversy? That's how I feel about it. I'd appreciate if you or anyone else could respond. (Thanks Judith, we cross-posted, as I was thinking about what to say). Mackan79 22:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that some people think they can form an opinion on antisemitism and other Jewish issues without having done a scintilla of research. The same people wouldn't dream of going to Cantilever bridge to argue the toss with engineers, or E=mc² to argue with physicists, unless they knew what they were talking about. But they seem to think it's fine to turn up at pages related to Jews and just argue for any old thing that strikes them as plausible, and almost always from a position of opposition, oddly. But antisemitism is an enormously complicated subject, and the amount of reading that needs to be done to understand the development of scholarly views about it is horrific. To be honest, the kind of editing I'm talking about strikes me as baiting, pure and simple, because I can't see any other reason for it. Articles about Islam suffer the same fate for a similar reason, and I strongly oppose it there too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course we aren't all scientists and engineers. The problem with the humanities is we are all human. Worse, the question as to whether the dab link belongs at the top or among the see alsos is practically aesthetics for which I don't think any amount of studying could yield one true answer, nor any amount of debate is going to change anyone's made up mind. Talk-paging an editorial dispute to death only to declare victory when the other side has nothing left to say is borderline trolling. If it's a math problem on the order of E=MC² you want, consider how many people out of the mere 6,000,000,000 on Earth will view this page, what percent follow the dab, what percent will form their opinion (one way or the other) from reading that other article, and decide if it's worth all the fuss. I'd side with stare decisis here. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm basically trying to get to the point where I can make a reasonable suggestion without SV jumping in to ask what I'm doing here. So far, the only thing we've talked to death is whether that's ok. I agree the link isn't a huge deal, but I also think it's pretty clearcut POV. Mackan79 00:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Although the humanities may be "soft sciences", they are nonetheless sciences, with complicated and specialized bodies of knowledge, about which one cannot comment knowledgeably simply by virtue of being "human". If you knew nothing about Shakespeare, you wouldn't presume to jot down your thoughts about the motifs in his works, and particularly not in a Wikipedia article. Please treat other complex and specialized bodies of knowledge, like Antisemitism, with similar respect. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right that it's POV Mackan, but it's POV either way. Either you believe new anti-Semitism is a logical and historical extention of the anti-Semitism discussed here, or you believe it's some pro-Israeli canard, or you're somewhere in between, but ultimately there's no possibility of a negotiated settlement as to where the link goes because it's all or nothing. Sometimes you just have to give the devil his due. So what are you trying to say Kendrick7, that all Jews are devils!? No, dang it Slim Virgin, it's just an expression — get outta my head!! OK, so SV gets to me a little too sometimes. Having recently gotten completely out of my depth talking about Shakespeare, you're right too Jayjg. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I will talk you to death, Kendrick :) The problem is twofold: 1. The theory is controversial, but 2. Even if it weren't, it's still just one theory. It's the combination that does it in. The point is, if there's a "dab" at the top, it'd be entirely appropriate going to a neutral article on contemporary antisemitism. But that's not what New Antisemitism is. It's one discrete theory on contemporary antisemitism. The predominant theory among experts, perhaps, but still just one theory. That is, the theory that antisemitism today is basically manifested in leftist hyper-criticism of Israel. That's why I'm saying it's clearly out of place: It doesn't make sense for such a monumental topic as Antisemitism to link up top to one discrete theory -- controversial or not -- but particularly not when it's controversial. It'd be somewhat similar to Racism linking up top to Critical Race Theory, although that's probably less controversial. Mackan79 06:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The link at top of the page is just for a question of practicity, right? Someone searching for one concept, and ends up in another, one appreciates these little wiki-helps. It is not corroborating or less the concept of "new anti-semitism". I see nothing wrong with the link there, but maybe with a different writing: "This article describes the development and history of antisemitism. A separate article exists on the more recent (and more controversial) concept of New antisemitism." I am not sure how, but the sentence, to be useful to the user, should make clear that "the more recent concept of New antisemitsm" DOES NOT MEAN "antisemitism in recent times", nor should imply that antisemitism until this moment has been A (traditional anti-semitism) and from now on is B (new antisemitism). That is why I would eliminate the word "traditional" (which, by they way, implies an almost homogeneous and non changeable idea of anti-semitism, as if antisemitism in the 19th century was the same of medieval anti-judaism, which is contradicted by the article itself).

Anyway, I am more interested in discussing the way "new antisemitism" is presented in the body of the article. Some of the confusion seems to come from the origem of the entry. I believe "new anti-semitism" is a subentry of "anti-zionismo" (i.e., the proposal that much of the criticism against Israel is also or mainly anti-semitism). Let me come clean and say that I don't agree with the way the concept has been framed by its main proponents--but that is another story. The point here is how to present the concept within the main entry (antisemitism) in a way that makes sense. As it is, I believe it is a bit repetitive, "new anti-semitism" and "antisemitism and anti-zionism". Would you agree that it is possible to merge both, in this article? I would have done it myself, but when I saw this discussion going on here, I thought that it would be prudent to discuss it with those who have been editing this article for some time...

There's also another problem, though, which is allowing disruptive people to create a presumption of bad faith, and allowing self-styled experts unchecked authority. I'm not denying that many disruptive people show up here. I do think WP has shown an ability to cope through its procedures, however, and not by abandoning WP:Civil and WP:AGF in the hope of smoking bad people out. I also think the cost of jumping to this latter method would be extremely high.

I also think your attacks against my (and others') ignorance are exaggerated. Antisemitism is not an insular field. Various aspects, like the New Antisemitism, are entirely connected with other things -- racism, religion, domestic and world politics, and more. I'm not an expert in antisemitism, but I've studied these related areas a great deal. I'm currently learning about antisemitism. So you can claim this is an esoteric issue of whether the New Antisemitism is controversial, but I really don't think it is. I think the article, which you apparently wrote (it's a good article, btw, except the picture at the top, which I think is excessive), makes this entirely clear. I could produce other sources, but I don't see the need, when the point is made throughout the article already.

One other thing: I really do believe that NPOV on these contentious articles is good, for WP, and for everyone in the world, including you. I also don't think experts are always keenly aware of NPOV issues, just like an expert in string theory might not be keenly aware of grammatical issues. Sometimes, a person with almost no background in a subject can provide insight, which shouldn't be pushed away. I'm pretty sure I'm not arguing about things that are beyond my comprehension, but of course, I'll always accept an explanation for why I am. This may be tedious, but I also don't see a better option. Mackan79 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please accept that editing from an anti-Jewish/anti-Israel POV, when you have no specialist knowledge, you're not an experienced editor, and you're very often undoing other people's work, is extremely time-consuming for other editors, and it inevitably weakens assumptions of good faith. If you really want good faith to be restored, you have to help it on its way. You say people with no background in a subject can provide insight, but it's almost always only the people with no background who believe that. I see you've edited Living Constitution a lot, with and before this user account. How would you feel if I were to turn up there, with strong views but no knowledge, and proceeded to make uninformed edits, engaging in revert, revert, revert when you tried to correct me; then drew you into several weeks-long debates on talk about what this or that meant, all the while refusing to read a single thing about it, except what I could easily find on Google? Would you not be climbing the walls? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I understand you have an argument here; the problem is simply that I don't fit it. I'm not anti-Jewish, I'm not anti-Israel, and I'm not ignorant. I respect your frustration with people who come on here with no idea what they're talking about. I also respect the sensitivity, and that a person pushing for true neutrality on antisemitism or Hitler or the Holocaust has to expect, and understand, that there's going to be strong resistance. This is why I've tried very hard not to lash back. Nevertheless, I continue to strongly believe truly neutral articles really do benefit everybody. Indeed, I certainly know enough about antisemitism to know if there's one thing that encourages antisemites, it's a politicized article on antisemitism. And if there's one thing that will effectively educate people, I think it's a truly neutral article on antisemitism. I think this is serious.

Indeed, it's in this context that I ask, is it really worth linking the New Antisemitism at the top of the page? For how much benefit, at the cost of giving an immediate appearance of bias to anyone who knows the topic? Anybody anti-Israel who sees this is immediately going to say "Ah, clearly written by Zionists." This was my same concern with the Zionism page. How much benefit did the article get for jamming that information into the first sentence, at the expense of giving the article an immediate flavor of bias? I truly think it benefits nobody, and I think Jayjg ultimately agreed. If I were going by Kendrick's analysis, it'd be a no-brainer: a link like this probably won't misinform many at all. It simply saps the article's credibility. So if I wanted that, I'd say sure, leave it in. That's not my aim. At the same time, it does also annoy me, simply because I know it's not neutral. I know a neutral writer wouldn't link "New Antisemitism" at the top of an article on Antisemitism. So I'll be honest, things like that also just bug me.

As far as the Living Constitution, a guy just recently tried to clear it up, making several mistakes, which I explained pretty easily (although with some annoyance, yes).[64] If I were truly just wrong, though, I think you'd tell me much more bluntly. I'll say it again: I recognize that you have a legitimate frustration, but I think you've lumped me into that frustration too quickly. I'm not an expert, but I'm not ignorant either, unless you can show where. That means if you want to revert me, you'll probably have to keep explaining why... Thanks in any case for the response, Mackan79 05:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I take on board a lot of what you say, except where you imply that you're on the side of the angels ("a person pushing for true neutrality on antisemitism or Hitler or the Holocaust has to expect, and understand, that there's going to be strong resistance"). Please consider the possibility that you're no more neutral than anyone else.

We have a lot of people turning up at these articles claiming to have a monopoly on neutrality. Often, they wear their lack of knowledge as a badge of neutrality, arging that, given they know nothing about the topic, they couldn't possibly be POV. They insist their POV is simply common sense, common knowledge, NPOV. One example of someone at New antisemitism who feels they are a model of NPOV: this person changed the description of a certain lawyer who complained about new antisemitism from "a leading litigation lawyer" to ["a lawyer] who has since moved to Israel." A Jew, in other words, so bear that in mind.

This is the kind of editing we see at these articles from people who know nothing about the subject, and who for reasons best known to themselves focus on negative portrayals of Jews or Israel. Perhaps you'll allow that people who work on these articles a lot develop certain instincts about editors which, while I'm sure they're not always correct, are by no means always wrong either.

That's why doing some basic research is so important. We're here simply to publish what reliable sources say. If we all know what the reliable sources on any given topic say, then all that remains is to make sure the writing's good, and to argue about the balance of material from X as opposed to material from Y. But if editors haven't read X or Y — and worst of all, refuse to read it, year in, year out, despite continuing to edit in those areas — we're left with nothing to do but exchange prejudices on talk pages, which leads to frustration all round. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have said that better. I just wanted to acknowledge there's something inherently unnatural about writing dispassionately on these issues, which I think is true. Also, I don't want to pretend to be the angel of neutrality, but if there were a job opening, I think it'd be a good gig. In any case, I accept your frustration, and I hope we can work through it in the future. Mackan79 15:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to work through it, but I see you've now turned up at New antisemitism and have made your first edit there, an issue you said you know only from the Wikipedia article. Can you see how that looks provocative given the context of this discussion? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

When did I say that? It's not true at all. My edit on New Antisemitism was a concilliatory attempt toward a compromise, suggesting that if we simply combine the first two paragraphs, it would help clarify the concept such that the dab link here might be ok. Please WP:AGF, I'm trying very hard to work nicely with you. I'm also interested in these subjects, though, and have read and studied and discussed them a great deal with people of all varying viewpoints, and actually, think I'm pretty well-equipped to discuss neutrality on these issues. So please don't expect me to simply go away. The Middle East is interesting, you know, for a lot of reasons.

I almost have to say, though, if it's people with well-established credentials you want, isn't this kind of a peculiar medium? My understanding was that on WP, you have to be willing to discuss nicely even with complete idiots. Mackan79 17:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I repeat my plea that your interest in Jewish issues — New antisemitism isn't really, or certainly isn't only, about the Middle East — be accompanied by some serious reading, and not just what's available on Google, so that frustration is minimized and good faith easier to assume. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

--- Hi Mackan79, For me this is such a long thread that perhaps the best way to weigh in on your opening

I hope this can be taken as a neutral question: Is there a good reason for putting this link at the top? My understanding is that New Antisemitism isn't just a phrase for current Antisemitism, but refers to a specific theory surrounded by a lot of controversy. Wouldn't the link more appropriately go simply by the discussion of New Antisemitism in the article? Mackan79 04:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

is to try to focus on it alone. (Though I have read, not studied, the rest of the thread.) For me, I come to an encyclopedia to begin finding out about topics of interest. Encyclopedias are not the end-all-be-all of all scholarly knowledge, but they can be a great place to start. This article on antisemitism is a good place, for me, to start. I have long known about the religious and racial kinds of antisemitism. When I use this WP article to get a grounding on today's understanding of antisemitism, I find the disambiguation link at the very top of the article that references New Antisemitism helpful. If I want to know what it is, the link is there. If I want to read the primary article first, I'm already there. WP is a continually updated encyclopedia. In this vein, it seems most appropriate that what some readers may have heard of as the controversial 21st century version of antisemitism is available at the top of the article should that be their current knowledge quest. And, the traditional or longer standing versions of antisemitism are indeed what the reader is brought to when they type antisemitism in to WP's search box. This is how I find I am comfortable with the current disambiguation link; perhaps my articulating this will help you as well. Keesiewonder ^talk 12:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed that in the above discussion Slim is having a go about an edit I made a long while ago. The background to that edit is as follows:

First I saw that the author in question was described as "an attorney", or could have been "a lawyer". I think it also said he was famous or notable which is not relevant in describing a source. I hadn't heard of him but then not many lawyers are household names in the UK. In the UK legal system we have lawyers in general, who are divided into barristers and solicitors. I thought he should be described simply as "a British solicitor" or "a British barrister". When I googled his name I found his former company's website, which said he was now practicing in Israel. So I said something like "a British solicitor who has since moved to Israel". At the time I was starting to wikify bio articles which often start with where subjects were born and where they migrated to, so that might have been an influence.

I was definitely at fault for not realising how contentious the edit sounded. It could easily have been read as making him out to be a stooge for the Israeli government and even though the source was being quoted because of his political blogging that would have been inappropriate. Slim clearly read it as part of a witch-hunt to "out" a source as Jewish which was so far from my intention that I had no idea how to respond. Far from the best edit I've ever made, but I didn't quibble when it was reverted.

And I don't set myself up as a model of NPOV. I'm simply trying to help towards NPOV and as far as I can I try to take the discussion away from personalities and back to sources and their interpretation.Itsmejudith 18:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

But why mention that he had moved to Israel? People don't stop being British just because they live elsewhere. If he had recently gone to live in France, would you have mentioned it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, if it looked like a permanent move, which this one did.Itsmejudith 11:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm unclear what difference it would make whether the move seemed permanent, and how a move could possibly seem permanent, but in any event, what made you think this lawyer had moved permanently to Israel (or at all)? He seems still to be in the UK. [65] And he is very much a leading litigation lawyer, quite well known in fact. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the website of his former employer said that he had gone to live in Israel. Senior lawyers in the UK are given the status of Queen's Counsel and carry QC after their names. Other than that, all solicitors are of the same status, as are all barristers. I recall that this subject is a solicitor in the UK and is also at the Israeli Bar, so it is not immediately obvious how he should be described. "Leading" should not be part of that description. Being well known, i.e. having been mentioned in public, does not carry any weight in the UK legal profession. Also, "leading" is a peacock term and not relevant to the encyclopedia. Itsmejudith 21:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone who's head of litigation for Bird & Bird is a leading litigation lawyer, but that wasn't why I mentioned the example, as you know. You said if he had moved to France, you would have added it too, so long as you had reason to believe he had moved there permanently. Can you show me your source for believing he had moved to Israel permanently? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, if I looked up an American lawyer, and his website said he's now practicing in France, I would not presume to still call him an American lawyer. Nothing is permanent, but if you're working in a new country, that's generally considered a move. At the same time, if we're talking about something related to Israel/Palestine, and I see someone has moved to the ME, my interest would be peaked. It's relevant and interesting, regardless of any ethnic connection. It says "This guy isn't just some British lawyer; he hangs out in the ME." A person can wonder whatever they want about motivations, but at some point, you're assuming an awful lot. Mackan79 14:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversial

I have to agree with Jayjg that "controversial" here doesn't help. It's helpful in a way, but simply highlights the question, "Then why is this the one link at the top of the article? Why are we immediately contraversializing the page on antisemitism?" That's the question I don't like. I made a suggestion, simply to combine the first two paragraphs on New Antisemitism, which I think makes clearer that it's a complex theory, in addition to probably being more enyclopedic. I still think it's problematic, but maybe good enough? Mackan79 16:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I like having the disambiguation link, and can go either way on whether or not it has the word 'controversial' in it. It does make more sense to me to exclude it. Is this the only aspect of the article that may need attention right now? If someone can quickly point me to previous RfCs or discussions regarding FA status, I'd appreciate it ... in the meantime, I'll search the archives. Keesiewonder ^talk 18:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I have just merged the subentries "new anti-semitism" and "anti-zionism". It was quite redundant, in my opinion. I tried to keep all the ideas, but reorganizing them. See if it works.Ninarosa 21:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up your edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• I made a compromise edit after analyzing the discussion on this page. Any comments? .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 16:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't I see that? Good thought. Mackan79 16:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone reverted the edit as minor for some reason. I reinstated it unless someone can come up with a reason otherwise. .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 16:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it entirely; people looking for "New antisemitism" won't accidentally type in "Antisemitism" instead, and "New antisemitism" is linked in the lead anyway. There's no reason why we should dab "New antisemitism" over "Racial antisemitism" etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Three types of antisemitism

I disagree with the division of antisemitism into only three types as in the article. There is a modern form of "intellectual antisemitism" professed by intelligentsia which is aimed at Jews as a culture or an ethnic entity rather than religion or race. I compiled several quoted in the Igor Shafarevich article - his Russophobia "study" and more recent "work" doesn't seem to fall into either of your three categories. Thus, perhaps not surprisingly, he denies being antisemitic. Mhym 21:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Antisemitism and specific countries" section should be moved

This article is too long. Any thoughts on my proposal to move some of that information to their respective articles such as Antisemitism and the United States, Antisemitism and Poland, etc.? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There are already many articles History of the Jews in Poland, History of the Jews in Italy etc. that inevitably (sadly) deal with antisemitism. Not sure if another series is needed.Itsmejudith 17:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

1937 Poster

There was a 1937 festival titled Der ewige Jude. Was the 1937 poster released during this festival, followed by 3 years of advertising before the film's release in 1940? Or maybe there was a pre-release showing at the festival? I'm just trying to make sense of what feels like a lot of time between poster and film. Thanks. Keesiewonder ^talk 11:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• And now, the poster has been removed. Please explain. Keesiewonder ^talk 23:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

of January?

How is the following sentence from the article supposed to end? I viewed it from one month ago, and it had the same thing for this line. It doesn't make sense (to me) the way it is.

So far as can be ascertained, the word was first widely printed in 1881, when Marr published "Zwanglose Antisemitische Hefte," and Wilhelm Scherer used the term "Antisemiten" in the "Neue Freie Presse" of January.

• I imagine it's supposed to mean "the January 1881 issue of the Neue Freie Presse". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Host Desecration

Please note, this comment is not meant to be antisemitic.

I edited this article approximately 1 month ago, changing the line:
"Jews were sometimes falsely accused of desecrating consecrated....."
to:
"Jews were sometimes accused of desecrating consecrated.....".

The reason I did this was that there was no evidence given which indicated that the jews who were accused of this were innocent. In fact, assuming that they were accused, there must have been a trial. The only way we could know, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that they were falsely accused is if they were aquitted or some other court has since overturned the verdict. From how I understand this situation, the only thing we know for sure is that these people were accused (and, as the paragraph goes on to say, often put to death). Therefore the sentence should be changed to accused and not "falsely" accused, unless a reputable source is cited. Merely putting in a "citation needed" tag is not good since it is extremely ambiguous (to the reader) as to what needs to be cited (a valid interpretation would be that the accusation is being questioned).

It is important to note that I am not asserting that these jews were guilty, this is a question that is probably not resolvable to a satisfying degree. The only thing we can determine to a very good degree of certainty (and be completely NPOV) is that they were accused.

As a side note, I am outraged that my edit was reversed within hours, with no comment.

--137.99.174.125 23:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your edit, and can accept that it was done in good faith. At the time I took it as an implication that there was substance to the accusations. I'm sorry for your outrage, and that I misunderstood your motivation. Still, the accusations were clearly false. In some cases they were insincere pretexts to rouse the public against the Jews for political ends. In other cases they may have been moral panics, or another species of popular delusion. The "Elders of Zion" were no more desecrating hosts than conspiring to spread the plague, and it seems to me we ought to just say so. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

I think the most important issue to concentrate on is the intended meaning of the statement. I think it is safe to assume that the intended meaning of the statement is that antisemitism caused people to accuse jews of a crime they did not commit. If the word "falsely" is left out, the statement simply means that jews were persecuted (not using personal judgement to say whether they were falsely accused or what caused people to accuse them). As this is an article on antisemitism, clearly the better solution is to leave the word "falsely" in, and cite a reputable source that contains evidence of the falsity of the accusations and the reasons for them. I didn't do this simply because changing the word was much easier for me.

To me, this statement is a clear example of weasel wording, as it introduces an opinion as fact. If it is a fact, a source should be cited.

Although taking "falsely" out is not optimal, it allows the article to be neutral and correct.

--137.99.174.125 06:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sensible readers will recognize the accusation as false without having to be told that it was a false accusation.

It is not necessary in an article on a witch-craze (or other moral panic) to say that the witches were falsely accused of having sex with the Devil. Even a passing knowledge of witch-crazes tells one that false accusations are part and parcel of witch-crazes. Worse, to say that some people were falsely accused of having sex with the Devil implies that there is a distinction to be made between false accusations of Devil-sex and true ones. But there are no true accusations of Devil-sex. Since nobody anywhere has ever had sex with the Devil, and this fact is obvious to the casual reader, it is unnecessary (and somewhat insulting) to point it out.

Likewise here. To say "falsely accused" actually gives the absurd accusations a wrongful credibility, as if to suggest that while these host-desecration accusations are false, some other ones somewhere else might be true. Since such accusations are always entirely about the fears of the accusers rather than any real actions of the accused, there is absolutely no need to suggest that the reader would be tempted to take them seriously. --FOo 11:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The same view is expressed here

--137.99.174.125 18:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

move

Due to the articles size, I have moves the information on Antisemitism in Europe to Antisemitism in Europe (Middle Ages). I suggest we also move the section: "Antisemitism and specific countries" to Antisemitism around the world. I have started to move some of the countries.--Sefringle 02:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Judeophobia

I think that the name of this article should be changed to Judeophobia. Anti-semitism doesn't mean nothing when talking about Jews. It hypothetically refer to the hate of someone of Semite origins. So it can be said about Jews, Arabs, Ethiopians, etc. I think it would be a good occasion in a place like Wikipedia, to educate people in using the word "judeophobia when talking about hate towards Jews. I think it's a good time to talk about it as it's a more accurate term. VincentG 00:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see the big red tag at the top. Judeophobia is a synonym but Antisemitism is the most common English term. Semites are as relevant to Antisemitism as the island of Lesbos to the Lesbians. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to improve the etymology section but it seems to have an WP:OWNER: [66]. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If your edits indeed are an improvement, it is unlikely they'll be implemented by edit-warring. Regardless, Judeophobia is not a more accurate term. Not counting my inherent aversion to phobiamania (the trend to turn everything into a phobia), antisemitism is the far, far more used term in both regular life and in academia. While it could refer to other people in that region, it is commonly held to be referring to Jews. .V. _[Talk|Email] 01:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to HS: I restored a version that had been in place for quite some time. The sentence you removed is relevant to the discussion; the sentence you've added is both obvious and banal. CJCurrie 01:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

CJC, good encyclopedias often list facts that some may consider "obvious and banal". Plz. check the article's and this talk's history and you will see that for many it is a revelation. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The argument for such an extension of meaning comes from the claim

Please provide proof for the bold text: ... this implies that Arabs cannot, by definition, be antisemitic. The argument for such an extension of meaning comes from the claim that since the Semitic language family includes Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic languages and the historical term "Semite" refers to all those who consider themselves descendants of the Biblical Shem, "anti-Semitism" should be likewise inclusive. Is there a proof that "such an extension of meaning" doesn't come, for example, from intention to confuse the public? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're really asking "Is the claim sincere?", which is not within our purview to answer. However, I take your point that a citation is needed. CJCurrie 01:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)