I posted this on my talk page too: 
 Piotrus, the problem is suggesting that there is a "Jewish POV."  Now, in some cases, this may well be the point (for example it comes up in the Jesus article).  But there are many articles - even about Jews -in which there is no "Jewish" POV.  Just to be clear what I mean, when it comes to the historical facts, and the arguments historians and others have made about the causes, of the Holocaust (i.e. when we are not talking about the theological dimension) there is no "Jewish" POV, just as there is no "German" POV.  Was there something particularly "Jewish" about Boodles' edits?  Not that I could tell.  Why portray his edits as "Jewish" edits and not the edits of a good-faith editor refering to verifiable sources for notable points of view (i.e. notable historians)? As for Greg - as you said, his comment was offensive.  Offensive remarks predicated on someone's race are called racist remarks.  Offensive remarks predicated on someone's being Jewish are called anti-Semitic remarks.  If he just said "You are a stupid moron with a small penis" he would be offensive, but not anti-semitic.  See the dif?    |