Talk:Antisemitism in Islam/Archive 4

message: Please work out your issues here. The previous discussions were fragmented, scattered across multiple sections, and barely coherent in terms of continuity of topic and thread. I have archived the talk page so that a clear discussion can take place. Please place each significant changes, and its rationale, in a separate section for clarity and ease of building consensus. Thank you. -- Avi 12:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversions and discussions 

message: I want to put an end to this argument for good. Accusations have thrown out that I (or another user) am/is trying to move some content down or up. I would like to point out the faults with such allegations.
# In order to move content up, one must move content down and vice versa. Therefore, if a user moves S & P up, in doing so they've moved other authors down. Why is it acceptable to move one author up at the expense of another?
#Content should be organized with respect to topic, not with respect to what a particular user want the first sentence to be.
#So what if someone move some content up or down? Is it against wikipedia rules to move content? Does wikipedia say that once content is added, it must never moved for as long as wikipedia exists? I want to make sure that I'm following wikipedia's rules, not some users.Bless sins 04:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Moving up"/"moving down" 

message: Can someone explain how "Image:NYTimes 1948 Jews in Arab.jpg" is an example of the relationship between Islam and antisemitism. Remember to back your claims with reliable sources.Bless sins 17:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A newspaper that says all Jews in muslim lands are in danger, and you don't see a connection between Islam and antisemitism!? The connection is pretty obvious.--SefringleTalk 23:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the newspaper say anthing about antisemitism, and the Islamic faith?Bless sins 19:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It says muslim. It directly relates to general muslim antisemitism.--SefringleTalk 22:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it say "antisemitism"?Bless sins 12:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevent image 

message: origionally wrote the following, wanting to add it to this article. Lets see if we can edit it to fairly represent his views. The source given was:
. 
 For Martin Kramer, two common answers to the question of the source of today's  antisemitism locates it "either in the essence of Islam, or in the creation of Israel." The argument of those who hold that antisemitism is essntial to Islam is that since the Qur'an states that some Jews engaged in treachery against Muhammad, it would inspire those Muslims who go back to the original sources of Jewish hatred. According to Kramer, this answer "touches on some truths, yet it misses many others". One is that in Islamic tradition, in striking contrast with the Christian concept of the eternal Jew, the the contemporary Jews were not presented as archetypes—as the embodiment of Jews in all times and places; or that the Qur'an also records of Muhammad's amicable relations with some Jews. Kramer however states that today's Muslim antisemitism "make very effective use of the Qur'an and Tradition of the Prophet. But it is also a selective and distorting use." 
--SefringleTalk 19:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin Kramer 

message: I propose removing the  tag. It seems the disputes are pretty much over for the most part.--SefringleTalk 04:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, see above sections.Bless sins 06:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You deliberately restored that information which there was no consensus for the inclusion of because of this proposal; didn't you?--SefringleTalk 06:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No consensus. That's what dispute literally means I believe. --Aminz 08:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know what a dispute is. I'm not stupid.--SefringleTalk 02:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  And I don't think the dispute would be settled until there are editors who argue for excluding Encyclopedia of Islam's statistical information by calling it "a random source" (and so why using a random source), or something that doesn't add anything informative or other kinds of excuses. If you don't want to include a source, at least please be honest as to why you don't want to do that. --Aminz 08:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Umm, Sefringle, I first resotred the material on 11 July. Stop accusing me of silly things, and try to end disputes before removing the tag.Bless sins 15:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totallydisputed tag 

message: If you're revert warring without further discussion, perhaps mediation? Or an RfC?
As an alternative, why not move this article to Islam and Jewish people or something? That should take care of the objecions on both sides.Hornplease 20:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a mediation going on. See the above mediation template. Anyway, I am deeply opposed to such a move. We already have an article called Islam and Judaism.--SefringleTalk 01:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which can serve as a parent article, perhaps? There is already an article on History of the Jews under Muslim rule; this can serve as a companion article, the theory to that article's practice? Hornplease 05:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It is easy to tell what information we are talking about for the mediation. Just a reminder, the dispute is over the accuracy of the material, whether it belongs at all, etc. New resolutions can be added as necessary if fixed. Anyway, you are right about one thing; we should stop edit warring.--SefringleTalk 07:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the dispute is about things including what belongs at all, so please don't decide for yourself what belongs at all without consensus.  You are acting as though the mediation is complete and you got everything you wanted.  If you want to try finding a compromise and fixing the edits, fine, but simply reverting all of that work repeatedly is not helpful and does not show a spirit of cooperation in this dispute. -- HiEv 09:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war 

message: This page has been prevented to prevent revert warring. Please direct all comments to the mediation case's talk page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Islam and antisemitism. --Deskana (talky) 23:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected 

message: Yahel Guhan (a.k.a. Sefringle) please do not restart the revert war and please read Help:Reverting.  You are violating most of the "Do not" points on that page.  Also, your indiscriminate revert reintroduced errors and risks getting the page protected again.  If you have a problem with the text please resume your discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Islam and antisemitism instead.  Thank you. -- HiEv 11:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting

message: Arabs are Semites!
Syrians are Semites!
Iraqis are Semites!
Lebanese are Semites!
Yemenis are Semites!
Omanis are Semites!
Jordanians are Semites!
I continue to contemplate the overtly absurd misue of Semantics in our popular culture. Semites cannot be "anti-Semitic!"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlon (talk • contribs) 13:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the third box at the top of this talk page. -- HiEv 20:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Antisemitism" is a bit of a misnomer, and includes only hatred towards Jews. For hatred of Arabs, see anti-arabism.Bless sins 15:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semites cannot be "anti-Semitic" 

message: Prompted by some discussion about Seattle Jewish Federation shooting, I've added a small subsection about Islamic opposition to anti-Semitism. This section can be improved, of course, and even expanded, provided it's not given undue weight. 
Meanwhile, it looks like mediation efforts have been terminated or suspended. If so, please msg me and discuss in Talk before deleting this new little section. Thanks. HG | Talk 10:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconciliation efforts 

message: There were two broken references in the article that I have changed to "fact" tags.  Both were broken when added.  The first was added in these two edits, which refer to a non-existant "Morris10" reference.  And the second was added in this edit, which refered to a non-existant "Stillman1" reference (though there was/is a "Stillman2" reference, so I don't know if that was simply a typo.)  Please check on these and fix the references if you can.  Thanks. -- HiEv 18:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken references 

message: I am tagging this page with  because much of this article, especially bless sins version is just repeatings of the exact same content. Until this problem is fixed, I am adding this tag. Yahel Guhan 00:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  repeatition tag 

message: I recently added a new section about the support amongst muslims for Nazi Germany. Yahel Guhan 04:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you show how it is relevant to the Islamic faith? Unless you are saying that Nazism is a sect of Islam, you need to make the connection between Islam and Nazism (through reliable sources).Bless sins 15:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, please consider this carefully. A reliable source needs to demonstrate its relevance to Islam, not you. The reliable source should be the same source that provides us with this content, else you will violate WP:SYNTH.Bless sins 15:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The actions and beliefs of the general muslim population at the time is clearly relevant to Islam. Or do you deny that muslims are connected to Islam? Yahel Guhan 00:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you claim that actions and beliefs of "general muslim population" is related to Nazism. Prove that, and I'll have no objection for including the section.Bless sins 00:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See this page:  where Lewis describes the relationship between the arab muslims and the nazis. Yahel Guhan 01:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I click the link, I'm simply directed to the frontpage of the book. Give me the page number. Also, if Lewis says that Nazism is relevant to Islam, then we use Lewis. You can't synthesize the statement of Lewis and A to put forward opinion B. It's called WP:SYNTH.Bless sins 02:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: p.147. Yahel Guhan 18:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Without being critical of that, let's accept it. That only justifies the use of Lewis (1999) p. 147. What about the rest of the sources?Bless sins 03:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which one do you dispute? There are many. Yahel Guhan 01:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me take some time to verify each source personally. If you haven't done that then you should do that too.Bless sins 04:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The nazis section 

message: There is consensus on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_FrontPageMag.com_a_reliable_source.3F that FrontPage is not a reliable source. Unless we can find the symposium from somewhere else, we can't use it.Bless sins 15:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khaleel Mohammed 

message: Bless sins, see p. 12 of the PDF: 
In addition, researchers have found that for several decades Saudi publications have been indoctrinating students in an ideology of religious hatred against Christians, Jews, and others, including Muslims who do not adhere to strict Wahhabi teaching.
Thus it is relevant to antisemitism. Yahel Guhan 19:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need a reliable source for such conclusion. To hate everybody else  because they are different, differs from hating Jews specifically because they are Jew (religiously or ethnically).  If a reliable source makes such conclusion, we can attribute it with proper conclusion. In such case, we should not forget that conveying the underlying facts is more important than people's definition of antisemitism. --Aminz 21:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: so you are saying Freedom House isn't a reliable source? Yahel Guhan 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yahel Guhan does Freedom House specifically accuse Saudis of antisemitism? (Actually it does). Go find it. There you will also find that Saudi antisemitism is in opposition to Islamic teachings.Bless sins 22:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes it does. See the above quote. I'll bold the relevant part. Yahel Guhan 01:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the word "antisemitism". Even if we assume that the above sentence reflects antisemitism, it can't have been inspired by Islam. Hating Muslims is quite un-Islamic.Bless sins 02:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That is exactly what I meant. If we cite them, we aren't going to cherry pick quotes. We also have to say that the antisemitism is a distorted reading of the Qur'an and hadith.Bless sins 10:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  saudi textbooks 

message: I checked out  and . They seem to condemn antisemitism because they think it is wrong. One of them says they should condemn antisemitism because "Anti-Semitism  and Islamophobia come from very similar places". These are a group of Muslims who "who believe that we have a common bond both religiously, historically and socially with our Jewish brothers and sisters." I can't see this as an effort on their part to create bonds with "Jewish brothers and sisters". Yahel, could you please explain why you think "Condemnation of antisemitism" is less appropriate than "Reconciliation efforts". Thanks --Aminz 06:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I added this subsection (prompted by the debate about categorizing the Seattle incident). "Reconciliation" is a term of art in the field of anti-Semitism, see Christianity and anti-Semitism. If you think "condemnation" is used more than "reconciliation" for Islamic efforts, Aminz, I'd be interested in seeing the relevant secondary sources. Thanks. HG | Talk 09:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems that I don't know the technical meaning of the term "Reconciliation" :P If a typical English speaking editor would understand it in its technical sense then we can use the term of course. HG, please let me know what secondary sources you are referring to and I'll do my best to find them. Cheers, --Aminz 10:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, it's common in Christian and academic/theological circles. See google scholar on /Christian reconciliation anti-Semitism/ or /"Jewish-Christian reconciliation"/ or /"Christian-Jewish reconciliation"/ or the links in this tertiary source :P  HG | Talk 11:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. I see. To be honest with you I haven't seen this technical usage of reconciliation in the context of antisemitism, Islam and Judaism (though I myself support all reconciliation efforts at any dimensions :P) It seems to me that condemnation of antisemitism is a possible title and is more a focus of say . But if one can show that "reconciliation" is a better title, we can use it. It is not a matter of correct or incorrect, but rather good and better :) --Aminz 10:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I don't know which is better. "Reconciliation" happens to be a rather significant phenomenon among Christians. Islamic communities appear to be far less involved with a parallel phenomenon, whatever it's called. For Christians, "Reconciliation" seems to cover theological rethinking, dialogue & condemnation. Islamic groups don't seem to be doing the theological work, and limited activity with the other two. So condemnation might be better, I don't know. HG | Talk 12:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, maybe we should provisionally use "condemnation". We can always switch as we go on. But thanks for bringing up the term "reconciliation". I learned something from this discussion. Regards, --Aminz 01:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I find it very difficult to accept that the "Free Muslims coalition" is a genuine reflection of the beliefs of any Muslims (even though I agree strongly with most of what is presented here). It sounds very much like a propaganda source funded by elements opposed to Islam. Statements such as "The Free Muslims cautions that imposing democracy on the Middle East without first promoting secularism and destroying terrorism may lead to the creation of Islamic extremist states that will ultimately reject the democracy that brings them to power." simply don't ring true. PRtalk 19:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reconciliation efforts"