Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 20

message: the single most disturbing tangible aspect of Judaism is their circumcision ritual
This is complete and utter baloney. Unless you can back this up with serious sources, it is staying out. JFW | T@lk 7 July 2005 06:35 (UTC)
*How long will we be dealing with this original research and non-npov edits? the single most disturbing tangible aspect of Judaism is their circumcision ritual — according to whom? Again, back it up with sources (Igor and otherwise, but scholarly). El_C 7 July 2005 06:49 (UTC)
**I think what he meant to write was "the single most tangible aspect of Judaism that disturbs Sirkumsize is their circumcision ritual".  That is demonstrably true, but cannot be included because it fails the No Original Research and Notability requirements. Jayjg (talk) 7 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)
***It even fails the Igor test.  Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 17:06 (UTC)
*Read the sources.  It comes out of the study sillies.  Sirkumsize 06:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sirkumsize 

message: I don't know about anyone else, but the only reason I didn't respond to his "proposal" was that it's completely trollish.  There's nothing whatsoever in his paragraph that is supportable from any of the sources he's offered, despite the fact that he continues to twist critiques of those sources into agreement with his warped interpretations.  The reversion was wellfounded on any number of rationales, the least of which is that it wasn't written in comprehensible English.  Tomer TALK July 7, 2005 08:18 (UTC)
:Well, Wikipedia content works by concensus, and Sirkumsize is acting against consensus. If this carries on, we're heading for requests for comment. JFW | T@lk 7 July 2005 21:31 (UTC)
::Granted.  You'll notice I just had to revert him again.  Tomer TALK July 7, 2005 21:39 (UTC)
:I agree that at this point an RFC seems like the only route. Sirkumsize does not seem to understand no original research and cite sources. El_C 8 July 2005 22:33 (UTC)
::NO.  You are totally incorrect.  I do understand the policies.  If Tomer feels that what I write is trollish than that's tomer's problem.  It isn't mine.  Read the sources.  Learn.  Do not vandelize good work.  I thought we were working together here but I see that I am being discriminated against again.  Wikipedia's consensus policy is not meant as a way to justify censoring my valid additions to the article.  That is not what wikipedia policy is all about.  Do you really think that I am writing this out of spite.  Grow up.  Sirkumsize 06:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can't get consensus for your stuff, or indeed even one other editor to agree with it, then no doubt the problem lies with the material you are proposing to include.  You have made it clear from the start that your purpose here is anti-circumcision activism, and you have been desperately trying to create a dubious original research link between anti-semitism and circumsion in order to further that goal, using ridiculous sources that you mostly haven't read, rarely say what you claim they do when you have read them, and often aren't even on the topic. Please don't blame others for those failings, and in particular please don't attack them by telling them to "grow up". Wikipedia is not a venue for anti-circumcision activism, it is an encyclopedia.  Please respect that. Jayjg (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sirkumsize' addition

message: I am not amused by TShilo12's recent vandelism of the page which included removal of a well researched section, and worse, the removal of links from the link section which were relevant to antisemitism in every way and at the very minimum as scholarly as the most scholarly one there.  He even erased a reference to a multimillion dollar study on antisemitism.  This behaviour is intolerable.  It totally devalues all of the work that I have put into this article and it is disgraceful behaviour.  I demand that at the very minimum that the said links be reinserted and I be apologized to for being called a an anti-circ nut.  If you want me to treat people with respect I will expect the same in return.  Erasing my stuff because you believe I am an anti-circ nut is simply NOT appropriate.  Sirkumsize 06:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a look through the page history, and there's nothing there that looks like vandalism. There was a lot of original research spuriously backed up with a heap of links which, according to the person who put the links in "May or may not be relevant", were "fanatical", were "not scholarly", etc. It is interesting that - according to the theory you are espousing - it is only the semitic peoples that suffer this extreme stigma through their use of circumcision, whereas other groups that use it do not. Or do we need pages on prejudice against Australian Aborigines or people of the African Coptic faith? More importantly, anti-Semitism, as it is normally understood, is anti Jewish behaviour or prejudice, but circumcision is a major tenet of both the Jewish and Islamic faiths. Why have there not been similar pogroms against Moslems? If circumcision was the major cause of anti-semitism, then there would be equal prejudices of a very similar sort against all these groups too. Basically, you seem to be complaining because untenable claims, propped up be fairly shonky links, have been removed from a page. They smell strongly of original research, and even more strongly of false conclusions. If anyone is vandalising the page, it's whoever keeps trying to put these claims back on it. 202.180.83.6 08:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymous:  I have said before that other groups suffer from the stigma of circumcision:  In particulair Islam suffers from a large stigma because of female genital mutilation even though it is not per se connected to their religious faith.  No where have I said that this was solely an Jewish issue, but I did say that it was a Jewish issue.  If there is going to be a separate page for bias against the said groups then that's not my decision, but I can do my best to ensure that the truth is revealed in all.  I think this is particulairly important on this article because the Jews have probably suffered the most sigma and that's because of all of the said groups, they have probably been practicing circumcision for the longest and most strongly associated with circumcision.  The links provided were scholarly.  Read them.  I still feel I am owed an apology for the insinuation that my research is not worthy because I'm an "anti-circ nut".  As for you, get a log-in.  When your ready to stop hiding behind an anonymous IP number we will talk further.  Sirkumsize 20:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: TShilo12's vandelism of the antisemitism page

message: Would anybody insist that James Zogby is an authority on the subject? As a leader of Arab American Institute, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Palestine Human Rights Campaign and Save Lebanon, Inc., his neutrality is highly questionable. In the following text, we uncritically describe his attempt to apply the term A-S to Arabs: However, James Zogby argues that both Arabs and Jews have been subject to the same prejudice and uniformly treated by Western society as alien and hostile, viewed as prone to conspiracy, and seen as usurpers of Western wealth and threats to Western civilization. Zogby draws parallels between political cartoons depicting Jews as the fat grotesque banker and Arabs as the obese oil sheik. He argues that efforts to counter anti-Semitism must be broadened to include the "other anti-Semitism" so that the same outrage displayed toward anti-Jewish bigotry will occur for anti-Arab and anti-Muslim stereotypes. 
In addition, his support of Hezbollah, The Protocols controversy , convince me that the above passage doesn't belong here. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get it, what is wrong with being a leader of an organization called "Palestine Human Rights Campaign"?  Are you denying that the Palestinians' human rights are routinely being violated?  Or are you saying that during the Nazi era some people should have stood up for the Jews in Europe, but nobody should even bring up the subject of human rights for the Palestinians today who are being subject to the same or very similar (if not worse) violations?  And how is "American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee" exactly a "Negative Thing" as you seem to imply here and an organization like the Zionist "Anti-Defamation League" whose only purpose in life seems to be defamation and intimidation of gentiles is a "Positive Thing"?  69.110.230.145 10:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems the term has been used exclusively for Jews for decades, but after Dachau comes Zogby and insists that it should be applied to Arabs too. It would be more convincing if you present examples of this usage before the Holocaust. Zogby uses it for his political campaigns and we cannot support that, at least without a disclaimer. He is interested in both dilluting the term and riding the wave of condemnations of antisemitism. The passage in question popularizes his fringe views to "counterbalance" traditional and generally accepted usage. I'm sure we can find quotes similar to Kressel's if he doesn't pass your academic threshold. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 20:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What makes Zogby an authority on the subject of Anti-Semitism? 

message: Colleagues, let's acknowledge that huge part of this discussion page and repeated edits to the article (many in good faith) revolve around one single theme: the confusion around the hyphen. I believe that if we switch to alternative unhyphenated form, advocated by some notable authorities and used in many serious books, it will significantly reduce the confusion. We could put this for vote. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would help somewhat for people who are cognizant of the anti- vs anti
debate. That is, that anti-semitism is against semitic people's (that's what a person who anti + semitic would conclude) verus antisemitism which is a neology and would apply only to Jews, whether they are semites or not (such as non-semitic Gentiles who converted to Judaism) or even other semites. --Titus70AD 07:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Moving the rest of Titus' comments to the section #Titus' latest comments because they don't belong here. If you're planning on staying, please learn some basic formatting. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to avoid recurrent confusion? Anti-Semitism vs. Antisemitism 

message: I saw an earlier discussion on the inappropriateness of including information or discussions on Kevin MacDonald's books and articles.
The anti- argument was that (a) MacDonald was writing outside of his field and (b) his work had been discredited or not annointed by high ranking Jews in acadamia/the media.
In regard to (a) and MacDonald's field, just what exactly must one's field be to write about Jews and/or anti-semitism? Must one be a Rabbi? Must one be a Jew in both the racial and religious sense or what?
This very notion that you "must be in your field" less your work is crap shows complete bias and idiocy on those that posit such a doltish concept.
All that should matter is whether the work stands on its own. Take for instance, the Father of Genetics, Gregor Mendel. He was NOT trained in Genetics, he invented the field! In fact, he was a monk for Christ's sake
not a scientist. And I can continue with other who worked outside of their field but that fact did not make their inventions or contributions any less than if they had Phd's in their fields.
Examples include Henry Ford, Alexander Graham Bell, and Nikola Tesla. Tesla was even kicked out of University in Austria for his "stupid ideas" and then went on to invent and make possible what we know of as polyphase electricity. He invented everything from the first hydroelectric generator to a transformer, meters, remote controls and the radio. 
Following this "logic" of Tesla or Mendel being outside of their field would not mean their inventions or contributions to science or mankind were any less.
Some people will make great contributions in spite of not having "studied in that particular field" and most others will make little contributions although "holding Phds and years of study in that field" because they will simply rehash old ideas and toe the party line, not look to think out of the box or tell the truth.
On this subject it's also amazing how Jew-Leftist and Linguist Nom Chomsky is not a Political Scientist but writes all manner of materials on this subject and is highly quoted and respected by a great many Jews including the eminent, Jewish owned New York Times.
:Like here, where he writes in the Times, against Israel's border fence.  Those wily Jews, covering both sides of the argument, so they can't lose. I can't find anywhere else where he is being quoted and respected by the NYTimes. Gzuckier 20:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to agree that MacDonald is, so far as I know, a credible academic.  However I should note that his theories are already on wikipedia, which is more than I can say about other credible theories about antisemitism.  Sirkumsize 03:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Titus, I wondered what your view was on that issue.  As for statement that Jews can keep cutting while for gentiles its barbaric torture is the heart of the issue.  Why should it be any different for Jews and Gentiles?  Isn't it possible that its actually more acceptible to hate Jews than critize circumcision?  Isn't it possible that circumcision could be an unconscious source of hatred of Jews?  The book I'm reading seems to indicate that Freud himself wrote about this possibility, saying that antisemitism was a result of the unconscious equation between circumcision and castration.  Personally I think that Freud may have suffered from cultural myopia, believing that the mutilation of the penis was not in and of itself enough to justify antisemitism, so came up with the idea of equating it with a worse form of mutilation as a way of explaining it.  Anyways when I finish the book I will have more to say on the subject.  Sorry that this debate is so unpopular here.  Sirkumsize 14:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kevin MacDonald and the Veracity of Works 

message: While not wanting to feed any trolls, Titus might benefit from this explanation: that the accusation of Jewish American "disloyalty" or "sedition" is in reflective proportion to accusations of anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish tendencies —they go hand in hand, and they're equally ignorant. -St|eve 18:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  DFTT 

message: I archived some past discussion (keeping ongoing ones, as far as I can tell).  I also moved the ongoing Titus material to the subsection above, so that on-topic discussion about the article is clear. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to wait until people don't want to engage in off-topic debate, since I wouldn't want to censor ongoing debate, no matter how useless.  I find the whole thing a bit disheartening, however, as over the last couple days I have spent a lot of time overhauling the article, adding images, etc., and yet the only discussion we have had recently has been the above. Sigh.  --Goodoldpolonius2 20:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Crazy people always take over a conversation. It's unavoidable. Gzuckier 20:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived