Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 10

message: Why is this article still protected? As far as I can tell, the only problem is User Simonides. He is outrageously violating our NPOV policy. Our NPOV policy says that we do not just state a fact; rather, we say that Group A believes position B, while Group C believes position D. That is all that was added. We said that according to groups A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, anti-Semitism was resurgent across the globe; links were then given so that people could follow up on this (e.g. the the report on resurgent anti-Semitism by the European Union). Incredibly, Simonides repeatedly deleted all this NPOV data, then added polemical personal remarks denying that this phenomenom exists, offered us no sources, and repeatedly has given us a loony conspirary theory about "special interest groups" (i.e. the Jews.) RK
Simonides then states that there are no sources to support the idea that anti-Semitism is on a resurgence...yet it is Simonides himself who keeps deleting all of these sources. Note that Simonides is deleting sources from the European Union, the Secretary General of the UN, many researchers, and then denying that any sources exist. That is called trolling. RK 00:58, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
:RK, may I help? Let's start with "being better than our opponents", so as to take the moral high ground. I'm going to refator your remarks above accordingly, if I may. --Uncle Ed 22:52, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this article still protected? 

message: I think that removing evidence and than claiming that the lack of presented evidence proves that there is no evidence whatever is rather a transparent tactic of denial. It has no place in Wikipedia collaboration, but there is a similar tactic which does have a place.
A contributor may edit an article so as to cast doubt upon a piece of evidence, for example by listing the names of people and organizations who disbelieve in the authenticity of that particular piece of evidence.
Rather than deleting sources, it's better to add a comment such as so and so doubts the veracity of this source -- thus-providing a source for the doubt. --Uncle Ed 22:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's better to add comments; it's best to know whether someone is lying before you rush to their defense. -- Simonides 23:37, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dealing with doubt

message: I removed the following paragraph because I couldn't make heads or tails of what it was trying to say:
: While many more subtle manifestations of Church anti-Semitism can be traced to anti-Jewish sentiment in Egypt, these more blatant early accusations of theological anti-Semitism has been particularly prevalent in Christianity.  Anti-Egyptian sentiment and the rejection of the Exodus mythology were not co-opted by the Church since they countered Christian doctrine.
"early accusations of theological anti-Semitism" to me means that someone was accusing Christians of theological anti-Semitism. It seems unlikely that such accusations would have come from Christians, but that's what the rest of the sentence seems to say. Next, is the Church supposed to have co-opted the Exodus mythology, or to have co-opted the rejection of the Exodus mythology. If this can be clarified, then it might be possible to examine it for accuracy. Wesley 16:35, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted text