Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 24

message: Bait or, Bat Ye'or is not a reliable source for her views --Aminz 08:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsesne. How come a scholar cannot be a reliable source for his or her own view? Beit Or 08:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For using them in wikipedia per WP:RS --Aminz 08:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Again, I just cannot understand what you mean, if anything. Beit Or 09:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Read this  Beit Or. --Aminz 09:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Go read something" is an offensive comment, not a response to my argument. Beit Or 09:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  He is an scholar. And that's my point. --Aminz 09:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? What topics did he research? What did he contribute to our knowledge of Islam? Beit Or 09:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

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

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Edit War 

message: I also found this comment from an admin from way back: . --Aminz 05:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dhimmi + Antisemtism ? 

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  Discussed here --Aminz 22:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My revert 

message: Here is the scholarly version . Complete it using real academic works. No un-peer-reviewed works by journalists please. Thanks --Aminz 00:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And no bad-faith comments please. --Aminz 00:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And none of these edits are in bad faith. BhaiSaab talk 02:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: You are making claims of fact that aren't supported by your sources. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One example please. You can find the other version here --Aminz 07:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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." Beit Or 07:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can explain that but please address the diff I provided above. --Aminz 07:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholarly version 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anti-Semitism in the 21st Century 

message: 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)
replies: text: Can you cite sources supporting your view? Beit Or 17:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Religious antisemitism vs. anti-Judaism

message: 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)
replies: text: whatever that is supposed to mean, i want the article to be accurate.trueblood 22:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Usually, nope. Does the "etymology and usage" section insufficiently belittle the hornal, er, racial theory? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Is antisemitism racist? 

message: The standard spelling is anti-Semitism. I think the page should be moved. Theshibboleth 13:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both spellings are widely accepted. The decision on Wikipedia is to go with the current one. --Leifern 13:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. -- Kendrick7talk 19:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia consensus was to use "antisemitism", as suggested by many scholarly sources. Jayjg (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And how many people dropped by here a week to inform you that it was mispelled before it was changed? -- Kendrick7talk 08:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where is this requirement coming from? I am against switching to a more confusing version. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Move page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  assimilation 

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

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

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

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

text:  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)
replies: text:  You already lost this argument in #Anti-Neyshaboor section. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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. And I am losing my hope if this discussion can ever be fruitful. --Aminz 00:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Journalist 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please review WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Judaism in the New Testament 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pro-India garbage 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tag 

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

text: Does it say anywhere who they are? Usually there are descriptions under a list of contributors. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Muslim anti-semitism; another source 

message: "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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  From [[Encyclopedia of Islam]] (EI), the standard encyclopaedia of the academic discipline of Islamic studies 

message: has a short article on antisemitism and does not mention Islam at all. --Aminz 00:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Oxford Encyclopedia of World History on Anti-Semitism 

message: "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)
thread_title:  The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  The words of renowned scholars of Islam 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Misrepresenting Joel Migdal 

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

text: 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. -- Kendrick7talk 22:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Please answer me a question 

message: Please add the actual reference for the book written by Lacqueur in the Reference section. --Aminz 09:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His name was misspelled. Please look for Laqueur. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacqueur 

message: 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 (). Keesiewonder 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on [[ethnic segregation]]? 

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

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestion regarding section "Antisemitism and the Muslim world" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Highly relevant articles to consider creating 

message: That is ridiculously absurd, but hardly a surprise to find at wikipedia, sadly. Ernham 03:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  anti-zionism = anti-semitism? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 . 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Different views 

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

text: Why didn't I see that? Good thought. Mackan79 16:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone reverted the edit as minor for some reason. I reinstated it unless someone can come up with a reason otherwise. .V. -- (TalkEmail) 16:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Controversial

message: 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)
thread_title:  Three types of antisemitism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Antisemitism and specific countries" section should be moved 

message: 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)
replies: text: *And now, the poster has been removed. Please explain. Keesiewonder talk 23:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1937 Poster 

message: 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)
thread_title: of January?

message: 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)
thread_title: move

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Judeophobia 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The argument for such an extension of meaning comes from the claim