Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 21

message: It might also be worth pointing out that there are a number of formal definitions of anti-semitism, though most of the controversy is over the "new antisemitism" as opposed to the historical stuff in the article. In any case, I reproduced a couple below: --Goodoldpolonius2 19:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a reference to the controversial nature of equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semeticism. I support the "controversial" attribution with Anti-Zionism#Anti-Zionism_dictionary_definitions. Vassyana 18:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Wow.  This definition of antisemitism is rather intense!  I will note however that no where in this definition is there anything in specific about taking political action to ban Jewish practices (like circumcision) for ethical reasons.  Nevertheless, such people have been accused of antisemitism and there is certain anxiety within such groups of being labeled this way.  It is interesting that reasonable criticism of Israel is the only given example of a limitation in the definition.  Sirkumsize 00:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions of anti-Semitism

message: the definition used by the European Commission on Racism and Intolerance, which is part of the European Union, available here: :
ECRI, January 28, 2005
The purpose of this document is to provide a practical guide for identifying incidents, collecting data and supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.
Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and / or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.
Anti-Semitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong”. It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of anti-Semitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
* Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
* Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective – such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
* Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagines wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, of even for acts committed by non-Jews.
* Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
* Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
* Accusing Jewish Citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:
* Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.
* Applying double standards b requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
* Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
* Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
* Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.
:Wow.  This definition of antisemitism is rather intense!  I will note however that no where in this definition is there anything in specific about taking political action to ban Jewish practices (like circumcision) for ethical reasons.  Nevertheless, such people have been accused of antisemitism and there is certain anxiety within such groups of being labeled this way.  It is interesting that reasonable criticism of Israel is the only given example of a limitation in the definition.  Sirkumsize 00:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ECRI definition

message: Surely some mention should be made (as it is in the 'history of anti-semitism in England' article) that Catholic and Islamic doctrines of the time stated that charging interest on loaned money was immoral and that this was a reason (along with their being barred from many trades) that the Jews were traditionally money-lenders and also a reason that they became so disliked in many communities.
MagicBez 03:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: anti-semitism in the middle ages

message: come have a look, and weigh in regarding the proposed redirect. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism]] 

message: Vizcarra has made a change I'd like discussed. The former wording asserts that the passion plays was used to arouse hatred of local Jews; the newer wording says that the passion plays sometimes happened to arouse hatred of local Jews. The difference is rather critical. Let's leave aside the fact that the former version should qualify itself at least to make it clear that the passion plays were neither always nor only used for arousing anti-Jewish sentiments; can it be fairly said that there was (sometimes? often?) a deliberate and specific intent to incite such sentiments? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If we keep "passion plays have traditionally been used to incite hatred towards Jews" implies that a religious tradition of Christians (that is still popular to this day) was used mainly for hatred. Thus implying that Christians are indeed evil people. I can't deny that in the past some people may have used them to incite hatred. I mean, nowadays a lot of people use religion as an excuse to incite hatred towards blacks, jews, gays, muslims etc. However, the purpose of passion plays is to remind people about Jesus suffering (according to Christians beliefs) and not to avenge him or to blame anybody. Saying that because some have used it such different purposes contrary to the Christian belief of forgiveness not only does not make sense but is also a horrible generalization. --Vizcarra 20:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is an article about anti-Semitism. Certainly, there was a considerable amount of anti-semitis in the best-known of the passion plays. In fact, here's a quote from the 2000 Oberammergau play booklet: "We must nevertheless admit that this Passion Play, too, contributed in various ways to prepare the soil which eventually yielded the terrible harvest of the extermination of the Jews." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a comment about the Oberammergau Passion Plays in specific not in general about passion plays. And it contributed because it inspired Hitler to think very bad things about the Jews. The song Helter Skelter by the Beatles inspired George Mason to kill a few other people. Shall we say that the song has traditionally inspired the murders of people and that the game Doom incites students to kill their classmates? (see Columbine High School massacre). --Vizcarra 21:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm going back to my original question. Why was the anti-semitic material inserted into the Passion Plays? Was it simply a reflection of the feelings of the populace, or was it a deliberate socio-political act of the plays' producers? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which anti-semitic material? --Vizcarra 21:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that a serious question? Or are you unaware of the historical anti-semitic content in passion plays in general, and the Oberammergau one in particular? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: It is a serious question. I'm obviously familiar with the Oberammergau since I've mentioned it already. I assumed "Why was the anti-semitic material inserted into the Passion Plays?" referred to plays in general. What was the anti-semitic material? --Vizcarra 22:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The anti-Semitic material is the charge of deicide against the Jews as a people, and their collective guilt for the death of Jesus.  This has historical been a pretense for violence against Jews and anti-Semitism.  The Second Vatican Council said as much in 1965 in the  Nostra Aetate. Goodoldpolonius2 22:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is charging the Jews as a people in the plays? Plays quote Mathew 27:25 "25Then the people as a whole answered, ‘His blood be on us and on our children!’" which refers to the specific crowd, not all Jews. The article, before your edits already spoke about "the pretense for violence against Jews" without generalizing all plays and all Christian communities. Could you quote Vatican II? --Vizcarra 22:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passion play and anti-semitism 

message: That you agree with it more does not make it better. And more complete? You deleted information about:
# Who publishes the publication the magazine. And thus who is behind the opinion being quoted.
# Link to the publication and link to the Church that publishes it.
# The name of the article
# The "most famous" and perhaps oldest passion play
# The real reason behind the play
# Link to the other magazine being quoted 
# Information about the New Testament which is the inspiration to the play, which is a quote from the same magazine and same article.
--Vizcarra 19:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Semitism&diff=20715316&oldid=20705840 previous wording better and more complete]? 

message: I really cant see much in the way of POV from either side in the current - 20:22, 10 August 2005 - Jayg - version. I'd be all for keeping this one if possible. 62.252.0.7 23:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passion Plays - opinion of an atheist 

message: This edit looks ridiculous, but I can't prove anything. Jews are not "responsible for the exploitation of black labor, bringing alcohol and drugs into black communities, and unfair domination of the economy" right?
:(I forget to sign things. Race Reality)
*Right. But the unsourced "impartial observers" are the problem, I'd guess. I don't see much reason for refuting the NOI position, since it's expressed as the claim of one particular group, as opposed to a generally or widely held position. If you want to include the refutation, don't just express your opinion (regardless of how accurate and correct you are); quote somebody's response to the NOI position instead, not some anonymous impartial (according to whom?) observers (of what?). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go the other way. Is there any evidence for these beliefs? (A real earnest effort to determine how they justify the POV), then a summary of their evidence if any, or lack of evidence. If somebody who supports the position finds we left out significant evidence, they can always add it. If there are refutations by any group, they can be added too. Gzuckier 17:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *Ok. Good idea. I just added that there's no evidence. Race Reality 05:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: **Who says there's no evidence? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if there were any evidence, we would've seen it. What happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"? On the other hand, adding the word "Claimed", makes it NPOV and we should leave it alone.  --Sebastian Kessel 15:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *You say so Jpgordon, if you continue providing no evidence. After some helped to found the NAACP, after millions of dollars have gone to black groups, after campaigning to unionize black labor, I doubt jews are doing any of that. Race Reality 19:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: If you don't want to be "stalked", then stop inserting original research into articles on my watchlist. Jayjg (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jews aren't black-blood-sucking devils right? 

message: Does for instance, the capital tax imposed by Turkey which was also directed against Jews during World War II, which the government justified by this: “Stop all Jewish immigration, while provoking incidents within the country with the goal of creating a Jewish exodus, keep them away from all government activity, be it financial or economic” (source: Ridvan Akar, Askale Yolculari—Varlik Vergisi ve Çalisma Kamplari (Passengers to Askale—Capitial Tax and forced labour camps), Belge Uluslararasi Yayincilik, Istanbul, 1999); enough important to be included in the article? Fadix 02:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What qualifies to be included 

message: This is an article about why the section of the 19th and 20th centuries should be deleted.  To take information from an unscholarly work that only mentions history from one point of view is terrible.  There is little historical evidence to support the view that the papacy was anti-semitic in the 20th century.
:Well, the 19th century papacy is certainly clearly anti-Semitic in the most direct way : Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) had the walls of the Jewish Ghetto rebuilt after the Jews were released by Napoleon, and it was maintained up to Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) who called the Jews "dogs," increased restrictions on them, and blamed them for the revolutions of 1848. I don't know as much about the 20th century, although the passivity of Pius XII in the face of the Nazis may deserve a mention. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Newcrusade, Christian opposition to anti-Semitism is lovely, but we cannot delete facts from encylopedia simply because some people opposed the oppression. Of course there were loving and tolerant folks at any time, and some even spoke and fought against persecuting others. I think we should mention those brave souls, along with references of historical facts. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  19th & 20th Centuries to be deleted 

message: It may not have been a Papal announcement, but Church officials often taught that the Jews were collectively responsible for the death of Jesus. This was stated as early as Biship Melito of Sardis (d. 180) and repeated as late as 2000, when Vatican official Father Peter Gumpel, realator of the canonization of Pius XII said in two different interviews that "It is a fact that the Jews have killed Jesus. This is an undeniable historical fact." (Globe and Mail, March 18, 2000).  We can make the language reflect this difference between official and actual policy, but even Caroll in Constantine's Sword (winner of the National Book Award) calls the charge of deicide "the ground of all Jew hatred" within the Church. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Newcrusade, can you give us some help here by providing some support for your views?  At least something reputable attacking Caroll, which seems to be generally extremely well regarded.  Also, as I said, I am happy to help you craft a fairer phrasing, if you don't like the one in the article. --Goodoldpolonius2 19:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How can people possibly say that the church didn't teach that the Jewish people kill Jesus? The Inquisition is living proof that they did. It was on their doctrine, and part of cathecism (sorry about the spelling). Even more, Pope John Paul II even apologized for it... I have absolutely nothing against the Catholic Church of the 2000s, but we can't forget what DID happen in the past. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Inquisition persecuted many groups of people (heretics, prostitutes), even though nobody claims these groups "killed Jesus" as well. --Vizcarra 23:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Vizcarra is right, the Inquisition really isn't linked to deicide charges.  The work of historians like Caroll are more relevant to this particular point, and I would definitely be interested in any material discrediting Constantine's Sword, where Carroll makes the argument about deicide being an underlying tradition. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Newcrusade, I think your changes make sense. Thank you for leaving in sourced material, and your addition of material has strengthened the article. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think they make much sense; they are mostly unsourced claims, and a citation from someone whose notability is not established. Jayjg (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It's a "historical fact" that the Jews killed Jesus? If the New Testament accounts are to be believed, it was the Romans who did it.  As for collective responsibility, what was the 1965 Nostra Aetate decree if not a repudiation of that formerly commonly held belief?  Even then it equivocated, stating that "neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor all Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his passion", implying that at least some Jews today can be charged with those "crimes".  The church belief in collective and eternal Jewish guilt is ancient: for example, Origen (185 - 254 CE) stated: "The blood of Jesus falls not only on the Jews of that time, but on all generations of Jews up to the end of the world." Jayjg (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: On Deicide

message: Article says: 
"Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase "antisemitic prejudices" ("antisemitischen Vorurtheile")." 
I believe it is "Vorurteile" - No "h" - check it out. MEW 13:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling?

message: Irishpunktom has removed the phrase the Immigration Act of 1924 in the United States used quotas to reduce Jewish (as well as Italian) immigration from the article with the cryptic comment "not as stated".  Tom, could you explain what you mean? Jayjg (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immigration Act - "not as stated" 

message: Where's the evidence that the ancient Greeks were anti-semitic. How can you tar a whole race of people like that??? The Jews themselves ass-kissed Alexander and in return he left them alone. They went on to write him into their religion as a mono-theist to make his dominance more palatable.
Anyway, I would like to see evidence of this ancient Greek 'anti-semitism' please. Or do the Jews really believed that every hegemon since the dawn of time has singled THEM out in particular for prejudice. Yawn. Story's getting a bit old now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.213.215 (talk • contribs) .
:Alexander wasn't even Greek, meaning how he interacted with Jews is irrelevant to the issue. No one's going to listen to you when you pay no attention to real facts. (Poster has been trolling similarly [and even more inaccurately] on multiple pages and is responsible for at least one racist vandalism). Superm401 | Talk 18:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, one could argue that there were no Greeks back then.  There certainly was no state called "Greece."  Be that as it may, who is saying that "ancient Greeks were anti-Semities?"  This statement is wrong, not because ancient Greeks were not anti-Semites" for the same reason that it is wrong to say "Germans are not anti-Semites" — it is just meaningless to make such a huge generalization.  The issue is not that Germans are or are not anti-Semites, but that there were and are German anti-Semites.  Similarly, there were Greek anti-Semites.  Or, let's be more precise: the Nazis were anti-Semites.  The Hellenic regime of Antiochus Epiphenes was, if not "anti-Semitic" (depends on how you define the word) definitely "anti-Judaic" and persecuted the Jews.  And there were during Roman times periodic conflicts between Greeks and Jews. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are and were plenty of anti-semetic Germans who weren't Nazis, and a few Nazis who weren't anti-semetic.  You kind of contradict your generally valid point in that sentence. Superm401 | Talk 20:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I grant your point, but I also trust you understand what I meant to say, right? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greeks anti-Jewish? 

message: Most social scientists argue that "race" is socially constructed, which means that whether the Jews consititute one race, many races, or no races depends entirely on historical and social circumstances.  What is important in this article is not what "Jews" are (something no wikipedia article should arbitrate; we are not here to proclaim the truth, only to provide neutral accounts of verifiable views).  What is important in this article is what "anti-Semitism" is.  Anti-Semitic literature is full of talk of the Jewish race; the notion of race is essential to anti-Semetic discourse, and anti-Semitism is therefore a form of racism.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish race