Talk:Antisemitism in the Arab world/Archive 1

message: I don't think we need all this kinds of silly talks; alot of dumb things are written any day.
: How can you have an article on anti-Semitism, and then remove examples of anti-Semitism? These actions that you call "silly" have raised a generation of suicide bombers that believe it is Allah's will to mass-murder Jews. How can you imply that such an signiciant sociological development be removed?  RK
* Syrian has claimed in the UN that Jews murder and eat Christian babies for Passover
* Egyptian newspapers claims that Jews lace bubble gum with aphrodisiacs to cause Muslim girls to lose sexual inhibitions
* Egyptian and Palestinian newspaper claim that Jews invented HIV (the virus that causes AIDS)
The article needs to be shortened and needs references a well.-- Di Stroppo
:No, this article does not need to be shortened. In fact, like most Wikipedia entries, it needs people well schooled in this area to expand on it. Wikipedia intends on becoming a full fledged encyclopaedia; its not a mere dictionary. People come to this project to contribute scholarship. RK
::Constructive does not mean just to dump various bits and pieces of information in a text box. We need a well written article that is focused using verified material not just copying gossip and hate. -- Di Stoppo 
::: I agree, but what does that have to with the well-reseached and indisputable facts here? You seem desperate to hide the beliefs of hundreds of thousands of Muslim Arabs, especially those influenced by the Islamist movement.  Quoting the Arab;s own pointof view, in their own words, and giving further references to show how accurate and representative this is is not gossip. In fact, this is precise opposite of gossip. Have you read any texts on this subject?  RK
:::: True that people should be neutral in their writing, but although the Wikipedia writier may be neutral, it doesn't mean the source he is getting his information is at all factual or neutral.--Tommajor 04:46, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
:::::: Frankly, it's completely unbalanced. Perhaps if you re-named the article "Mutual Hostility Between Arabs and Jews, Yet Another Example of Outdated, Unwinnable, and Extremely Tiresome Tribalism" and actually attempted to understand the situation from both sides, instead of just pointing the finger and playing victim. The Wiki shouldn't tolerate anti-Arabism anymore than anti-Semitism. My father, upon hearing the phrase "Artificial Intelligence", used to say, "I want to know when someone's going to start doing research into Artificial Stupidity..." Should I point him to this article? Fishanthrope
:::::::The content of this article may seem to fill your criticisms thereof, however the existence of the phenomenon is still worthy of study, if not necessarily of a Wikipedia article.  My main criticism of the article remains not with the content, but rather with its name, since it is very easy to get the immediate impression from the name that "all Arabs hate Jews", which is simply not the case.  There is, in fact, no really good way to determine the extent to which this sentiment is prevalent in Arab societies, except in Israel and the (fill in your POV-preferred description) territories, where nazi-style Jew-hatred seems to be a favored outlook by 30-80% (depending on the locale) of the Arab population.  (This is the most-polled population in the middle-east.)  If you sincerely believe that this is a tribalistic conflict, then perhaps you can sufficiently demonstrate that Jews entertain similar views wrt Arabs/Muslims/Islam/whatever-your-contention-is.  As for where to direct your dad in his search for Artificial Stupidity, the article is not the place to point him, although this talk page might be.  Tomer TALK 01:21, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
:::::::By means of example, here's a news story from April 4, 2005:
::::::::According to a poll taken by the prestigious Dahaf institute, headed by veteran Israeli pollster Mina Tzemach, an overwhelming majority of Israelis believe that the State should encourage Arab citizens of Israel to emigrate. 
::::::::The poll taken for Madar, the Palestinian Center for Israeli Studies, located in Ramallah, found that of 501 Jewish Israelis surveyed, 42% agreed that the State should be encouraging Arabs to emigrate. An additional 17% said they tended to agree with this. 
::::::::Forty percent of those surveyed said they disagreed or tended to disagree with having the State promote the emigration of Arabs. 
:::::::This is a far cry from advocating the killing of the Arabs, or even of demonizing Arabs in any way, but this is the kind of thing that you might be able to use to build up your case for what you appear to be claiming.  That said, a lot of what you're going to find and compile will most likely end up being original research...  Tomer TALK 01:58, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
*******If I look up and say "The sky is blue," you'd shoot me down for 'original research.'  Anyway, whatever the Israelis claim now does little to change the fact that Palestinians are still second-class citizens in what used to be their own sovereign country.
:The second class citizens part may be correct but their own sovereign country????? When was that, and what was the name of that country? Gzuckier 18:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusation that this article is silly 

message: I think it would also be valuable to historicize this discussion (as the article on Christian anti-semitism is).  I was taught that Muslim Spain was a great time/place for Jews -- quite different from the situation today.  I wonder how much Arab anti-semitism was aroused or even created by the rise of modern nationalism (both Arab nationalism and Zionism)?  In any event, I think the aticle would be stronger if it could document changing Arab attitudes, as well as differences between official and popular attitudes towards Jews, and the changing contexts for these activities, SR
As SR had pointed out, the terms "Arab" and "Muslim" are not interchangeably. Many Arabs are Christians (maybe 2%, 5%, more?) , a tiny percent are are of the druze faith (though they rarely refer to themselves as Arabs). In the western world a small number of Arabs are likely Unitarians, deists, humanists and atheists. Similarly, a large number of Muslims are not Arab. Perhaps the current title of the entry should be re-titled "Islamic anti-Semitism"? I will not change the name of the entry today, to see if any other useful name suggestions come up.  RK
:"of the druze faith (though they rarely refer to themselves as Arabs)" That's simply not true. I'm not aware of any significant element of the Lebanese or Syrian Druze populations who don't think of themselves as Arabs.Palmiro 18:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical context 

message: Why is this article titled "Arab anti-Semitism" and seems to only include information about "Islamic anti-Semitism"? Not all Arabs are Muslims and to suggest so would not be very NPOV. This doesn't seem to follow the logic of the more aptly named, "Christian anti-Semitism". I suggest a change in title to Islamic anti-semitism --maveric149
:  The choice of name for this article is just plain "bad".  Even changing it to "Islamic anti-semitism" is a bad idea.  What this article deals with is a very specific manifestation of anti-Semimitism, specifically as promoted by a (predominantly) Sunni Arab-world media and religious establishment dominated by Wahhabis or others who use Wahhabiya to promote their agenda (or in the case of certain governments, to help divert attention from their oligarchist or dictatorial régimes).  In that light, it should be renamed "Wahhabi anti-Semitism" or included in a "Modern Manifestations" section in the already extant "Islamic anti-Semitism" article.  I agree that this article is crap, not because it's a made up phenomenon, but because it's poorly done. TShilo12 07:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of the article 

message: First of all, MANY ARABIC PEOPLE ARE SAMITES! Samites is a common description for the people living or lived around the Palestine/Israel area, Jews, Palestinians, Samarians, Philistees and so on. Israel has tried with bacteriological warfare against their enemies, they have failed because genetically speaking Jews and Arabs are very similar. 
Second of all, taking quotes, from a book written about 1300 years ago, and not mentioning their historical context is stupid. 
Third of all, the only thing this shows is a deep ignorance towards Arab culture, yes keep the content rename the article to "Jewish racism against Arabs" it would fit.
:Isn't Samite a type of cloth?  And if you will read other areas of the Wikipedia, you will see that Arabs are not being singled out -- there are other cases around of articles about anti-Arabism.  -- Zoe
::Arabs are not Semites. They are a people whose langauge is Semitic, which is a big difference. Please see the article on anti-Semitism for a discussion of the etymology of the word. It doesn't mean what you imagine it does. RK 12:46, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
:(1)  There is no such thing as "Arabic People".  Arabic is a language, spoken by many peoples, most of whom are Semites or relatives of Semites.  "Arab" describes several of those peoples, primarily those who live on the Arabian peninsula.  Not all Arabs, however, speak Arabic.  Your claim that "Semite" describes peoples who live/d in or around the Palestine/Israel area is patently wrong.  Ancient Jews were predominantly Semitic, descending directly from Noach's son Shem.  Palestinians is a nationality that was made up in 1964 to describe the Arabic-speaking residents of (and refugees (real or claimed) from) living in the Levant in what is presently the nation-state of Israel including the disputed territories, not-including the Golan.  Palestinians take their name from Palestine, the name the Romans gave the province of Iudæa following the quashing of the Jewish revolt against Rome in 72 AD.  Why did they name it Palestina?  In honor of the Philistines, the ancient enemies of the Jews, who had been long since conquered in succession by the Jews, Egyptians and Assyrians...in other words, they named the province in honor of a people who no longer existed, in order to give that people a posthumous "victory" over the Jews.  (Jerusalem was at the same time renamed Ælia Capitolina, but this really is not a history lesson...)  The Samarians were Jewish residents of the Shomron, who were exiled 'en masse' by the Assyrians approximately 3600 years ago.  I assume, however that what you meant were the Samaritans, who were a people brought in by the Assyrians to displace the Samarians who had been exiled 1000 km to the east.  These people were (and in Hebrew, to this day, are) called Kuthim, because they came from the region of Kuth, somewhere in Mesopotamia.  I assume this is the modern city we know as Al Kut in modern-day Iraq.  It is possible that these people were also Semites.  The last group, "Philistees" (an erstwhile spelling of Philistines) is an almost laughable inclusion, since of the little that is known about them, the one thing upon which every historian agrees is that they were definitely not Semites.  In fact, it quite clearly says in the only text from the time that says anything about their origin, that they came from Kaftor:  Cyprus.
:(2)  The claim that Israel has engaged in bacteriological warfare against their enemies is incomprehensible nonsense.  That quote would make a good inclusion into what the article discusses.  What really makes it all-the-more ridiculous is that the same people who make these claims, in other contexts, claim that Jews today are not really Jews, claiming instead that Ashkenazim especially are descendants of Khazars (who were legitimately Jewish, but by conversion...which apparently doesn't mean anything to the anti-Jewish promulgators of this nonsense, since they cite conversion as a reason to say that someone isn't really Jewish...), and therefore not only not Jewish, but also not even Semites.  Genetically speaking, Jews (with the exception of Temanim, Bene Israel, and a few other important groups) are overwhelmingly more closely related to Arabic- and Aramaic-speaking populations from Syria, Jordan and Iraq than they are to populations from Arabia or north Africa.  In fact, genetically speaking, the vast majority of Jews, including Ashkenazim, are closer to these populations than Egyptian "Arabs" are to Arabian-peninsula Arabs.  This is a fact well known to the Israelis (20+% of whom are "Arabs").  I won't continue to discuss (right now at least) how ridiculous this assertion is, but it'd be nice if you'd provide a single shred of evidence to back it up when you spout such drivel.  (No, that was not meant to sound diplomatic.  Don't watch for an apology.)
:(3)  I couldn't agree more about the stupidity of quoting things without context from 1300 year old texts.  This does not stop the same people about whom this article was written from quoting 3300 year old texts out of context.
:(4)  Renaming the article is a great idea, one which I fully support.  Renaming it "Jewish racism against Arabs" is not the answer.  Such a recommendation is nonsensical, and it certainly would not fit, and not only because Arabs aren't a "race" (indeed, no moreso than Jews are).  In any case, while I recognize that you might find the article (or its name) personally offensive, lashing out in this way, especially anonymously, does nothing to serve your cause.  
:(5)  Finally, the term "antisemitism", no matter how it's hyphenated or capitalized, was specifically invented by a professed hater of Jews for the express purpose of meaning "hatred of Jews", to replace the earlier term "Judenhaß", because he thought it sounded more scientific rather than emotional or religious. TShilo12 08:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (1) - (a) I think you meant "Samarians ... exiled ... 2600 years ago" (or is it 2700?). (b) The renaming of Judea I think was done by Romans in 132 AD after the final crushing of the second Jewish revolt. 217.132.143.144 21:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (3) - "out of context" - the referenced quote in support of "mass murder and enslavement" claim is talking specifically of the three Jewish tribes of Medina - Bani Quraiza, Bani Nadir and Bani Qainuqa, so it can not possibly be more "in context" than that, it seems. 217.132.143.144 21:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab peoples speak Semitic languages 

message: As a muslim I've always been told to respect all humans and never go against a Jew or Christian since they are also followers of the same God. I'd have to definetely say this is fabricated material written by a ignorant individual, and should not be featured as one of the pages in this site. Prophet Mohammad always tells us to love and respect those of other faiths who worship the same God. These quotes are ridiculous fabrications written by misguided people. The Quran has never been interpreted as such or translated in such a manner. Quran verses have always been written in a beautiful poetic manner.
:Dear Mr. Anonymous:  You may find this page insulting or uncomplimentary to the Prophet, pbuh.  That fact however, does not negate the fact that the material presented in this article is an accurate portrayal of the daily pronouncements coming from the MEDIA and (especially Allawite and Wahhabi) RELIGIOUS establishment both in the modern Arab world and in those enclaves of the rest of the world where their influence is felt.  I have already registered my distaste with the name of the article as a whole, but the fact remains that the phenomenon exists, and to a much greater extent than many people, especially Muslims living in "the West" are comfortable admitting.  I have shown examples of the subject matter of this article to Muslim friends of mine, and their invariable instant reaction is "That's not Islam!"  While I'm happy to hear that "that's not Islam", their voices are not heard, or if they are, have no impact on the vehemently anti-Israel, and anti-Jewish rhetoric that is now commonplace on "the Arab Street".  This is unfortunate, but denying it doesn't make it go away, nor does an unwillingness to admit to its existence or pervasiveness make it misguided fabrication.  TShilo12 08:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Comment 

message: Hi,
I don't think this is a completely fair and accurate description of anti-Jewish sentiment in the Arab world (which I take is the topic). Even though the article starts by warning against frequent confusion between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, it soon loses itself in that very confusion. I don't deny the existence of anti-Jewish sentiment in the world and in particular in the Arab world, but I think the facts highlighted here, notably in the section about the PA, demonstrate more anti-Zionist lines of thought than anti-Semitism.
I spent a summer in Palestine, and it's true that people there call Israelis "Jews", but not in a racist/intolerant sense. They have their share of racist people, like every one else, but they say "the Jews" because that's what they always said, before the creation of Israel. Habits are slow to fade, especially this one because some people still would rather not accept Israel as a reality.
Anyway, I really think the section about the PA is mostly inappropriate and misleading if not altogether irrelevant. I don't think the PA would be acting any differently if the Israelis were Christian or even Buddhist for that matter. It shows an apology of violent armed struggle, and foolish propaganda, but against Israel, not against Jews.
All this goes to underscore the self identification of the Jewish people with Israel as one entity, which most non-Jewish people in the world don't make or at least don't understand.
GJ
----
This article is crap, and I don't even need to look at the history to tell who wrote most of it. Examples of what I mean:
:Genuine anti-Semitism is extremely prevalent in the Arab world
The Arab world includes three hundred million people, distributed from Morocco to Oman (so sayeth our article; is this statement is based on polls conducted throughout the entire region? Or is it just a subjective opinion from someone who can probably neither read nor speak Arabic?
:Many Arab newspapers . . . either deny that the Holocaust ever took place, or state that it was massively exaggerated"
How many? 10%? 30%? 50%? 99%? Do any systematic, quantitative studies exist?
:Educated Arabs and Muslims do not accept such views, and like Americans, they correctly saw these claims to be yet another conspiracy theory.
The POV should be obvious—even if you think, as I do, that this belief is a nutty conspiracy theory.
:However, a great many within the Arab world viewed this terrorist act as a conspiracy to make the world hate all Arabs, and therefore people perceived to be enemies of the Arabs must really be to blame.  
How many? There are polls to back up this statement, I assume.
:This is despite the fact that an actual Mossad conspiracy to carry out major terrorist attacks against the United States in the hope that Arab terrorists would be blamed would be an insanely risky course of action for Israel.
POV by omission: we could also mention the fact that a war between the US and certain Arab countries could be of immense benefit to Israel—but this isn't the place to debate conspiracy theories. 
Then there's the debate over the PA's war propaganda (see above), but I doubt that will be resolved any time soon. . . Anyway, I'll see what I can do for this article, but I am not sanguine about its prospects. —No-One Jones 20:13, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about fairness of the article 

message: Please list the issues and lets address them. Lance6Wins 17:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See my post above, beginning with "This article is crap". Also see Elian's post above, under #Need for critical analysis. —No-One Jones (m) 17:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally Disputed 

message: Certainly we can agree that not all Muslims are Arabs.  However what percentage of Arabs are non-Muslim?  While the two catagories are not equal, there may be a one-way equivalence to within 10% or less.  Anyone have any data? Lance6Wins 17:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Most Arabs are Muslims, yes, but Islam and anti-Semitism is addressed in a separate article. —No-One Jones (m) 17:34, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab != Muslim 

message: While I agree that the article is quite problematic, it seems that much of the problem stems from the violation of the policy against original research. It is the detailed -- but inherently uneven -- citing of examples that seems to drive the article toward polemic and away from a practical, neutral description of the political, religious, and racial tensions in the region.
For example, imagine an article on racism in the 21st century in the United States referring to a set of examples like this.  It would be informative, but a bit bizarre, since it would not include some of the major trends and debates that this topic should cover, such as a discussion of affirmative action, access to education, racial profiling, diversity in the workplace, etc.
Put another way, if you have to go to source documents to prove the trend ourselves, then we are engaged in original research.  If the trend can be discussed as a force observable in many different events, then we are talking about the kind of theme that belongs in an encyclopedia.  I don't think that this trend is so obscure or difficult to discern that original research is needed.  This is a case where the wrong examples weaken the case.
Moreover, I agree that the article fails to examine and objectively handle the problem of discerning anti-Israeli and anti-Semetic views.  It would probably help to note that in virtually all violent conflicts where these issues arise, they become quick intertwined.  Look at U.S. World War II propaganda poster images of the Japanese to see some examples. Not that it is excusable, just that it makes it difficult to distinguish these themes with precision.
The article currently contains the following qualification: "Some people claim that the Palestinian Authority's hostility to Israel constitutes anti-Semitism in itself; others regard this claim as absurd, noting that hostility to an enemy nation need not imply hostility to the associated ethnicity . . ."  It seems like this should lead off the article.
Slvsirhc 16:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You make an interesting and valid point.  I don't think the article is itself an example of original research, but it certainly appears that way, primarily bcz Wikipedia is the cutting-edge encyclopedia.  What might appear in the 2016 Enyclopœdia Brittanica in a 4 paragraph section is appearing here in a 204 section article.  I have full confidence that by 2016, not only will this article be 178 billion times better than the EBrittanica article, but will have been pared and expanded appropriately.  That's part of what's so great (IMHO) about this whole project.  All of that to say, I don't think it's "original research" as defined in the rules, that being done by many other organizations, I just see it as being distilled seriously here into an encyclopedic article for the first time.  Like I said:  cutting-edge.  I don't know about you, but I'd rather be cutting-edge, with caution, than over-cautious and dull-edged.  On the subject of the sentence you say you think should lead off the article, I would vote "absolutely not", since that sounds more appropriate for the Opinion page of the National Enquirer than for any serious encyclopedia.  The subject of this article, while it may involve an analysis of the PA's media, textbooks, policies, etc., is not Palistinian Authority antisemitism...although specific mention of the fact that the PA legally forbids sale of land to Jews, punishable by death, does fall within the purview of this article.  It is noteworthy, in that regard, that that PA law is based on an extant (and enforced) Jordanian law that says the same thing.  This is a real phenomenon, and in many ways it's getting worse, rather than better.  TShilo12 08:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drifted into the style and level of detail of original research 

message: I really don't like how this article is written, and it seems heavily biased.
You can at least put the warning the neutrallity of this article in its page.
I know many arab people, and know they are prone to believe in conspiracy theories, but much of what they say is true, and this article doesn't give an insight on the situation, nor a counterpart. It looks like a 100% jewish propaganda article.
I think this kind of topics should be specially controlled, because they should clearly who is behind wikipedia.
:The article has several instances of poor writing and poor formatting, of which some of the latter I have attempted to clean up. Additional work certainly is needed, but to call this a propaganda peice is outrageous. Also, anyone can be "behind" Wikipedia, so your tactic of automatically assuming a Wikipedia conspiracy to promote Judaism is nonsensical. Riobranden 21:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda Article? 

message: Arabs are a Semitic people. Include that in the article somehow. --Striver 09:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Arabs" are not a single people in the mind's eye of the vast majority of people, in fact, hardly beyond those who are proponents of Pan-Arabism.  They are, instead, a loose collection of peoples whose native language is Arabic, not because they chose it, but because of the Islamic wars of conquest of the 7th and 8th centuries.  Arabic is certainly a Semitic language, but to say that everyone identified as "Arab" is a Semite is intellectually, linguistically, and historically dishonest.  TomerTALK 08:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabs 

message: It's incorrect to say that Jews lived in Arab lands since the Babylonian Captivity because those lands weren't Arabic until the Muslim conquest of the 7th century CE (unless you mean the Arabian Peninsula itself). Even earlier Arab migrations like the Ghassanids and the Lakhmids didn't happen until the first centuries CE, and these mainly settled the desert regions of Transjordan and the Mesopotamian frontier. So in fact, Jewish settlement in these lands, particularly in Egypt and Iraq, actually predates Arab settlement there by many centuries.
Also, this article fails to mention the 1840 Damascus Blood Libel, which, IMO at least, was a defining moment of Arab antisemitism, committed under Arab rule before the excuse of Zionism was around, and the 1929 pogrom in Hebron.
:Hi, you didn't sign the above, but this is an open article.  Anyone can add anything they want to the article.  If this stuff seems key to you, you should add it! elizmr 16:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few corrections 

message: NOTE: This paragraph was originally in the body of the article, probably by mistake, I am moving it here GabrielF 21:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a mistake, thanks, for moving.Incorrect 21:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Muslim anti semitism 

message: As a hebrew israeli it seems to me that arab hatred of jews is due to political and religious reasons, and not racial distinctions. anti-semitism is a doctrine that discriminates against hebrews due to their "racial" origins. The nazis are anti-semites since their hatred of hebrews is largely independent of political or religious reasons, it is based on their non-aryan status. Arabs are themselves defined linguisticaly as semites. Arab anti judaism is criminal and unjust, but it should not be compared to the horrendous oppression and genocide commited by nazis. The title of the article should be, in my opinion, Arabs and anti-Judaism. 212.201.79.15 11:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  antisemitism 

message: Do we have Jews and anti-Arabism? if not, why not? --Striver 14:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mirror article 

message: Arabs can't be anti-semitic
Arabs are semites but in the article it refers to them as anti semitics. That would make them self hating semites. Jews and Arabs both come from Shem
:Well, that's a relief to us who thought that some Arabs were being antisemitic, but now learn they only hate Jews. Gzuckier 16:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. Although the term anti-Semitic is a misnomer since it technically would include Arabs, in common usage it is used only to refer to Jews. I would personally preffer to use the term 'anti-Jewish' since it is less ambigious. However that does not justify imposing poorly written personal opinions on this article. 
68.174.157.28 05:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabs are semites 

message: "A Saudi government website initially stated that Jews would not be granted tourist visas to enter the country [5][6] It has since removed this statement, and apologized for posting "erroneous information"."
The Saudi govt. clearly said that the info posted was a mistake. How is it then an example of anti-Semitism??? Mistakes generally occur on the internet, it is not like a Saudi Minister made an official comment regarding this or anything.70.50.198.95 04:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't that a mistake? 

message: Someone put it on the Anti-Semitism talk page- thought it would be useful here.  Acornwithwings 07:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "We know" template 

message: Cleanup Co-ordination	Cleanup Co-ordination
                     	This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
The article may have been flagged as needing cleanup because it has been suggested that:
*the article needs formatting, proofreading, or rephrasing in comprehensible English. 
*the article has multiple overlapping problems. 
*the article is very short and might need expanding, removal or merging with a broader article
For a full list of possible problems see Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
You can use this section to discuss possible resolution of the problem and achieve consensus for action. When there is a consensus that the article is cleaned up please remove the cleanup tag from the article
===Discussion===    	
===Discussion===
I'd love to help, but I think I'm too emotionally involved. I'm too pro-Jewish and anti-Islamic to contribute neutrally to this article. 
My take on it, since the bot "asked" for my help, is that Arabs resent Jewish success and also resent their own lack of freedom. This jealousy, added to a "long memory of wrongdoing", makes it hard for them to tolerate any Jewish presence other than "hat in hand and very humble, if you please, sir". 
This attitude is reflected in their treatment of woman (see honor killing). I've been reading Phyllis Chesler's The Death of Feminism, a recent book which describes Islamic abuse of women in comprehensive detail. It's not pleasant reading.
Another reason I won't be much help is that I think I know of a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This solution is so much on my mind, that I can't concentrate on describing what is: I'm to caught up in "what ought to be".
But I'll check in from time time, anyway. :-) Good luck! --Uncle Ed 03:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point 

message: |}</div>
I'd love to help, but I think I'm too emotionally involved. I'm too pro-Jewish and anti-Islamic to contribute neutrally to this article. 
My take on it, since the bot "asked" for my help, is that Arabs resent Jewish success and also resent their own lack of freedom. This jealousy, added to a "long memory of wrongdoing", makes it hard for them to tolerate any Jewish presence other than "hat in hand and very humble, if you please, sir". 
This attitude is reflected in their treatment of woman (see honor killing). I've been reading Phyllis Chesler's The Death of Feminism, a recent book which describes Islamic abuse of women in comprehensive detail. It's not pleasant reading.
Another reason I won't be much help is that I think I know of a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This solution is so much on my mind, that I can't concentrate on describing what is: I'm to caught up in "what ought to be".
But I'll check in from time time, anyway. :-) Good luck! --Uncle Ed 03:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: And Spain Muslims? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robin Hood 1212 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Saladin who saved Jews from the Crusaders? 

message: Insert non-formatted text here this article needs to be worked on by level headed and factually obsessive people. if it is about anti judaism, gentilism or any other kind of psuedo judo semitic racism and hate on the part of muslims in the arab world it needs to be clear precise and definitive in its source and citation. we could have someone contribute some of the earliest instances in the middleeast before the rise of Islam and though in to the 20th century. There will be things whihc will be hard to stomach for people on both sides of the fence but you need to remeber this is supposed to be a neutral and fair article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.47.132.242 (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article is ridiculously biased 

message: The second paragraph and the fourth paragraph are pretty much the same content, it should be merged.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.67.144 (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging paragraphs 

message: The article Anti-Arabism removed quotes quite some time ago. Shouldn't this article follow suit?Bless sins 17:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am removing the quotations section per Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Quotations that says "Note: This header is largely deprecated. "Bless sins 15:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotes need to be incorporated into the text, not simply deleted. Jayjg (talk) 03:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. But the setion needs to go. Also, only the quotes sourced relaible sources need to be incorporated into text.Bless sins 12:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The quotes section 

message: Hadith literature are primary sources. Please see WP:RS --Aminz 10:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources pertain only to the life of the Prophet Muhammad (only 23 years), and thus it is ridiculous to use them for the 1,400 years of Arab history after that. Needless to say that using the sources is an inappropriate use of primary sources, and consitutes a violation of OR.Bless sins 13:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Can someone show how "Abdelwahab Meddeb" is a reliable source? A quick google search doesn't give too much information.Bless sins 22:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've said that Ibn Warraq is not a RS. Can you prove that Lewis is a RS? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That is an explantion for a removal some time ago. Some users (e.g Humus sapiens) tried inserting those hadith. But that seems to be resolved now.Bless sins 12:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources