Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 25

message: "Today, Denmark has one of the lowest rates of anti-semitism in Europe, at only 11%."
Oh really? How do you measure that? So 11% of all danish people are anti semitic? This is clearly either made up or from a rather dubious source, and should be removed forthwith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.47.164.89 (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone reads Danish, there is a report here on Anti-semitism in Denmark.--Ninarosa 19:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere in that study is there a claim to the effect that 11% of Danes are anti-Semitic .. and for any reader to come anywhere close to drawing that conclusion, they would have to make the remarkably flawed assumption that anyone who happened to think that modern “Zionism is comparable to Nazism”, is an anti-Semite (a claim that the Simon Wiesenthal Center would no doubt be proud of, but that is hardly a glowing reference, is it? .. especially given the number of prominent Jews who themselves make that very claim and assert that political Zionism is racist).In fact, the report highlights what it considers to be a far greater cause for concern: widespread Islamophobia (according to the definition of Islamophobia that has been laid down by the Runnymede Trust).Assuming good faith, I can only deduce that the claim results from a rather ham-fisted attempt to translate the report title: ELEVERNE SKAL LÆRE AT SKELNE, which means “'Pupils must learn to differentiate'” (not Anti-Semitism in Denmark, as stated above .. and where “elverne” means ‘pupils’, as opposed to “elve”, which means ‘eleven (11)’; and where “skelne”, in this context means, “differentiate” (not “discrimnate”, which would be its meaning in certain other contexts)Orpingtonian 11:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Oooooookay then. Hows about we all calm down a bit. This discussion is getting way more heated than its subject would lead one to believe. Orpingtonian, despite what you may believe, no one here is out to accuse Danes of being a collective group of Jew-burning anti-Semites (haha, supposed to be funny... lighten the situation). Seriously though, take a step back please - keep in mind our civility policy and stick to the facts. Unfortunately, I can't read Danish so I won't be much help on that front, but I can tell you that yelling at each other is not going to help matters. --Chabuk [ T • C ] 18:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utter Rubbish 

message: The section on Sweden is really poor. While it's terrible for the individual to be verbally attacked it is hardly interesting for an international audience to read about these minor incidents, especially when there have been much worse examples of antisemitism in Sweden. For instance, the attempt to burn down a jewish building in Malmö in 2003 and the existence of Radio Islam etc. Any Swedish speaking people around here that wish to comment on this? 212.105.37.165 09:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a fluent Swedish speaker, I find the idea that the existence 'Radio Islam' somehow equates to anti-Semitism, to be as preposterous and fallacious as claiming that anti-Zionism, opposition the state of Israel, or opposition to the barbaric policies of the government of Israel, somehow equate to anti-Semitism.Nor in fact does the attempt to burn down a Jewish building in Malmo necessarily equate to an act of anti-Semitism. If it did, then you would have to assume that any crime ever committed against a Jew, or a Jewish institution, is motivated by anti-Semitism .. and conversely, that any crime ever committed by a Jew, against a non-Jew or non-Jewish institution, is motivated by racial prejudice against non-Jews. Orpingtonian 10:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sweden

message: Iran, having vowed to wipe Israel off the map, appears to be fomenting anti-Semitic sentiment through its media. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250710,00.html Crocoite 22:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't tell if that cartoon is supposed to be pro or anti Nazi.  Frotz661 01:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Last time I checked, this was a talk page about the article on antisemitism, not an instrument of propaganda for the Bush administration or a forum for general debate. Please refrain from posting "news" here... 84.216.41.58 15:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Last time I checked, this is a talk page about the article on antisemitism, and it's hard to think of a better place to bring up an example of it in practice, with a possible eye to including it in the "Antisemitism in the 21st century" section. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, you're right. But why not make some suggestions for changes or better include it the article with the NPOV sources instead of just posting a link to some silly news site? 84.216.41.58 15:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, some of us are better at some things than others, I guess. And it was a suggestion, really: "Include something about Iran fomenting anti-Semitic sentiment". At least it was put here, not on the main article page! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian Cartoon Shows Nazi Swastika Growing Into Jewish Star of David 

message: Is this article supposed to exist?  It looks like it's supposed to redirect, but isn't quite working?  Maybe someone can fix it. Mackan79 04:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Parallel article

message: :Arabs cannot, by definition, be antisemitic.
I forget the name for this fallacy, but it uses two different meanings of the word to make dual assertions:
#Arabs are not discriminatory, hostile or prejudiced toward Jews (specific sense)
#Antisemitism means being discriminatory, hostile or prejudiced toward Semites, and since Arabs are Semites and no group opposes itself, Arabs obviously cannot be called "antisemitic" (broad sense).
My question, of course, is not whether either point is valid, but rather Who makes the second point? (Casual conversation with acquaintances and co-workers is not source material.) --Uncle Ed 17:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This claim is made quite often, e.g. : "Muhammad Khalifa Al Murar, the Executive Director of the Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-up, repudiated Israelis claims [that they are] 'the real Semites. Paradoxically, they accuse Arabs who are Semites themselves, of anti-Semitism." See also , , etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Exculpatory wordplay

message: This article seems to be long, also it seems to me to have some overly long sections duplicating content in other articles. It would be much punchier and better with a work through. Personally, I also think that an attempt to prove a point about something as exegetically complex as the New Testament by citing isolated verses isn't very clever (try reading them as you read the article: as isolated verses they are incredibly hard to follow, and it uses the New Testament like a cruddy tele-evangelist): it would be much more convincing to quote a couple of top tier Biblical scholars on the issue, wouldn't it? 
On this other discussion, I think it is too much to ask for there to be a consistent definition of anti-S across the vast range of people who use the term so trying to tie down the article content based on definition is very difficult. Again, acknowledging the variation has to be a good start. --BozMo talk 09:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another daft question ot two: (1) what was "highly explicit" about Hitler's ideology? Is explicit the right word (given his ideology was to a degree concealed, albeit it the intent was unambiguous)? (2) If all discrimination of the type described is anti-semitism presumably we need to differentiate between intentional and unintentional... direct and indirect anti-semitism, as with discrimination?  --BozMo talk 09:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  BozMo, I welcome constructive edits, but why would we promote erroneous usage? That's what I believe "almost" does - on top of already existing "in practice". ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement as it stands is about usage, not correctness: "it is in practice used exclusively to refer to hostility towards Jews." If you want it to be about correctness change it to "should be used exclusively..." . If the usage exists, even incorrectly, then it is straight dishonest to deny the usage exists. The sentence with "almost" in reflects the comments later in the article that some people use the term to mean anti-Arab. I invite you to read the sentence and consider whether you believe it is truthful as stands. --BozMo talk 13:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see the next section. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on my first reading of article

message: The article makes a number of Biblical and historical mistakes that would require a considerable effort to correct.
The attempt to understand NT scripture is poorly accomplished by whoever authored the information.
Also, the historical reasoning for persecution of Jewish people in the early days of Christianity up to the Middle Ages is either ommitted, left incomplete, or simply in conflict with historical accounts that can be easily obtained from the online source, the Jewish Encyclopedia. 
I'll take it slow and try and make some corrections and add historical data. Jtpaladin 21:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the support. Yes, I would very much like to work on this article. It's on my list of articles to edit. Again, I appreciate your encouragement. Jtpaladin 18:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian references 

message: Any reason why there is no mention of Shakespeare/ Merchant of Venice in this article? --BozMo talk 12:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIR, it was mentioned somewhere. Given the breadth of the subject, many of the article's parts were spun off into subarticles. Maybe we need another subarticle (Antisemitism in literature?) and an entry in the template. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could usefully be added to History of antisemitism, early modern period. Itsmejudith 21:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: So is www.zionism-israel.com a reliable source? If not would you like to have a look at the 113 other places on Wikipedia where it is cited? Or are there different levels of reliability on the same site? 
--BozMo talk 20:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be a very very POVish site advocating one single view. If only the website is sourced, then ofcourse it is unreliable. However, if the author is reliable, then we have to re-consider.Bless sins 00:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest revert of zionism-israel.com link 

message: I figured this would get deleted but was anticipating an explanation. 
For some, questioning Israel's right to exist is tantamount to antisemitismAnti-Zionism, criticism of Israel and Anti-Semitism revisited, on a pro-Israel web site..
Comments? Jonathan Tweet 03:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: relevance?--Sefringle 03:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it have killed you to have said that in the edit? Before I get people too confused, let me say that I support Israel's right to exist. What I find interesting, however, is the issue of whether questioning that right or denying that right is, by itself, antisemitism. Either it is (worthy of mention) or isn't (worthy of mention). The referenced people regard questioning RTE to be antisemitism. Here's someone taking a side. Seems like a test for antisemitism is relevant to an "antisemitism" page. Did I put the reference in the wrong place? Jonathan Tweet 03:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Anti-Zionism and New Antisemitism. Those articles pretty much explain the controversy over that issue.--Sefringle 03:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. After I've read up, then may I please summarize the controversy here? Seems worth mentioning. Jonathan Tweet 04:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it a notable view? Jayjg (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  israel's right to exist as definitional 

message: I see your point about the Bible (in this instance, the Book of Esther) not being a reliable historical source.  But then, I don't understand why it's okay to refer to the Book of Maccabees in the following paragraph. Mt1999 03:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: we need secondary sources as citations. Otherwise it is WP:OR--Sefringle 03:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earliest Antisemitism 

message: I am going to give just one example of the pervasive OR and bias in this article.
"Though the general definition of antisemitism is hostility or prejudice towards Jews, a number of authorities have developed more formal definitions. Holocaust scholar and City University of New York professor Helen Fein's definition has been particularly influential".
Influential on whom? Who says so? Why, if someone says so, are we not citing their saying so? Why is her "definition" characterised as "particularly" influential? By what standard? Do you have any sources for her influence at all? People who have cited it and are themselves expert in the area of antisemitism (with recognised credentials, not just some guy who works for a think tank) would be the kind of thing we are thinking of here.
Do you have a source for her being an expert on the Holocaust? The biographies I find suggest she is a sociologist who specialises in genocides generally. I don't doubt she has written about the Holocaust but I can't see that she is a "Holocaust scholar". This is a subtle distinction but important. Here we are discussing antisemitism, not the theory of genocide. The presentation of Fein here implies that she is an expert on antisemitism, but she seems rather to be an expert on how genocides occur. The two are not necessarily congruent.
Why do I think that this passage is instructive or introduces bias? Because Fein's definition of antisemitism insists that it is latent and persisting. The implication of this kind of understanding of antisemitism is that it exists as part of the fabric of a society without its knowing it. IOW, expert "witchfinders" can uncover and describe "antisemitism" that its perpetrators were not aware of. This is not an objective description of antisemitism but a political position. Grace Note 23:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fein is regarded as an important Holocaust scholar. Just as an example, her work is listed by the EB in their Holocaust entry. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I ask "who says so" and your response is to repeat the (unsourced, unfounded) assertion. It's okay. That's what I expect. The "rules" are for the little people. Britannica does not say that Fein is a "Holocaust scholar", and notes, as I have, the sociological bent of her work. There is a huge difference between someone who has studied the Holocaust as an example of genocide and its place in sociology and an expert on antisemitism and the Holocaust. But I tell you what: I think this article is irredeemable, so I'm going to pretend there isn't. Grace Note 05:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All you have to do is check her out on Google yourself. Of all the hundreds of scholars the EB could have mentioned, it chose her. She's referenced by the [[United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and has addressed their conferences. She's rated highly by other Holocaust scholars. She's cited in several of the academic books on the Holocaust that I have on my own shelves. One of her colleagues said: "With the publication of ... [Accounting for Genocide], Dr. Helen Fein goes to the head of the ranks with Hannah Arendt and Raul Hilberg as the most important scholars of the Holocaust."  She's written or edited nine books, including two on genocide, Accounting for Genocide: National Response and Jewish Victimization During the Holocaust, and Genocide: A Sociological Perspective. She's the executive director of the Institute for the Study of Genocide; president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars; and fellow of the Francois Xavier Bagnoud Institute for Health and Human Rights at Harvard University. Anyone who has studied the genocide of the Jews will tend to have become an expert on antisemitism. I don't see what difference it makes that her work has a sociological bent. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did check her on Google. I've refuted the Britannica thing, so no marks for simply repeating it. I do not know what "referenced by" the Holocaust museum means, and people address conferences for all sorts of reasons. You keep saying she is "rated highly" by Holoacast scholars but that is just your saying so. It is perfectly possible for someone to be cited in a book on a subject without being a scholar or expert in that subject. One has to take care not to indulge in promotion by attribution, IYKWIM. The cite by Aronson is the kind of thing we are looking for here (but a minus for its being a colleague, not an unaffiliated scholar who is referring to her). I am aware that she has written books, which, as I noted previously (you ignored the note), are more concerned with genocide as a phenomenon than the Holocaust in particular, with the exception of the one you note, which is an application of her work to that particular genocide. Her credentials have nothing to do with being a "Holocaust scholar" or an expert in antisemitism, since none of the institutions you name specialises in antisemitism or even the Holocaust that I am aware of. I do not agree that anyone who studies genocide must necessarily become an expert in antisemitism, even if they include the Holocaust among their studies. All in all, this is only marginally a figure in the field in question: sufficiently so that you can defend her inclusion, but not so much that you can really make a convincing case. Were she saying the opposite to the contention you wish to include, I believe you would remove her "definition" immediately. I'm not asking you to do that. As I said, I believe this article is irredeemable. I simply want you to be aware that this is a problem. Grace Note 09:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How have you "refuted the Britannica thing"? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. I suppose whether it's been refuted is in the eye of the beholder. I see it as refuted rather readily (because it was a bit silly -- it didn't say that she was a Holocaust scholar at all but framed her as having made a sociological study of genocide). You clearly have a different view. That's okay. I don't expect the semiblind to be leading the wholly blind any time soon. A happy Pesach to you, btw. Grace Note 06:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helen Fein 

message: It must be INCREDIBLY hard to maintain NPOV while editing this article. Good job. atomicthumbs 15:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations 

message: Hello. I would like to draw your attention to the discussion taking place at Military_history_of_Bulgaria_during_World_War_II. There is a guy called Todor Bozinov who, when challenged about the fate of Greek Jews in north-eastern Greece during the Axis/Bulgarian occupation of 1941-44, all he has got to say is: «the Jews in Greek Macedonia and Thrace were not Bulgarian citizens, and we couldn't avoid direct German orders when it's not even our citizens whose deportation was ordered. I don't think you can blame us for not saving your Jews» !
At another discussion (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Parrisia ) again he shamelessly says that «we couldn't save your Jews because they were not Bulgarian citizens.»...
Any sane and knowledgable person knows that the administration of a territory, whether legal or illegal one, has got full responsibility for the security of the people living in that territory, regardless of their ethinicity, religion, citizenship etc. The Bulgarian occupation authority in northeastern Greece, established as a result of a Nazi-Bulgarian agreement (Bulgaria was a formal Axis partner) was therefore responsible for the fate of all inhabitants of that region. The end-result of the Bulgarian occupation was (a) 100.000 Greek Orthodox fleeing from the Bulgarian occupation zone to the Nazi and Italian occupation zones and (b) the whole of the Greek Jewish population of the area perishing in Nazi concentration camps. 
He or she who doesn't understand this basic principle of international law (respecting peoples' lives and assuming responsibility about their security) is either ignorant or, worse, an anti-Semite and as such he or she ought to be expelled from Wikipedia. 
Parrisia 07:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because someone doesn't agree with you on an historical (read: ambiguous) matter , doesn't make them an antisemite. Please try to keep this discussion page for relevant information/problems... as it's truly muddy enough in here already.tactik 10:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Even if the person concerned or any person for that matter is anti-semite or any other type of racist, that shouldnt remove them form wikipedia but rather their racist views should just be made very clear as has been done Parasia. I am a muslim, and I big up the jews all around the world as human beings, but of course show contempt for the religion of judaism. Does that make me anti-semetic? No. One because though anti-semitism refers to Jews Im still not going to hate a cousin race of the arabs (or any race). Two, because it makes sense that any religious person shows a degree of contempt for all other religions. Peace out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.43.52.52 (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning: antisemite at large 

message: The following statement in the "Antisemitism in the 21st century" section seems out of place and vague at best and a distortion at worse: "Other commentators associate some of these problems with the constant linkage of Israel to "The Jews" or "The Jewish State." If nobody can find a reliable source for it, I will delete it in one week.  --GHcool 00:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm deleting it.  --GHcool 19:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other commentators associate ...