Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 22

message: honestly, the article about Poland and antisemitism is almost utopian. Despite the theoretical rights provided for the Jews, modern Poland - especially with the newly elected government and (as mentioned before) radio Maryja - is highly antisemitic. The ironic side of this is that the people who are openly criticising Jews and forming conspiracy theories are also the ones that deny the existence of any antisemitic connotations in Poland. At the term "Polish concentration camps" the Polish antisemitic masses just go crazy and riot over how it is untrue - or even how Jews make such stuff up.
Thus, I dare to say that the article is too idyllic part and doesn't correspond to reality. Of course, thousands of Polish antisemites are going to argue against any antisemetism taking place!
- 82.139.47.117 15:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poland and Antisemitism 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Maryja
I have expanded it with issues of antisemitism (this is the largest and strongest Polish racist nationalwide radio station), but someone is always erasing everything I have added or reverted and his explanations are not really helpful- he tends to say that I am biased when writing about antisemitism. 
I am new to wikipedia and cannot do much about it. Please help.
Moa anbessa 19:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Watchlisted. My polish is poor, but it looks like the polish article (as well as the czech article) include the anti-semitic references (the WTC myth, for example), so adding sources for the statements would be a good start. Ronabop 04:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Polish article has extreme anti-clerical overtones to it, and that is how it was translated into Czech, as well as English. I will guard the article's NPOV and prevent it from becoming another arena for spewing falsitudes at the radio. BTW, tattle-tailing in Anti-Semitism made me laugh :)- clever idea. Cheers. Ksenon 11:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help me with Radio Maryja 

message: It begins:
"The Jews in Germany were subject to many persecutions as well as brief times of tolerance. By the early 20th century, the Jews of Germany were the most integrated in Europe..."
The first sentence makes it sound as if anti-Jewish persecution in Germany has been the historical norm, punctuated only by short-lived (and temporary) respites. Yet, if the Jews of Germany were the most integrated in Europe, as the following sentence asserts, presumably that would have taken a considerable amount of time (a people cannot become well-integrated in a very short period of time).
Perhaps the first sentence should be reworded, along the lines of: "Jews in Germany have been subject to numerous persecutions as well as extended periods of tolerance."--Critic9328 04:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a pretty up-and-down experience, with a lot more down than up, I think that the phrasing is generally accurate.  From History of the Jews in Germany on the 19th century: "Napoleon emancipated the Jews across Europe, but with Napoleon's fall in 1815, growing nationalism resulted in increasing repression. In 1819, Hep! Hep! Riots (from the Latin Hierosolyma est perdita--"Jerusalem is lost"--the rallying cry of the Crusaders), destroyed Jewish property and killed many Jews. The revolution of 1848 swung the pendulum back towards freedom for the Jews, but the financial crisis of 1873 created another era of prejudice and repression." --Goodoldpolonius2 04:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First (two) sentence(s) skewed? 

message: Considering the extent to which the Nazis were anti-Christian? Are there citations for these statements?
--Critic9328 04:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Using rumours about ritual murder by Jews does not constitute criticism from a religious perspective, even if these rumours also accompanied the older, more religious kind of anti-Semitism. The Nazis selectively used religious motifs in their propaganda, such as exploiting the old religious anti-Semitism to a certain extent, or calling Christians for a crusade against atheist communism. In fact, most of the Germans who were swimming with the Nazis' tide back then considered themselves Christians. However, the Nazi ideology and leadership were evidently anti-Christian, and to say that the Nazis even had any religious perspective (safe for some vague neo-pagan leanings) is highly misleading. --Thorsten1 23:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did the Nazis really criticize Jews from a religious perspective? 

message: My sense is this recent addition very much dilutes and counters the meaning of the article overall:
Jews are first portrayed as an oppressed people in Egypt. Subsequently, the Book of Esther tells about Haman, who seeks to destroy the Jews. The Books of the Maccabees recount the attempt to impose Greek religious ideas upon Jews. In 'Against Flaccus', Philo of Alexandria writes of an attack on Jews in the city of Alexandria about 38 CE. This last event is perhaps the most clearly religious in character.
Inorder to address POV, the  first would require biblical references showing intolerance against non-Jewish groups. The second would require explaining that the Maccabees were attacking mostly Jews. The third would require a long explanation of commericial and cultural competition with violence and hate speech by more than one side.DaveHM 20:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Anti-Judaism 

message: It says under a picture of a an Arabic book cover:
2005 Syrian edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion authorized by the Syrian Ministry of Information was featured at the Cairo International Book Fair
There are two reasons I'm against this:
1- It contains implicit criticism of the Syrian government (authorized by the Syrian MOI...).  Wikipedia shouldn't pick and choose which details about a certain picture to include in the caption, especially if they're biased.
2- The title of the book does NOT say it is the 'Syrian edition of The PEZ'.  The exact translation is:
'Lights on the the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Complete Texts).  An Historical and Contemporary Investigative Study.' by Raja Abdulhamid Orabi.  Published by the Syrian publisher 'Dar al-Awael'.
--Fjmustak 00:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This question has been answered at Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Syrian edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, no need to cross-post. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Besides, it is only stating fact. This is the Syrian 2005 edition.  The only other issues in production today are circulating among Arab nations (Outlawed everywhere else) so it doesn't really matter which one at that. Besides if you read the article it lists all the facts and editions on it.--Exander 08:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: outlawed everywhere else???? Not true at all Lehk 14:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syrian edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion 

message: I think the article needs to have more discussion about the different root-causes that have been proposed for anti-semitism.  Has prejudice against the Jews for most of their history been more than that against other groups of people who have lived as religious and/or ethnic minorities?  If so, then why?...
The AISH link  at the end of the article seems to do a fairly good job of debunking most of the common explainations (showing that they're either just symptoms or excuses, but its conclusion  is probably not acceptable to most accademics, or pretty much anyone who's not a pretty hard-core religious and nationalist Jew.
So then if we eliminate the AISH theory that people hate Jews because they're morally superior, and we eliminate the anti-semitic theory that they're sinister and evil, then what are we left with?  I think this article should try and go into some depth and explore the different views on this issue.
:Well, an article shouldn't explore views, that is original research.  If someone else has explored the different views, go ahead and cite them.  But in general hate is an emotion, and emotions are not often subject to rational explanations.   Ruby 22:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like to say the Aish theory is controversal by non-Jews, but can easily be accepted by even the most liberal (praticing) Jews who have encountered it. It's not baseless at all. In the Torah, the Hebrew people are called a "light upon nations", and that they are "choosen by God as messagers of his word [at Sinai]". The Torah describes the pre-Israel world as a place of wonton disregard for human life and that the world has lost God, except for Abraham, and his son Jacob. God tests them many times, and these tests cause them much pain. Many Jews see anti-Semitism as a extension of this, and indeed, is discussed in the Talmud and Kabbalah texts and throughout Jewish history. Masterhomer  19:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't worry, your ideas are not as original as you might think. AucamanTalk 11:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes?... 

message: Please see Category:Antisemitism (People) [] and vote here[].Doright 03:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of Antisemitism people Category

message: An apparent newbie is getting close to the WP:3RR vio in an attempt to remove a reference substantiating the anti-semitic (and not only anti-semitic) activities of the late I. M. Vinogradov, refusing to talk via the talk page. I'm going off to sleep, and ask to watchlist the article, and help to polish the edit conflict section to as encyclopaedic and neutral version as possible. TIA, --BACbKA 23:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help with [[I. M. Vinogradov]] 

message: I STILL don't understand, after searching the web for numerous times, how do they even justify their hatred? Please, someone, tell me... it doesn't even read where "anti-semitism" started from --84.249.252.211 13:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See history of anti-semitism.  Superm401 - Talk 02:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Envy. RJII 20:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: For more examples of Anti-Semitism, follow the repeated attemps of some Wikipedians to re-introduce the racist use of the word "Aryan" into Wikipedia. Follow the discussions here and see examples on the following articles: Persian people, Tajik people, Iranian peoples, Aryan, and Indo-Iranians. Your help would be appreciated. AucamanTalk 03:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am surprised  when reading this article that no mention was made of academic anti semitism, I have revised to add that aspect of the problem.Incorrect 22:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed your text. Please provide sources to support your assertion that "Anti-semitism in the current Unites States seem to reside primarily in academia". -Will Beback 22:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: In case anyone is concerned, my mass of edits here today contain no content change.  I converted references to the new notes format, added a few wiki links and commas. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 08:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: no content change

message: THere is a category called "Religious anti-Semitism", yet it only talks about Christianity. Shouldn't it be labelled "Anti-Semitism and the Christian world" in parallel to "Anti-Semitism and the Muslim world"; or the section to be labelled "Christian Anti-Semitism".172.175.0.149 00:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good eye. Done. BTW you are talking about sections, Categories are something else. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry I reverted you. I saw an anon edit without an edit summary from an IP which I had blacklisted in Cryptoderk's tool (may not have been you, just someone from that IP) so I didn't think to look at the talk page. This was an edit that required some explanation so I would suggest that in the future you leave an edit summary, at the very least "See talk page", but that having been said, sorry. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious anti-Semitism?? 

message: I've changed the phrase "anthropological ideas" to "early and misconceived evolutionary ideas", as the modern science of anthropology completely disregards the idea of race as having any genetic distinction, and as being a cultural construct. This is the concensus among biological anthropologists, biologists, and geneticists in the scholarly world; racial characteristics are simply dominant genetic traits that are usually adaptations to climate among early groups of humans, both related and unrelated. Sociologists and racially-related studies (such as African-American studies) are the only ones who still uphold the more archaic ideas regarding race, regarding these groups as fundamentally different from each other biologically in a profound way, when genetics has shown the opposite to be true(see gene flow, especially in relation to early population groups).
While I realise that the discrimination of Jewish people is based upon these mistaken notions of early biologists and proto-anthropologists (and I think I've communicated that in the revised sentence), I don't want to misrepresent to casual readers and those unfamiliar with scientific disciplines what these disciplines actually have concluded. (One of the first things you're taught in a biological anthropology class is: "forget what you think you know about race. It's all in your mind, and in history books. We created race, it doesn't exist.")
Oh, and please stop reverting my edits. Someone who has this article on their watchlist has already done this, and it's annoying when the edit is a clarification of a misunderstood earlier edit.
--signed manually; I'm not signed in--
Kaelus 05:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I reverted you. I saw an anon edit without an edit summary from an IP which I had blacklisted in Cryptoderk's tool (may not have been you, just someone from that IP) so I didn't think to look at the talk page. This was an edit that required some explanation so I would suggest that in the future you leave an edit summary, at the very least "See talk page", but that having been said, sorry. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anthropology and racial anti-semitism

message: I came here to post something in the talk page to realise that the anonymous user has added the Turkishdailynews articles regarding the Armenians. It should not be here for the following reasons: Turkishdailynews publish a series of anti-Armenian articles aimed at denying the Armenian genocide and making of the Armenians the beast of the world. It even actually has a section dedicated to 'Armenian issues' in which people like Sedat Laciner (a member of the Turkish government founded Institute of Armenian studies founded primarly to deny the Armenian genocide and heading the said Ankara-based International Strategic Research Organisation) who even wrote an entire book answering Egoyans move Ararat, continue the work of Turkaya Ataov in associating the Armenians with the NAZI.
Well, here was what I was going to post here, I already brought some of those references in the past and it was adviced to me to add them, but I haven't done so because I would have probably be accused again of anti-Turkism etc. So I bring it here and leave contributors of this article do whatever they think is best.
-----
On December 15, 1941, the ship named “Struma” with 761 Jewish passengers escaping the NAZI invasion arrives in Istanbul and asks for the authorization to cross the Bosphorus. The ship had to wait until February 24, 1942, over a month of negotiations, Turkey denied access. The starving passagers were not fed, the Ship had to return and was torpedoed by a submarine.[1] One survivor. One day  later, the then prime minister Refik Saydam, justifies his refusal to permit access by the following remarks: “Turkey cannot be the destination of undesirable refugees.” [2]
On November 11, 1942, Turkey impose the Capital Tax mainly directed against the Armenians, Greeks and Jews. The introduction of this tax was justified as follows: “Against those who profit from the hospitality offered by this country and become wealthy, while at the same time abrogate their responsibilities at this critical moment, the law will be applied with full force.” [3]  Propositions against two three ethnic groups were made, for the Jews, it was said: “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.” [4]
In 2005, Hitlers book Mein Kampf has become a bestseller for months in Turkey [5] and according to a report published in three part antisemitism is raising in Turkish medias and that not only Mein Kampf has become a best seller but also The Protocols of Elders of Zion and The International Jew. [6]
[1] Wasserstein, Bernard: Their Own Fault; Attempts to shift the blame for the Holocaust. Times Literary Supplement (London) 1-7-94
[2] Hamit Bozarslan, Histoire de la Turquie contemporaine, Ed.de le Découverte, 2004, pp. 47-48
[3] Ridvan Akar, Askale Yolculari—Varlik Vergisi ve Çalisma Kamplari, Belge Uluslararasi Yayincilik, Istanbul, 1999 p. 5
[4] Ridvan Akar, Askale Yolculari—Varlik Vergisi ve Çalisma Kamplari, Belge Uluslararasi Yayincilik, Istanbul, 1999 pp. 186-187
[5] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4361733.stm
[6] http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP90005 
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP90405
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP91605
Fad (ix) 22:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkishdailynews reference that was added

message: Shouldn't there be an article titled Anti-Semitism in the Middle East or Anti-Semitism in the Muslim World? Within Islamic countries, anti-Semitism is not just specific to Arabs. There's a great deal of anti-Semitism in Iran and probably other places like Pakistan. Any ideas about how we should go about organizing these? AucamanTalk 19:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do know that there is an article Islam and anti-Semitism, right? ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, obviously s/he doesn't. It was a fair question. Marskell 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I'm looking at a quote from a front page article in the 1952 issue of Pan-Iranism: "Arise, workers oppressed by the chains of the Jewish capitalist, and free yourselves." I'm trying to figure out where such statements belong. This article is already pretty long, so I was thinking of adding it to one of the subarticles. But this has nothing to do with Islam or the Arab World (Iran is not part of the Arab World), so I think there needs to be article that looks at anti-Semitism in places other than the Arab World. AucamanTalk 23:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Is it really notable enough to have a seperate article on it? -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 00:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes anti-Semitism in places other than the Arab World is notable enough to have its own article, but that's not exactly what I was saying. AucamanTalk 00:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What were you saying then? -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 00:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe we should start Socialist movement and anti-Semitism or Leftist anti-Semitism (which is not exactly the same as Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism where the latter redirects). ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to divide this up by ideology then Nationalism and anti-Semitism is probably more appropriate. But I think it would be better to divide things up regionally. AucamanTalk 01:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your Nationalism and anti-Semitism idea. In this we could create sections about different regions/countries. I don't think creating an article based on Middle East would be appropriate, because then we would have to cover mullah inspired anti-semtism, which is already covered in Islam and anti-Semitism.Bless sins 21:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Middle East

message: Righ? --85.29.75.16 13:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arabic, like Hebrew, is a semitic language.  "Anti-semitism" nevertheless does not mean hatred of all people who speak a semitic language.  It means hatred of Jews.  (Similarly, an Anglophile is not someone who loves anyone who speaks English). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't drive in my driveway, I don't park on the Parkway, I have to pay a toll to get on the freeway, and I can't put out a fire with inflammable clothing. Likewise, antiSemites are not people who hate Semites. Words that are in common use have meanings and Wikipedia is not the place for a crusade to change such meanings to what they "should" be.Gzuckier 17:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the current etymology section of the article deals with this well enough.  85.29.75.16, did you read it before you posted?  If you thought it was confusing, can you let us know why?  Thanks,TheronJ 19:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabs are semites. 

message: Pseudo-scientific theories concerning race, civilization, and "progress" had become quite widespread in Europe in the second half of the 19th century
Is "pseudo-scientific" a legitimate description of the now discredited 19th century racial theories? Or were they just wrong science (i.e., acceptable with the scientific context of the 19th C, but not now)? Perhaps we might just want to remove the word adjective (whether pseudo-scientific or scientific) altogether; we could clarify with, perhaps, "Now discredited theories concerning..." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I reverted that change thinking it was vanalism, I should have assumed good faith. I've thought about what you wrote and looked into the article on pseudo-science, and I'm starting to think that in fact scientific would be a better description than pseudo-scientific (although the article should then have the "Now discredited theories concerning..." you suggested). I read a book by Stephen Jay Gould about scientific racism called the mismeasure of man (although it didn't deal with anti-Semitism if I remember right). Apparently, these scientific theories were made by otherwise respectable scientists, who actually did other valuable things (such as Broca, a surgeon), and that although they were flawed, the errors weren't blatant, but subtle, unconscious mistakes, difficult to grasp in a context of widespread racism. In fact, says the author, for all we know, some of the stuff we do today is flawed in the same way. I also found this synopsis of a book on http://www.fpp.co.uk/StMartinsPress/MacDonald1998.html, saying there were efforts at the beginning of the century to make "such ideas academically and intellectually disreputable", suggesting that at some point they were reputable.Unmitigated Success 11:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  19th century scientific theories 

message: There is no such thing as "Semitism," and in German it's 'Antisemitismus.' 
"ANTI-SEMITISM spelled with a hyphen" does not "conform to scholarly usage." [], says Robert Michael, Prof. European History, UMASS Dartmouth.
Regards,Doright 06:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: anti-Semitism does not conform to scholarly usage

message: This article portrays anti-semititism as evil. Personally, I agree, but its a bias, fair or not. Kashami 21:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: GA pending on these modifications (change the first 2):
# ...a number of authorities..., like whom for example?
# Please add the external inline link to the reference section as an footnote or in an external links section.
# Need to reference almost all subsections, or else it sounds like original research.
:Wonderful article to read, and almost NPOV in the way to describe and not take a POV-oriented view on the subject.
:Drop me a line on GAnomination page or on my talk page when its modified. Lincher 23:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Impressive article. The concept of New Antisemitism is worrying though - perhaps the section on this topic could outline criticisms of the departure from the concept of 'old antisemitism'. The US State Department's definition of antisemitism seems plain and unfussy - why elaborate?--Shtove 19:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA 
pending
 failed 

message: Does The Merchant of Venice deserve a mention? Perhaps in a Renaissance sub-section (separate from Reformation)?--Shtove 19:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shakespeare 

message: The following quotation from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was recently posted. Some have argued that it is a fake. In my understanding, a similar quotation, from Dr. King's remarks at Harvard University, is generally thought to be legitimate. Others may be more familiar with the controversy than I am, but it may make more sense to use the Harvard quote if the authenticity of this version is in doubt.
"In Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter To An Anti-Zionist Friend," he says: '.. You declare, my friend; that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist'. And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of G-d's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews -- this is G-d's own truth.'"' Klmarcus
*Well, we can't use the hoax version. The debunking research is pretty serious, and all one would need would be the issue of Saturday Review containing the alleged letter. That King equated anti-Z with anti-S could on its own is interesting, but I'm not sure where it fits in the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin Luther King, Jr. 

message: Come on. Arabs are semites to. Look up the correct defintion of semite. Arabs speak a semetic language. In this case why do jews have to hog up this term when Arabs are jews? Maybe it has to do with Jewish racists themselves thinking they represent the semetic race only and that other races are inferior perhaps? This article needs to mention Arabs. Zachorious 22:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a proper concern, but not expressed in good faith. The article addresses this at para 5 here. A formal etymology should also be included.--Shtove 23:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you don't go anywhere near the article with that kind of attitude. This matter is also addressed in the paragraph Arabs are Semites on this talk page. Unmitigated Success 06:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Please remember to remain civil. The matter is discussed in the article. "Antisemitism" relates to "Semites" (or speakers of Semitic languages) in the same way that "lesbian" relates to people from the island of Lesbos. In other words, it's a linguistic anomaly-- the literal translation doesn't equate direcly to its meaning. If it helps, when you see "antisemitism", imagine you're seeing "anti-Jewish" (or Judeophobia).--LeflymanTalk 08:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What About Arabs? 

message: Moving this section recently added by  to talk: 
In James Joyce's epic Ulysses, the second chapter (aka the Nestor chapter) ends with the anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, pro-colonial and cruel headmaster, Mr. Deasy, running after the young teacher, Stephen Daedalous. The headmaster breathlessly asks Stephen, "Ireland, they say, has the honour of being the only country which never persecuted the Jews....And do you know why?" When Stephen asks why, the headmaster replies, "Because she never let them in." While the headmaster's comments indicate that the Irish had prevented Jewish immigration, this was not so; Ireland had never had formal policies against Jewish immigration, but the lack of Jewish immigrants (as well as the constant emigration) is explained by the constant poverty faced by the island in the centuries before the Celtic Tiger. In fact, for centuries, Hebrew remained one of the most popular languages to learn in Ireland, due to both the numbers of priests and nuns that came from Ireland and the strong religious devotion of the Irish people as a whole (Hebrew would have been used to study the Old Testament in its original form). 
Ulysses deals mostly with the Jewish Leopold Bloom's observations as he walks around his native Dublin, so Mr. Deasy's comment is ironic in that sense. Another great irony of Mr. Deasy's anti-semitism is that Mr. Deasy is depicted as money-grubbing and greedy, which is a common misleading stereotype about the Jewish people against whom he rails. - This article is already over 100k. Literature on anti-Semitism or Antisemitism in fiction is whole another topic and if/when an article on it is created, this one may have a summary and a link, but this is not it. BTW, does Anti-Semitism#Evangelical perspectives on anti-Semitism belong in the article? ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literature on anti-Semitism 

message: I think there is a lot of good stuff in the article, but the intro is worrying. It reads as though there are three separate, and equally significant phenomena: 'anti-judaism', 'racial anti-semitism', and 'new anti-semitism'. 
As in fact the section on definitions further down makes clear, there is no such clear cut separation between 'racial' and 'religious' anti-semitism - the intro contradicts this more considered and accurate approach.  The intro as it stands seems to be saying that pogroms, blood libels and expulsions before the 19th century were the result of theological disputes, which is absurd.
'New anti-semitism' is a controversial and disputed idea. It shouldn't be represented as a fact, and certainly not as on a par with well attested forms of anti-semitism. I looked at the four citations given - these are all rather partisan, not particularly scholarly sources. Eg. a Canadian Liberal party politico, and an article in the Guardian that actually doesn't mention the term but has one off-the-cuff quote about anti-semitism and the left from Gerry Gable, a highly controversial figure in UK anti-fascism. The disputed opinions of a few recent commentators, often with an axe to grind against the left, are not equal to the decades of scholarly research into 'mainstream' notions of anti-semitism.Bengalski 10:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oi concur.--Shtove 22:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dodgy intro 

message: "In Toward a Definition of Antisemitism, Langmuir outlined a conceptual framework that differentiated between medieval anti-Judaism, in which the Jew was hated by Christians because he was a Jew (an adherent to a rival religion with competing truth-claims), and medieval anti-Semitism, in which the Jew became an unreal, demonic, invented creature, the product of Christian mythmakers (a child-killer, a poisoner of wells and, consequently, responsible for the Black Death), Dickson said. Langmuir's second book offered a general theoretical overview of medieval anti-Semitism."  []   --Doright 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy