Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 26

message: Somebody placed the following notice on the top of this article. I am moving it here.--Sefringle 02:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Antisemitism]]

message: The article reads: "Islamic law does not differentiate between Jews and Christians in their status as dhimmis. According to Bernard Lewis, the normal practice of Muslim governments until modern times was consistent with this aspect of sharia law. This view is countered by Jane Gerber, who maintains that of all dhimmis, Jews had the lowest status."
Now, Gerber's view is very dissent (the first time I am encountering such thing). I was wondering what the credentials of Jane Gerber is that disputes the common view of scholars such as Bernard Lewis, and Claude Cahen (e.g. in Encyclopedia of Islam, Cahen says:"there had been scarcely any difference in the treatment accorded to Christians and Jews (at most they were distinguished by prescribed differences in dress); but it later came about that some categories of d̲h̲immī s were looked on as friends of foreign powers and were worse treated, and naturally some Christians were in this respect more of a target than the Jews.") and others? Why is she a reliable source? --Aminz 01:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a google search. She is a faculty memeber at  Columbia University. --Aminz 02:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is some information:  She is a professor of Jewish history and the director of the Institute for Sephardic Studies at City University of New York. Here is some more information --Sefringle 02:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I don't know what to say. As she is presented here(countering Lewis's view), she is not only countering Lewis but many other scholars of the field (everybody I know).--Aminz 02:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But at the same time, she is a scholar and of authority to do so.--Sefringle 02:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I doubt that she is countering Lewis's view as harshly as it is presented here. My guess is that she is at most saying in certain places and times there were something. Like S. D. Goitein who says: "The Genizah material confirms the existence of a discernible form of anti-Judaism in the time and the place considered here, but that form of 'anti-Semitism', if we may use this term, appears to have been local and sporadic rather than general and endemic."--Aminz 02:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have the exact quote? That's the only way to know for sure.--Sefringle 02:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No unfortunately.--Aminz 03:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jane Gerber 

message: Avraham was clearly right to remove those edits, but I don't think they really count as vandalism or that an RFC is needed. We need to discuss them here with the editor responsible. Of course the article needs to reflect in an unbiased way all the different usages of the term. The relationship between "antisemitism" and "anti-Judaism" is complex and differs between writers. The solution is to put on the table all the proposed usages and the relevant authors, then we can decide how much weight should be given to each. Itsmejudith 18:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between open and honest communication, and rampant POV pushing. Please see 's contributions for an example of the latter. -- Avi 18:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree w/ Avi as Limboot edits are part of OR and he's just edit warring after having failed to better explain his edits here. Nothing is sourced at all. However, if we have to go thru a RfC, the established users i've just mentioned on my edit summary should have to explain their nonsense reverts of well-sourced edits. I haven't restored Jimmy Carter case as it is part of WP:POINT -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, as a guideline, anyone complaining that "well-sourced edits" are being removed should be reverted as a matter of principle - the principle being, one shouldn't use nonsensical arguments to defend an edit. The fact that something is sourced doesn't mean that it must therefore be included in an article; Wikipedia is not a random collection of information or claims. Is the information relevant? Are the sources high quality? Are the claims made presented properly? Do they represent an extreme minority view? Are they being used to support original research? Do they add valuable information regarding the topic? There are many hurdles a statement must overcome before it should be included in an article; if the only claim made for it being included is that it is "well-sourced" and the removal is "censorship", then it obviously is being promoted by someone who has no understanding  whatsoever of what it takes to write a proper Wikipedia article. By the way, feel free to review Talk:Antisemitism/Archive_25#Blanking. Jayjg (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the archive Jayjg but it wasn't convincing at all. I am being more convinced by Leifern's comment than anything else. Maybe it is my problem but i don't think i am the only one having problems here. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: There is nothing against to critice judaism, like there is nothing against criticing christianity and criticing islam. So "discrimination of jews as a religious group" has to be deleted as antisemitism or at least also written (othen called anti-judaism) but that is also deleted. Like . Do you know what the "reason" was to murder 6.000.000 Jews. Not there religion. Also atheist and christian Jews were murdered in Auschwich ect. You, and apperently judaists want to CRIMINALIZE CRITICISERS OF JUDAISM ((like criticizers of islam are criminalized as "islamophobians)). You have to shame your selve. Especialy Jews (I presume) like Avi. Limboot 14:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Limboot. Stop commenting on editors you don't agree w/. Comment only on the content not on the contributor. That will not help you make a point. I hope it is cristal clear. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And can you get to the point. Antijudaism is no antisemitism. Like anti-christianity and anti-islam is no etnic hatred. Can you give a reaction on that in stead of only deleting. Limboot 19:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am talking about WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA Limboot. Can you please remove Especialy Jews (I presume) like Avi and continue your discussion? That way people may respond to your comment i believe. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh our holy man FayssalF. It is just a fact that 99,99999 of judaist believers are etnic Jews. Therefore I write "I Presume". And I repeat that Avi, also when he isn't a Jew, has to shame himself deeply by calling the murder of 6 biljon Jews because of their religion. Because this is violating the true. All Jews were murdered, alos ATHEIST AND CRISTIAN Jews. And all other persons who call anti-judaism antisemitism. Limboot 05:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Limboot, instead of causing disruption, please read any good other resource on the subject, dictionary or encyclopedia. FaissalF was correct to point out that you violated WP policies WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I have to proof that not only jew-believing persons where killed during the holocaust ????????????? . Oh and if I had writen "stupid Jew Avi" instead of "stupid judaist Avi" should I than not be being banned ? So if you know the difference betweem Jew and jew (judaist) take that than also in practice. Limboot 11:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-judaism is no antisemitism !!!!!!!!!!

message: S. D. Goitein, uses the term "to differentiate animosity against Jews from discrimination practiced by Islam against non-Muslims in general." 
--Aminz 10:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definition is probably not the best term to title this section. It is acceptable for the Islam and antisemitism article, but not probably is not best here, since this article is about antisemitism as a whole, and not just Islam and antisemitism.--Sefringle 05:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sefringle, hmmm. How is "Antisemitism in the context of Islam"? --Aminz 06:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better, but I'm sure there is an even better title for the section. Just not sure what.--Sefringle 06:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions of antisemitism in relation with Islam