Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 16

message: Irate, please do not delete other people's comments and replace them with your own .  This is considered to be vandalism. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes. Jayjg 15:14, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not delete other editor's comments, and sign your own.

message: Why the banner?  When did we achieve a consensus that this is non NPOV or controversial?  How about some discussion! Slrubenstein
:We achieved consensus that it was not POV.  That is what the discussion above was all about.  Feel free to remove it whenever it erroneously appears. Jayjg 15:20, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be making things up again.--Jirate 15:23, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like the "Terrorist campign" that Hunt Followers are "likely to head up"?  Jayjg 15:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well recently after they'd had a little riot ourtside parliment, and 5 broke into the commons chamber. They had a convoy of lorries blocking the M25, main London orbital road, the Cuntryside Alliance has threatend a campaign of civil disobedience, it wore miltant wing has styled it's self the "real CA" a reference to the Real IRA. Several members have threatend to "bring the country to it's knees" etc. and has threatened to make various other activists groups look like amateurs etc. Do you get the Beeb or Itv were you are? Were does your knowledge of the fox hunting organisations come from? --Jirate 16:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: If anything, it looks like the Hunt Saboteurs are the "terrorists".  Jayjg 16:15, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking from what point of view? The sabs groups do no more than disrupt hunts, in all sorts of ways, they don't threaten to trash the country. Though some who are more of an animal rights POV, do tend to be fairly violent, especially the ALF. The CA is threatening to hold the country to hostage, if it doesn't get it's way, no one else is. see  http://www.huntsabs.org.uk/.--Jirate 16:25, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality 

message: ...and put it simply: all those edits on various Jewish-oriented articles of the "OMFG DEATH 2 JEWZ" variety... aren't they lovely? *sighs* Just needed to publicly express my displeasure. Thanks for your time. Jonathan Grynspan 04:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'll be brief... 

message: An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Anti-Semitism article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add  to this page. — LinkBot 00:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:LinkBot/suggestions/Anti-Semitism|Link suggestions]] 

message: mutually exclusive assertions is a characteristic of a psychological disorder.
I am unclear what is meant by this statement, and what the relevance of it is to anti-semitism in the "Etymology and Usage section". Perhaps it needs to be justified or explained in some way?
In general, I think this article is an impressive testament to Wikipedia's strengths - presenting the issues in a factual way while trying to avoid bias. 
Thanks. --Mysteronald 19:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. Please see whether the current wording is more clear. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:21, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: I don't know what "protection of life against other Muslim states" means. Slim 00:15, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
:Zain left a note on my page asking for help with his edit: "The Qur'an, Islam's holy book, criticizes those Jews who corrupted and are not following the Hebrew Bible .For Jews and Christians (and others) who (1) believe in God (2) believe in Hereafter (3) Lead righteous life, will receive recompense from their Lord."  .
:Zain, the problem with this, as I see it, is twofold, First, you're introducing a quote from a religious text published out of context by an unidentified website in California. That aside, the quote doesn't say much, and is arguably quite sinister. It says that those who, in the opinion of whoever is interpreting the Qur'an at any given time, hold certain beliefs and lead a life that, in the opinion of the person interpreting the Qur'an, is a righteous one, where the word "righteous" is not defined, then those people will received recompense in a life to come — which implies they may not receive recompense in this life.  And so this is a problematic quote to insert as evidence of anything.
:This section is about anti-Semitism and Islam so what the Qur'an says is relevant so long as those accused of being anti-Semitic refer to the Qur'an to back up their views. Have prominent Muslim religious or political leaders quoted from the Qur'an when trying to prove a point about Jewish people? If so, it would make sense to quote someone doing that to back up Jayjg's point. Or have prominent Muslim leaders said "Muslims shouldn't pay attention to what the Qur'an says about Jews: it was all written a long time ago", because that would back up Zain's point.
:The same website you cited, Zain, contains more views on Judaism , including: "Like all the other religions in the world, Judaism has been corrupted by the human trend of distorting God's words in the scripture. Judaism as practiced by the majority of the Jews today is not the religion authorized by God in the Torah, but a newly formalized belief system based on man-made innovations and corruptions recorded in the "man-made" Talmud. Similar corruptions by man-made books and laws can be seen in Today's Christianity (e.g. Trinity ) and traditional Islam (e.g. Hadith and Sunna ). . The same page links to another website that appears to be some sort of revisionist thing.  Slim 01:28, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
::The "revisionist" site Slim refers to is filled with false and anti-Semitic Talmud "quotes". Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 02:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about this article, not about other articles. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 00:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: nice one Zain. My advise to you, don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. dab (ᛏ) 15:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I concur. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 19:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia policies are being applied here. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 20:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia policies apply to all articles, or should. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 21:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not telling you to do anything Zain; please don't misquote me. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 21:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zain's edit

message: I think first we should find what is relevant and what is not. Here is talk extracts from another talk page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israeli_violence_against_Palestinian_children#Killing_of_children_is_NOT_propoganda
*such a libelous POV title. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about this article, not about other articles. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 00:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: nice one Zain. My advise to you, don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. dab (ᛏ) 15:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I concur. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 19:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia policies are being applied here. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 20:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia policies apply to all articles, or should. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 21:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not telling you to do anything Zain; please don't misquote me. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 21:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we provide non-anti claims, which are not responses

message: Fjodorii, who makes the argument that you have just inserted into the article? Can you quote someone who makes the argument? If not, it appears to be original research. Jayjg  | (Talk) 21:01, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but look: it doesn't matter how obvious it is.  If you have a citation for Lewis, just put it in -- and that solves the problem.  If you have sources, always use them! Slrubenstein
*Well, your latest work -- in the "Misnomer" section -- is quite unnecessary. Nothing gets clarified by it; it's argumentation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:10, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly; I've cleaned it up, leaving the citations, which make the point. Jayjg  | (Talk) 02:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: okay, you misunderstand the policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  It is true that articles are not "really" about definitions.  But that does not mean that the history of definitions and usages, and etymologies are irrelevant.  How people use a term is important to understanding it, and how the definitions and uses have changed over time is almost essential to understand any debates over a term. Slrubenstein 22:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: As for the other matter: It does not matter whether it is "argumentation" or "more than argumentation."  What matters is that it is not your view.  You must be able to verify that others have made these -- whatever you want to call it, "argumentation" or "more than argumentation" -- and provide sources. Slrubenstein 22:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misnomer / Fjodorii's latest insertion - original research? 

message: There has been so called anti-semitism towards Israeli Jews, although the term itself cannot describe all Jews as 'semites' since Judaism is a religion and not a race. 
Because anti-Semitism is almost universally scorned by modern tolerant societies, some critics of allegedly oppressive Israeli policies towards Palestinians have voiced concerns that the charge of anti-Semitism towards such criticism has been unfairly used to nullify any public discourse regarding such policies. 
I've removed the above text. The latter phrase was added yesterday by User:64.229.221.241, the former is obsolete at best, if it ever was in use in this sense (?), it could be covered further on, but not in the intro. Objections? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence is inaccurate, since Jews are a people, not just members of a faith.  The latter is already discussed in the article on anti-Zionism. Jayjg  | (Talk) 17:19, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep the intro clean, please 

message: The term modern anti-Semitism seems in appropriate; contemporary anti-Semitism or recent anti-Semitism would be better, given the way historians use the term modern.  But modern anti-Semitism is the title of the article.  Would it not be better that this be changed? Or is that too difficult to do?  Mark K. Jensen 07:32, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
: Not difficult at all. I have a problem with all of these adjectives as they are drifting with time. This reminds me Old-New Synagogue in Prague built in 13th century. AFAIK, the words "new" or "modern" are the most frequently used to describe the phenomenon. The relative popularity could be measured by Google, I guess. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Modern anti-Semitism'

message: There is no reason why an article w a number of images shouldn't have one at the top. The image is especially illustrative of anti-semitism, and the objection of it being "ugly" is hilarious. If you want to see an attractive display of anti-semitism, I'm afraid you need to go edit a page on lilacs or some such for awhile. This page is about an ugly subject, the images are ugly, and trying to suppress them does a service for nobody.  07:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, an intro should be as clean as possible, and unless one wants to muddle the topic, there is no reason to add clutter. Moreover, if we raise our readers' blood pressure from the beginning, they could not endure till the end of the article, and we don't want that. To your point: AFAIK, we are not in the business of making articles nice or ugly, our goal should be to make them encyclopedic. I believe there is no reason for the second Der Sturmer picture at all, since this is not Der Sturmer article. If we choose one out of two (in fact, there are thousands), that would only improve this article, because the phenomenon is much more than Nazi cartoons. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: My understanding is, Streicher was the chief editor for the publishing house Stürmerverlag that published both. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 17:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Greetings. I found this public domain image on the German Wikipedia: . Would it be worth including in this article? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:08, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
:We already have two images in the brief section about antisemitism in Germany in the 20th century (the Der Stürmer cover and the "God of the Jews" cartoon). One more image will crowd the section unless we add a paragraph ... which should probably be on the boycott of Jewish-owned businesses. Here are some sources for the 1933 boycott from which this image is drawn:  	
:FWIW, a translation of the sign in the image: "Germans! Defend yourselves! Do not buy from Jews!" And you can link to an image on a different language Wikipedia like this:  --FOo 19:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (Yipe. I don't know what happened to this page when I posted the above comment -- I got a timeout, I'm surprised it got here at all. Thanks to User:Jpgordon for fixing the page.) --FOo 01:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that was odd; somehow, the entire article got duplicated -- well, actually, the version before your edit was tacked on after the version with your edit. Scrooey. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image from German Wikipedia 

message: I've reverted 68.191.167.34's edit to the etymology section as it was a removal of a piece of seemingly valid text without explanation. If this somehow goes against consensus reached on this talk, I apologize and invite someone to revert. Mgm|(talk) 12:28, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
:It was just vandalism. Jayjg (talk) 19:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: I've summarised Shahak's Jewish History, Jewish Religion and placed it under the Anti-Semitism category.  If anyone needs to make some space then I have no objection if the section below is deleted. Conch Shell 13:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk page contents are not usually deleted.  If a Talk: page gets too long, the oldest comments are typically archived. Jayjg (talk) 17:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: NPOV does not demand that extreme minority views be aired; from WP:NPOV If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.  Shahak was not a historian, he was a chemistry professor, and his extreme minority view and apologetics for these acts are not required in this article, even if, as you state on your used page, you "admire" Shahak. Jayjg (talk) 17:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Shahak was not a historian, the Ukranian Jews did not oppress other Ukranians, and extreme minority apologetics for the murder of tens of thousands of innocent civilians have no place on any page; in any event debates at that level of detail do not belong on this page, especially when they attempt to defend extreme minority postions. Jayjg (talk) 04:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: It's hard to see how one can justify the killing of tens of thousands of innocent Jews, merely for being Jewish, much less imagine that such justifications are not apologetics. (P.S. Apologetics are not "attempts to apologize"). Jayjg (talk) 15:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Please could you quote the actual text where Shahak does this, rather than just repeating the assertion? (NB To 'apologize' for a perspective means to defend it - Collins English Dictionary) --Conch Shell 09:17, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps not.  But when they dabble in areas about which they know little, their apologetics are rarely noteworthy. Jayjg (talk) 15:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: A clear example of the Ad Hominem fallacy, where the person is attacked and not their argument. --Conch Shell 09:17, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reminds me of the apocryphal suggested modification to doctoral degrees:
 "Your Name Here has earned the title of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of Chemistry, and only of Chemistry"
Gzuckier 15:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: The Evolution article doesn't list the counter evolution "arguments" of every two-bit preacher pushing creationism either. Jayjg (talk) 20:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete? 

message: I believe a section/article on jewish and non-jewish responses to anti-semitism would be a valuable contribution to this article and category.  This article, although quite thorough on the topic of anti-semitic beliefs and acts, doesn't detail the different Jewish responses to those beliefs and acts.  In addition, there have been notable non-Jewish responses that should be detailed, as well.  Do you all think this is best done in a separate article?  I would be interested in any ideas before I start it (also, if it already exists somewhere, can someone please point it out to me?).  Thanks.  -- JimCollaborator 23:04, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
:The idea sounds reasonable to me; however, the article itself is already 44K long. It might make sense to add the information, then review the whole article so see what can be moved into a separate article. Jayjg (talk) 01:23, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responses to anti-semitism