Talk:Gabriel of Białystok

message: User:Solntsa90, I must ask that you stop removing large chunks of the section regarding the Antisemitic controversy regarding this saint. The fact that the particular section of the article is longer than the rest is in no way a valid reason to remove cited material. Furthermore, the information is not a merely a "Jewish view of Christian Saint", it is a human rights issue. That section is not about theological debate, it is about the perfectly valid concerns of multiple secular human rights organizations as well as Jewish ones. They are completely relevant to the topic and I request that you stop removing them. Asarelah (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Antisemitism section

message: :"Should  I go to the article on the Talmud and focus on all of the nasty things they say about gentiles and non-Jews?"
*1. If you've got reliable sources, go ahead.
*2. Jews do not "have it out" for the Russian Orthodox Church. Neither does the United States government. That has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard in my life. I am an American who was raised Jewish and is now agnostic. I can assure you, having grown up America and in a Jewish community, that neither Jews nor Americans as a whole care at all that much about your church and we certainly do not spend our time in some sinister plot against it. We are merely a bit nervous when people begin telling stories about how the Jews supposedly murder children for religious purposes. We have perfectly valid reason to be, given our history. 
*3. The U.S. State Department is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. If you don't like that, tough. I don't know if the particular Jewish organizations that are being quoted meet the criteria of being a reliable source, but it is incumbent upon you to prove that they aren't, and the fact that they might be critical of the Russian Orthodox Church over its stances on interfaith issues isn't good enough to say that they aren't.  
*4. A saint whose story is based around blood libel is objectively anti-Semitic, regardless of whether or not people who adhere to his cult identify as such. 
*5. If the reverence of this saint goes "so much deeper" than blood libel, you have the option of expanding that aspect of the article, provided you have reliable sources. Nobody is stopping you. 
*6. Its part of Wikiproject:Judaism because his narrative is centered around Jews. Its an interfaith topic. 
*7. I'm certainly not going to stop you from making constructive edits. I have no idea why your links to other saints got deleted, feel free to reinstate them. I really don't care. Just stop blanking cited material or I will be left with no choice but to notify an administrator. Asarelah (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've examined your latest edits and they are okay. But I'm keeping an eye on this article. Asarelah (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if Gabriel's killer(s) actually did happen to be Jewish, blood libel is still libel because it presents the ritual murder of Christian children and the use of their blood as a religious sacrament within Judaism, which it absolutely is not. And no, I actually wasn't being sarcastic about the "so much deeper" remark. If you regard this article as unbalanced, fill it out. If the article about J. Edgar Hoover had only the negative aspects of his life within it, I'd urge editors to add this missing material. I would not, however, allow the article to be sanitized of properly cited material in the name of "balance". If you have more information to add about Gabriel of Belostock, I encourage you to by all means add it, provided you have reliable sources to cite. Asarelah (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: :I've examined your latest edits and they are okay. But I'm keeping an eye on this article. Asarelah (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if Gabriel's killer(s) actually did happen to be Jewish, blood libel is still libel because it presents the ritual murder of Christian children and the use of their blood as a religious sacrament within Judaism, which it absolutely is not. And no, I actually wasn't being sarcastic about the "so much deeper" remark. If you regard this article as unbalanced, fill it out. If the article about J. Edgar Hoover had only the negative aspects of his life within it, I'd urge editors to add this missing material. I would not, however, allow the article to be sanitized of properly cited material in the name of "balance". If you have more information to add about Gabriel of Belostock, I encourage you to by all means add it, provided you have reliable sources to cite. Asarelah (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Postscript

message: The reports merely read (all of them, verbatim): "The official 2003 Belarusian Orthodox calendar, printed in Minsk, marks May 20 as the anniversary of the 1690 death of Gavriil Belostoksky, a young child who is alleged to have been murdered by Jews near Grodno. A May 20 prayer for Belostoksky makes reference to Jews as 'real beasts' who allegedly kidnapped and murdered Belostoksky for religious purposes."
There is no mention about either a revival of his cult  or such being "as a dangerous expression of antisemitism". I'm not turning a blind eye to the very real problems presented in the report or the prayer itself, but the stating (or wording it as if was worded as such) that the cult overall is inherently antisemitic is synthesis. Again, if someone has said this, the reference should be to that person or group directly saying it. 201.190.31.132 (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A clearer wording should be used for the reports 

message: Why refer to a TV programme which alleged that the story is true? Surely the onus is on people to say that the story is not true, for it is recorded as a real event, with names and dates. And even his relics.122.59.167.152 (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The linked article is using the program to illustrate the fact that anti-Semitism is still prevalent in the present day, and that government does not suppress and at times even facilitates anti-Semitism. I have attempted to revise this passage to make more sense. Ibadibam (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truth 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Gabriel of Białystok. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20060508173835/http://www.fsumonitor.com/stories/belupd.shtml to http://www.fsumonitor.com/stories/belupd.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070907160230/http://www.4humanrights.org/by/eng/reports/relig2003.shtml to http://www.4humanrights.org/by/eng/reports/relig2003.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106153449/http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/archives/108/91075d.pdf to http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/archives/108/91075d.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070222070146/http://www.jewish-heritage.org/jr2a21r.htm to http://www.jewish-heritage.org/jr2a21r.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927223519/http://www.eajc.org/program_art_r.php?id=80 to http://www.eajc.org/program_art_r.php?id=80
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Just a quick observation that reports on "on human rights and religious freedoms" criticizing over the years the human right and religious freedom to venerate whomever one pleases are doublespeak Orwellian per se. 
Zezen (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  @Zezen, your logic is flawed. The article and talk page commentators have not expressed the idea that venerating St. Gabriel is a violation of human rights or religious freedoms. The issue is that the veneration of St. Gabriel is used as a tool for the purpose of inciting violations of human rights and religious freedoms.  Jyg (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orwellian 

message: I have attempted a clean up of this article, especially the section on antisemitism, both, because the language was strained and probably written by a person for whom English is not their first language and also because, in places, it was hyperbolic and POV. For example, the UNHCR report does mention the veneration within the context of antisemitism but it does not call the cult "dangerous antisemitism" as the article does, it only talks about it as one unfortunate thing among many others which might feed into a general mood of antisemitism. These distinctions are important. Likewise, the TV airing of the story should emphasise what notable figures thought about the programme rather than what the article editor thinks about it. There were also repeated citations of the International Freedom Report but in each citation the information relating to Gabriel is the same, meaning that nothing has changed in the intervening year for the DRL to report. One citation of the report, the most recent, is sufficient. Lastly, calling the veneration "just a blood libel" does diminish a fairly nuanced practice where the role for those participating in the veneration is less on the religion/ethnicity of the supposed murderer and more on themes of innocence and loss. Reframing it as entirely a "blood libel" only overemphasises antisemitic aspects of the cultus and disregards that complexity which is likely to have adverse effects for everyone. Nuance is crucial here. Add good quality sources as they are found - some of what is here is out of date. 2A00:23C6:1406:4E00:70C5:A09C:86F4:CF06 (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edit 

message: 173.190.155.55 (talk) "Some authorities have expressed concern that veneration of Gabriel of Białystok may be used to foment anti-Semitism."
The Church is the authority. Anyone else is just some guy with an opinion that is not noteworthy in the revealed sense but only error. Error has no rights.
: It means "authorities" from the perspective of scholarship not religion, as in expertise (US federal bodies definitely come under that heading). Sure, you can believe that "error has no rights" and that the Church alone has access to the truth but you're going to be spending a lot of time editing Wikipedia, getting into a lot of heated arguments, if you want this website to reflect that belief. 2A00:23C6:1405:B600:3565:F43A:7475:758F (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatantly biased language 

message: Where is the evidence that this is a false accusation please?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6582:8580:C00:D16B:270C:1B28:6683 (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where?