Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about Antisemitism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Do not delete other editor's comments, and sign your own.

Irate, please do not delete other people's comments and replace them with your own [1]. This is considered to be vandalism. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes. Jayjg 15:14, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Semitic-speaking people

Semite. 1. A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians. 2. A Jew. 3. Bible. A descendant of Shem.

This article is an exmaple of liguistic hijacking.

Untrue. The article reflects the term in the way it is used. And the problem you raise is dealt with:

The term has always referred to prejudice towards Jews alone, and not to other people who speak semitic languages (e.g., Arabs) and this has been the only use of this word for more than a century. In recent decades some people have argued that the term anti-Semitism should be extended to include prejudice against Arabs, since Arabic is a semitic language. However, this usage has not been widely adopted.

Despite the use of the prefix "anti," the terms Semitic and Anti-Semitic are not antonyms. To avoid the confusion of the misnomer, many writers on the subject (such as Emil Fackenheim of the Hebrew University) now favor the unhyphenated term antisemitism.

Maybe a couple of sentences could be added to this, but it's not reasonable to suggest that the article does not deal with the term anti-Semitism in a NPOV-way, I think. - pir 13:50, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For better or worse, English is not a particularly logical language. "Anti-Semite" does not mean "against Semites", though that would make sense in a theoretical way, and some people have recently tried to re-define it that way for political reasons. The history of the term anti-Semite is complex and interesting; I recommend you study it. Since your objection to this article appears to be based purely on an objection to a well understood English term with a long history, I'm going to remove the NPOV marker; an article is not POV simply because you think the English language is biased. Oh, and please sign your comments. Jayjg 13:53, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Huh? What does "linguistic hijacking? mean, and why is this article an example? Slrubenstein

The best example, in the UK, is the word swearing. From the religious (Christian POV) swearing is "A profain Oath" it is n't just naughty words, like fuck etc. How ever various people wanted to claim a religous prohibition against words like 'fuck' etc. So they stole the term, so in the moder UK, the commandment. "Though shalt not swear" is taken to mean don't use these naughty words. Were as really it should stop Christians "swearing on the bible", in court the should "affirm" instead. So the word swearing has been hijacked. This subject should be renamed "discrimination/racism against Jews". This article just promotes the hijacking.--Jirate 15:23, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The word means what it means, and when people want to look up this topic on Wikipedia, they will look under anti-Semitism. If your campaign to get the English language to be less "abusive" in this area is ever successful then your suggestions might have value. Until then, it's just an attempt to muddy the waters for political purposes. Jayjg 15:19, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What political purpose is that?--Jirate 16:10, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Israel activists often object to the term "anti-Semitic", assuming that Jews have "hijacked" the term "Semite" for their own use, part of their on-going "campaign" to disenfranchise and abuse Arabs. This notion is often expressed in the specious argument "Arabs can't be anti-Semitic, they're Semites as well." Of course, this ignores the fact that even Jews can be anti-Semites. More importantly, it shows a profound ignorance of the history of the term itself, which was invented and intended by the German anti-Semite Wilhelm Marr to describe Jews only, and which was used exclusively that way for a over century now. Jayjg 13:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)--Jirate 14:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pro Israli fantics always assume that everything is about them and Israeli. You've named the hijacker as "Wilhelm Marr". pir has also pointed out it's a blinding with science origin.--Jirate 14:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Now that's funny! 'Pro Israeli fanatics' (i.e. Jews) are so self-centered as to think that antiSemitism is about them! Gee, all these years those greedy Jews have been refusing to share the antiSemitism with others! Gzuckier 16:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you go and look at the mid west of the US you'll find a hot bed of "Pro Israeli fanatics" and very few Jews.

I think you are confusing Israeli (vs. anti-Zionist) and Jew (vs. anti-Semite) here. anti-Semitism targets Jews not Israelis. In fact many Jews opposed it, a century ago and many anti-Semites supported the creation of Israel, with for example Adolf Eichmann (and he's certainly one of the most murderous anti-Semites in history) going on a visit to Palestine to find out if that could be the solution to the "Jewish question". I'm not trying to be flippant and insensitive, but sometimes it looks to me like Zionists have adopted a point from the anti-Semitic agenda, for very good reasons, but personally I still regard it as a "victory" for anti-Semitism. Some Jewish anti-Zionists I know say that the Zionist reaction to the Holocaust was to "build the walls around the ghetto higher". Another of the many views on the (alleged) new Wall.- pir 14:34, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was simply using the term invert Jayjg "Anti -Israel" and added an I by accident.--Jirate 18:25, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Marr created the term, he didn't "hijack" it. You can't "hijack" something that never existed before. Jayjg 14:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You now saying the word Semite was also invented by this person are you. The word Semite has been hijacked and put into a compound word, where it's meaning is abused. The title of this page is "Anti-Semitism", it has a hyphen in it.--Jirate 15:23, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Semite and anti-Semitism are to be seen as seperate terms, one having been derived from the other historically but not semantically. As the article clearly states, the terms Semitic and Anti-Semitic are not antonyms. Maybe that should be in a more prominent place. - pir 16:54, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The language is what it is. The fact that you think the term is "abuse" (which, of course, is meaningless linguistically) does not make the article itslef POV. Jayjg 15:17, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"The language is what it is. The fact that you think the term is "abuse" does not make the article itslef POV." - Jayjg, why do you refuse to apply the same reasoning to Occupation of Palestine ? - pir 16:54, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's not an example of "linguistic hijacking", it's an example of anti-Semites' stupidity and ignorance and dishonesty and urge to manipulate language. The term was created by anti-Semites, as a scientific-looking posh-sounding euphemism. It actually says quite a lot that we still use a term created by anti-Semites to describe anti-Semitism. - pir 13:57, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I never said who did the hijacking.--Jirate 14:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's only because you had no idea of the origins and history of the term. Jayjg 14:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are you now claim to be able read my mind? or is it just more of your water muddying? My knowledge of lingistics while not being complete does cover this area, chunks of PIE and why Welsh doesn't have a word for Pink. I might not be able to spell, gramatacise and have writing which looks like a doctor but it doesn't imply that I'am in anyway ignorant about language, its form and evolution. And--Jirate 14:56, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I certainly think it would be worth adding to the Welsh language page to explain why Welsh doesn't have a word for Pink. Seriously. And I have no idea what PIE is. Another opportunity to add a contribution to wikipedia. Gzuckier 16:24, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually PIE seems to be a valid link. A article on language complexity and simple measures may well be appropriate, rather just limiting it to Welsh]].--Jirate 18:25, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jirate, I suspect you are being dishonest now. - pir 14:34, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

About what?

--Jirate 15:23, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

About the implication that you were accusing anti-Semites of hijacking the term Semite when you wrote "I never said who did the hijacking." - pir 16:54, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's always amusing to come to a new forum and discover the same silly and ignorant argument being repeated. It happens every time with "anti-semitism"; no matter how carefully and precisely the origin of the term is explained -- as a te`rm coined by Jew-haters to describe their own hatred of Jews -- some people would rather snark than read and think. Guinea pigs are neither pigs nor from Guinea. The Holy Roman Empire was not holy, Roman, nor an empire. And "antisemitism" doesn't mean "opposition to Semites". Sure, there was linguistic hijacking -- by Wilhelm Marr, for the purpose of prettying up his (highly intellectualized) hatred. Me, I've stopped using the term in general; I think "Jew-hatred" is more precise, and doesn't confuse the (sometimes willfully) ignorant. Jpgordon 16:43, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You can't be talking about this as you forgot the hyphen.--Jirate 18:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The hyphen is irrelevant, other than the apparent confusion it causes some folk etymologists (and some people who are offended that there's a special word for Jew-hatred.) The original word was German: antisemitismus. The German language runs words together to form compound words. English generally does not do that, and instead hyphenates to produce the same result. "anti-semitism", "anti-Semitism", and "antisemitism"are simply alternate orthography for the same thing. Jpgordon 22:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

an·ti-Sem·i·tism (nt-sm-tzm, nt-) n.

Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.
Discrimination against Jews.

anti-Semitism

\An`ti-Sem"i*tism\, n. Opposition to, or hatred of, Semites, esp. Jews. -- An`ti-Sem\"ite, n. -- An`ti-Sem*it\"ic, a.

anti-Semitism

n : the intense dislike for and prejudice against Jewish people [syn: anti-Semitism]

These definitions are a bit puzzling. Are any usage references provided by the American Heritage Dictionary or Websters showing "anti-semitism" meaning hatred of any Semitic people other than Jews? Seems doubtful to me, since (at least until recently) there hasn't been any particular tradition among English-speaking people of organized and systemic prejudiced against other Semitic peoples based upon their Semitism. (Sure, there's the generic racism against anyone non-white and non-European, but that's a fairly different category of bigotry.) Jpgordon 22:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This Webster definition seems to be from 1913 [2] , a time when the racial views hald by Herr Marr were quite common even among dictionary writers. So this does not come as a big surprise and doesn't contradict what we've been saying here. - pir 22:54, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's also the definition in the 1996 and 1998 dictionary, and similar definitions are found in every dictionary I've seen. Jayjg 02:20, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

neutrality

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)

You seem to be making things up again.--Jirate 15:23, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You mean like the "Terrorist campign" that Hunt Followers are "likely to head up"? [3] Jayjg 15:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)

If anything, it looks like the Hunt Saboteurs are the "terrorists". [4] Jayjg 16:15, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)

I do not see how any of this discussion bears on whether the article is NPOV or not. I repeat: why is the article not neutral? I am not a genious or a mind reader so if you want me to understand you please write in grammatical, complete, and to the point sentences. Slrubenstein

PeR's commentary

It should be pointed out here that Jesus was a Jew living in a Jewish community. To him, criticising the people around him was equivalent to criticising Jews. There is disagreement between those who consider any criticism of Jews or Judaism to constitute anti-Semitism, and those who would first require the criticism to be rooted in malice or hatred towards the Jewish people. Per

I'll be brief...

...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)

Confusion and internal inconsistensies

i think there should be recognition that many Arabs consider themselves Semitic (even though this may be semantically incorrect)and following from that, when they are actually looking for an article on anti Arabism, they may incorrectly look to the Anti Semitism page.

Could someone well versed with the issues, look into this topic, anti arabism and racism ?

i tried to do it, but this is a sensitve issue and i may have inadvertently stepped on some toes, in my few amaturish attempts.

Well, now that Ashcroft has time on his hands, perhaps he can be induced to explain why locking up 5,000 Arabs in the US indefinitely without due process, right to counsel, notifying their families, etc. (with a net yield of zero terrorism-related arrests, detentions, deporations, or anything else) is not antiArabism, just good security. Gzuckier 17:43, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A few points. For the unsigned question above, it is completely accurate to refer to Arabs as a Semitic people; nothing semantically incorrect there. The article does discuss accurately how and why the expression "anti-semitism" is a synonym for "hatred of Jews": it was coined by a Jew-hater to describe his fellow Jew-haters, and though it seems contrary to common sense, word etymologies and meanings sometimes are contrary to common sense. I'm not sure what relevance Gzuckier's comment has; the assertion that the term "anti-Semitism" does not mean "opposition to all groups classified as Semitic" does not in any way deny that anti-Arabism exists (which it obviously does.) --jpgordon{gab} 18:04, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i was just indulging in antiAshcroftism. AKA antiscumitism. oh well, there's enough controversy over this topic anyway (damned if i know why) so might as well see if we can hook it up with the freefloating pro and con Bush argument. Gzuckier 19:58, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is a matter that has been gone over and over and over in archived discussions. In its original technial sense, no one was "semetic:" the term refers to a family of languages and Arabic is a semetic language as is Hebrew. In the technical sense, no one is a "semite," there are only speakers of a "semetic" language. In the 1800s a German coined the term "Anti-Semitism" -- a neologism -- to refer to race-based hatred of Jews. The term "Anti-Semitism" does not refer to anything else. It doesn't mean "people who hate semitic languages" for example. Now, I admit that the history of these words is not "logical" but the history of language and words and ideas seldome is logical. Why do people drive on parkways and park on driveways? Language just doesn't make sense like that. Slrubenstein

It seems clear enough that everybody here knows what "anti-Semitism" actually means out in the real world... isn't all this discussion of whether it includes dislike of Arabs and so on a bit disingenuous?

I feel strongly that this article should be marked "No Neutral Point of View Possible" because in the four-way collision between: anti-Semites wanting to repeat slanders while claiming their motivation is scholarly, investigative, or whatever; Jewish supremacists who want to tar all opposition with the brush of racism; persons interested in European social history; and the rest of us, there does not seem to be a single point all parties are willing to agree on. DMaclKnapp

You are saying that the article is "controversial," not that its neutrality is in question. "Neutral" does not mean that all parties agree. In fact, that no one agrees may be a sign of "neutrality. However, I would even balk at labeling the article controversial. You seem to be saying that the topic is controversial. Well, if that is the case, of course some of the controversy will leak into the article. But that doesn't make the article controversial. It is the topic itself that is conctroversial. Instead of having a warning tag "This article is controversial" it is better to say, somewhere in the first paragraph, that anti-Semitism is a controversial topics because people who claim to be victims of anti-Semitism and people accused of anti-Semitism seldom agree on what anti-Semitism is. Slrubenstein

Link suggestions

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 {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Anti-Semitism}} to this page. — LinkBot 00:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Confusion

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)

Thanks for pointing this out. Please see whether the current wording is more clear. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:21, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zain's edit

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." [5] .

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 [6], 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 ). [7]. The same page links to another website that appears to be some sort of revisionist thing. [8] Slim 01:28, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

The "revisionist" site Slim refers to is filled with false and anti-Semitic Talmud "quotes". Jayjg | (Talk) 02:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can we provide non-anti claims, which are not responses

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)
Why is this title POV but, say, Islam and anti-Semitism isn't? OneGuy 19:30, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A perfect example. The title Islam and anti-Semitism doesn't imply that Islam is anti-Semitic. .... ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So does this article gives both sides. Or does this article only says when islam is anti-semantic and other side can only write response.

Zain 20:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article is about this article, not about other articles. Jayjg | (Talk) 00:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok should I or should I not apply the same policie on other articles? Zain 21:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) Policy of wikipedia is same for this article or any other article! If any policy is used here that should be used in other articles too. Wikipedia has a single policy. Same policy should be used in all articles. Then I'll remove all 'irrelevant' points in holocaust denial. May be add new articles which such titles making responses 'irrelevant' How about Only about claims of holocaust denial excluding responses Now that will be NPOV (it doesn't say that claims are correct). It will make all the responses 'irrelevant' to the 'context' of this article.

I think you should think again. Or a 'Title War' might start. And believe me I am very creative with titles!

Zain 00:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

I concur. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The best way is to apply the wikipedia policies uniformly. Is there any thing wrong with asking to apply wikipedia policy uniformly?

Zain 20:13, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are being applied here. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can we apply same policies to other articles too? Zain 20:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

Thanks. So it means that you telling me that I should apply same policies to other articles too! Ok Zain 21:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not telling you to do anything Zain; please don't misquote me. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Misnomer - Anonymeous user fixation on senseless word Semites

Fjodorii 17:05, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC): To user 81.153.165.21: you changed the word Jews into Semites. However, acknowledged authors such as Bernard Lewis all made clear that the term Semite has no meaning as applied to groups as heterogeneous as the Arabs or Jews (ref. [9]). Your replacement indirectly also suggests inclusion of the Arabs within the term anti-Semites (and you indeed included the word Arabs in the text). But that is exactly what so much of the other information and sources in that page prove as totally incorrect. With kind regards. F.

Good point, absolutely right.

Misnomer / Fjodorii's latest insertion - original research?

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)

Fjodorii 16:44, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC): In my opinion it is not original research. I have added some links now (chosen from several ones I could add). The argument is obvious enough, Bernard Lewis has in fact almost stated this with similar words. There is nothing new about this.

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)

Fjodorii 17:27, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC): I'm not so sure, Jpgordon. In fact, there normally is no reason at all to change the meaning of the word antisemitism, as it has always been pointing to anti-judaism. For that reason, there is an argument to clarify WHY the usage of the term is under discussion... Kind regards, F.

As I just said: it's argumentation. The sentences that were there before you expanded the section sufficed. By the way, it's standard practice here to sign your comments at the end rather than the beginning. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 17:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Exactly; I've cleaned it up, leaving the citations, which make the point. Jayjg | (Talk) 02:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Final of Fjodorii on this: ok, accept current state of the article (with just the added quotes).

Keep the intro clean, please

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)

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)

'Modern anti-Semitism'

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)

How many Der Sturmer caricatures?

Did the latest addition of another Der Sturmer caricature improve the article? I don't think so. BTW, it tells only one half of the story: in addition to alleging that the Jews were controlling world financial system, Hitler insisted that at same time they were communists. (even in the same phrase, e.g. in Jan. 30, 1939 speech to the Reichstag). ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, to grant that the addition of this Der Strümer caricature does not improve the article, please note Wikipedia's Revert Policy, which I shall quote for you: "Note that reverts are not appropriate if a newer version is no better than the older version. You should save reverts for cases where the new version is actively worse." Ergo, your rationale for deleting the addition is in contravention of Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, what can you mean by criticizing what sides of a "story" it tells? It is a classic 1930s caricature exhibiting major racist ideals. Hitler also claimed the Jews were subhuman and all manner of absurd accusations; A caricature is not required to reflect all of Hitler's dogmas to qualify as a valid exhibition of 1930s German anti-semitism.--A. S. A.

We should work to improve articles and make them more encyclopedic, instead of filling them with pointless clutter. IMHO, one Der Sturmer picture is enough. Why don't we dump volumes of anti-Semitic cartoons here? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 23:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2 exhibits from one of Nazi Germany's most infamous papers does not a deluge make. Also, the new addition showcases one of the most repeated slurs against jews, the money issue. This makes it, in my opinion, invaluable to the whole article, and not just the German section.--A. S. A. 00:30, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

While I do not have a specific objection to this particular cartoon, I must point out that you are consistently misinterpreting/misapplying the Revert Policy. Additional materal can indeed detract from the quality of an article, if the information is irrelevant, or the point is already made, or made better in other ways. Too much is as bad as too little, and Humus Sapiens's point is also correct; if 200 new cartoons were added, surely the article content would be significantly worse, and reversion would be entirely justified. Mies van der Rohe's dictum "Less is more" is as applicable to article content as it is to architecture. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say about the Revert policy. I do not think your concerns apply here. The Revert Policy statement I quoted applies well to Humus Sapiens' first reasoning for deleting the cartoon, in which he/she stated that the addition does not improve the article. An addition has to render an article actively worse. I responded to the second reasoning, criticizing the non-inclusion of communist affiliation in the cartoon, separately and without recourse to that policy. What's more, I made no argument disputing that 200 more cartoons would be significantly worse. They certainly wood. Since there is no where near that number, the point is moot.--A. S. A. 01:35, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

The point being that just as it is possible for the addition of 200 cartoons to make an article appreciably worse, it is possible for even the addition of 1 cartoon to make an article appreciably worse, depending on the carton and the article, of course. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Quite correct. That last qualifier is all-important, of course. It depends on the cartoon. I also agree that 200 additional, perfectly valid and relevant cartoons, would make an article appreciably worse.--A. S. A. 02:19, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

We already mentioned DS once and included its picture, what's the point of doing it again? I propose to get rid of this ugly picture and instead include an encyclopedic list of the most common antisemitic myths. We could start with greediness if you think it is so important. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I get the feeling you are offended personally by the caricature. It's certainly very ugly, you're quite right. I think that makes it all the more poignant in an article on anti-semitism. The list sounds like a good idea, I think you should start on that regardless of the fate of the cartoon. The picture, in my opinion, is remarkably suited to the topic and to it's current location in the German section.--A. S. A. 12:39, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

UkrSSR

UkrSSR it the abreviation for Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. This was official name of the part of the Soviet Union which became Ukraine after desintegration of the USSR in 1991. The regional branch of the Academy of Sciencies of the USSR had official name "Academy of Sciencies of UkrSSR". Please do not revert my correction. User:AndriyK

I get 21,400 Google hits for "Ukrainian Academy of Sciences", another 400 for "Ukranian Academy of Sciences", and 30 for "Academy of Sciences of UkrSSR", and 147 for "Academy of Sciences of the UkrSSR". "Ukrainian Academy of Sciences" is by far the most common English name for the organization. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The reason is that UkrSSR existed before the Internet boom. That's why you have found so little hits for "Academy of Sciences of UkrSSR". See Ukrainian SSR. The names of the Academy at different times are listed in the Ukrainian version of wikipedia in the article "Akademija nauk Ukrajiny" (should be typed in Cyrillic letters, of cause). Andriy

Thank you. I've fixed it to include the proper name. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image

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. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 07:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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)

You've mistunderstood the use of the term "ugly". The page looked ugly like that, regardless of the contents of the cartoon. It was a layout issue, not a content issue. As for its current placement, since the cartoon was from Der Sturmer in 1938, of course it belongs in the section discussing that era. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the "Money is the God of the Jews" anti-Semitic cartoon. The source cites it as: "published by Julius Streicher, of Der Stürmer . (Der Giftpilz, a children's book--online German Propaganda Archive, Professor Randall Bytwerk, Calvin College) 1938." From this I understood that it was originally from the children's book, but can anyone speculate about the meaning of the phrase "by Julius Streicher, of Der Stürmer," because I took it to mean it was also published by the Paper. Was Julius Streicher a reporter or editor for Der Strümer? Thanks.--A. S. A. 11:51, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

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)

Image from German Wikipedia

Greetings. I found this public domain image on the German Wikipedia: [10]. 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: [11] [12]

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: de:Bild:Anti-Semitismus_1933.jpg --FOo 19:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(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)

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)

New Anti-Semitism section

Merging the New Anti-Semitism article back here is a bad idea for two reasons. First, the information was removed because it was more controversial than the rest of the article, and therefore it was hoped it would bring some semblance of peace to the main article by moving it elsewhere. Second, this article is already 44K in size, and adding it back will make it closer to 60K, thus requiring an inevitable hiving off of a sub-article anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article used to link to Modern anti-Semitism, which is far to POV to link to.

The concept of "new anti-Semitism" needs discussing however, and I've tried to give it brief, NPOV coverage in this article. I'd like to enter into discussion about the wording, etc.

If one day Modern anti-Semitism becomes a sensible article, we can link to it again, and shorten the coverage of it in this article. Chamaeleon 16:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is already some agreement on the Talk: page there regarding changing the name to the "New Anti-Semitism", and focussing on that. And if you think the other article provides POV, you haven't done any better here, since you've only provided one side of the discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did report the claims of the other side. If you wish to expand on them, I am not blocking that. Chamaeleon 17:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No need, really, since they're much more fully addressed in the article on the topic, exactly where they belong. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article is long, but that is not the point. As for the idea of putting controversial parts of articles into separate articles, this is against policy. We keep such things in the main article.

The outline of the controversy is given here, the details in the detailed article. There is nothing against policy about that. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Now, even if it were decided to have it in a separate article, the separate article in question is so monstrously POV that it cannot be linked to at present. Chamaeleon 16:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

POV problems are resolved by adding additional POVs. Your version is as POV as the article itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It would be very difficult for me or anyone else to, in a few lines, express something as POV as the other article. Chamaeleon 17:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Why would you want to "express it in links"? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Chamaeleon 18:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, misread that. If you don't think presented cited counter-views can address POV issues, then I think you have misunderstood the NPOV policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stop this "misunderstood" insult. I understand it perfectly. Adding an opposing POV is not always sufficient. Reductio ad absurdum: would you think it possible to NPOV an article called Jewish lies?

Why don't you give NPOV a try anyway, and see how it works. I think it can do wonders for an article. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see that people are still reverting. Please express any reasons you may have for believing mine to be POV and/or incorrect. Chamaeleon 16:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To begin with, you've misunderstood the Wikipedia:Be bold policy. While it encourages people to be bold, it also clearly discourages people from making major changes to controversial articles without discussing them, and coming to a consensus, in Talk: first. Why don't you try starting that process? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I, in good faith, thought that there would be immediate support for my edits. Now that it seems that POV warriors wish to fight the issue, I have tried to draw you and others in so as to discuss it. Chamaeleon 17:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The certainly by the second time your edits were deleted, you should have noted there wasn't immediate support for your edits. The fact that the VfD went so quickly (and so far unanimously) against you should have been another clue. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Clarification: I didn't think that you would not revert me, having seen your behaviour at [Noam Chomsky]]. But I would expect more general community support. Also, the vote has not gone against me. Besides you and me, only three people have voted. One did not even bother giving a reason. The other two were voting on the idea of there being an article about Modern anti-Semitism in the sense of anti-Semitism in our times, as can be seen from their comments. They now need to actually look at New anti-Semitism and decide whether it should exist or not. Chamaeleon 18:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, even after seeing your indefensible support for original research in the Noam Chomsky article, combined with your outrageous use of ad hominem argumentation on the Talk: pages, I was still hoping you would reform. As for the VfD, the article is the same regardless of the name. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's really silly. You are seriously suggesting that saying Chomsky is accused of anti-Americanism is original research. Actually think about that. Chamaeleon 20:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph was original research, and in fact was quite silly. Fortunately Russel Wvong actually wrote a real pararaph on the subject for you, properly cited, which was infinitely superior to the silly original research you kept re-inserting in the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, so far 6 people have voted against you; it's unanimous so far. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My only aim is to remove your POV. It remains to be seen whether they actually support you, or whether a majority will support a NPOVing of it. A "keep" vote is technically also a vote for me, because I am not asking for deletion. Chamaeleon 20:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"My POV"? I didn't create that article or enter that information. And those who support NPOVing it support me, since I've called for that a number of times. However, I must chuckle at your notion that a "Keep" vote is a vote for you, as you are the person who proposed its deletion. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, please note the WP:3RR policy, which you have now clearly broken. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would say that you broke it first. Chamaeleon 17:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You can say anything you like, but the edit record shows me editing your information once, and reverting to my edit twice. You, on the other hand, entered your infomation once, then reverted it back in 4 times. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You made the first revert, while I was in the middle of writing the version with the edit summary "(NPOV)". You then made a further two and so did your mate Mrfixter. That's a total of five, three specifically from you. All maintained POV. I was forced into making a total of three NPOV reverts before deciding to let the VfD decide it. I am the one graciously letting you get the last word, not the revert warrior. Anyway, what is to be addressed is not this silly issue of numbers, but the far more serious issue of the offensive article content that you defend. Chamaeleon 18:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not Mrfixter, nor is he "my mate", and the 3RR involves individuals. You reverted my edits four times in under an hour, and if I were really picky about this I would bring this up on the Administrator's notice board and have you banned for 24 hours; fortunately for you, I am "graciously" not doing so. It's rather astonishing that after breaking the 3RR you refer to someone who did not do so as a "revert warrior"; less surprising is claim that the fact that you did not revert a 5th time is "gracious" on your part and "letting me have the last word", rather than recognition that if you continue to act as a revert warrior you will be banned. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A quick note, I am not jayjg nor am I his mate. I do think he was correct in his reverts, however, and you broke 3RR no question. --Mrfixter 15:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't be silly. I am a valued contributor. The last time a right-winger tried all this aggressive "I'll ban you!" stuff, I took it to arbitration and he nearly had his admin powers revoked. Chamaeleon 20:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I haven't suggested I would ban you, and the 3RR is quite clear, Chamaeleon. If you continue to disregard it, you will be banned up to 24 hours for each infraction. There is a whole section of the Administrator's Noticeboard devoted to this. Rather than going down that route, why don't you try to work through issues on the Talk: pages instead? After all, that's what they're for. Oh, and please try to stop labelling Wikipedians, I've mentioned this to you before. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You label me as an anti-Semite. Again, you present a straw-man argument by telling me to work through issues on talk pages when I have been doing just that for hours. The 3RR has been recognised as absurd and arbitrary by many. It is very dishonest to try to invoke it instead of sticking to the issues. You have been unable to justify the POV of the New anti-Semitism article. I will obviously not be banned for any reason and it is silly to suggest so. Chamaeleon 21:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I haven't labelled you as anything; you keep trying to personalize this, when the issue is article content. And none of your unilateral actions were worked out on the Talk: page in advance. As for the New anti-Semitism article, I haven't even tried to justify the current form; in fact, I've been trying to remove the irrelevant content, and consistently requested cited counter-arguments to produce a NPOV article. And, of course, if you violate the 3RR an administrator will ban you for up to 24 hours, as happens to everyone who violates the rule. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alba, I did not post that anti-Semitic rant. I deleted it. You must have been editing at the same time as me and somehow the edit conflict has made it appear that I inserted the material. It was posted by 67.173.227.156. I have deleted it from this page too, as it's vandalism, not a legit contribution. SlimVirgin 04:48, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Revert

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)

Delete?

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)

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)

Why was this passage removed? "It should be noted that some such as Israel Shahak have drawn parallels between Chmielnicki revolt of 1648 and the great slave revolution in Santo Domingo, where many French women and children were butchered. He argues that since its perpetrators were primarily revolting against their immediate oppressors they cannot be simply classified as anti-French racists. Likewise, Shahak argues, the actions of the Ukrainian peasants cannot be simply described as acts of anti-semitism."

And this time there wasn't a problem with my browser.--Conch Shell 17:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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)

OK - you were only enforcing the WP:NPOV. However Shahak does not apologize for the massacres that accompanied the Chmielnicki revolt, he only attempts to put them in them in the same historical context as other atrocities committed by subjugated peoples against the immediate agents of their oppression. Shahak's thesis is that there must be only one standard to judge all such acts by.

Would I be violating the NPOV by elaborating Israel Shahak's ideas on his page? --Conch Shell 11:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nope, but be prepared for them to be refuted in the same place. Shahak makes up a lot of his historical and religious arguments from whole cloth --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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)

RE: "the Ukrainian Jews did not oppress other Ukrainians". The Ukrainian Jews lived in separate communities and acted as agents on behalf of the Ukrainian nobles. Shahak's point is that the massacres would probably still have taken place, even if the nobles' intermediaries hadn't been Jewish. Consequently it is a misnomer to describe the massacres as anti-semitic.

Shahak did not attempt to apologize for the massacre's perpetrators. Neither do I.--Conch Shell 10:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Besides which: proper encyclopedic language would reduce that to, "Israel Shahak has drawn parallels...", which leads to the question of "Who is Israel Shahak", and the answer is "an Israeli chemist", and then the next question is "what's so important about the historical perspective of an obscure chemist?" --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 06:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As a chemistry professor Shahak had a highly analytical mind which he also applied to Jewish history. He argued that all nation's histories were initially written from the perspective of that ethnic group. Later on, they went through a period of critical self-analysis in which other view-points were considered. This, he argues, has largely not happened with Jewish history.

Margaret Thatcher, who held a PHD in chemistry, applied her analytical skills to political therory and developed Thatcherism. This was probably the most influential ideology in British politics during the late twentieth century.

Chemists are not limited to the study of chemistry.--Conch Shell 10:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think a link to Israel Shahak should suffice. Indeed, my comment about him being an obscure chemist was ad hominem and not particularly valid anyway. However, his is a very minority position, and if it's mentioned at all need be mentioned as a very minority position. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Responses to anti-semitism

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)

Explanations of antisemitism

Explanations of antisemitism is probably a required topic but quite difficult to write. The literature is huge and there are many diverging perspectives and academic disciplines involved.

I removed the existing section "Scientific attempts to explain anti-Semitism". First of all the word "scientific" is generally not used about historical and cultural explanations, and thus sounds extremely pretentious. Secondly such a section requires a minimum of completeness and balance. To simply include one person (Kevin B. MacDonald) whose theories belong on the fringes of academic discourse, and who many people regard as an antisemite simply doesn't work

Until someone has the time to write a good overview with bibliographical pointers, it's better to leave out the section altogether. Any biased selection would be clearly POV.

Denis Diderot 13:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with the summary deletion of the section. There is some attempt made to balance it, as it says "These conclusions have been heavily criticized by Slate and others, including John Tooby, past president of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society." If you think it needs work, by all means have at it. You can't just delete something because you deem it to be incomplete. It seems to me your very objections and rationalizations here in this Talk section would make an excellent basis for revising the section.--A. S. A. 14:07, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

"There is some attempt made to balance it". Well, let me try to make this point clearer. Imagine an article about the American Revolution. Imagine a section called "Scientific explanations of the American Revolution". Imagine that this section only discusses a single theory of a single author who happens to explain everything in terms of a masonic conspiracy. Then som "balance" is introduced by mentioning that "these conclusions have been heavily criticized". Do you see why it won't work? A biased selection of theories will inevitably make it POV.

Denis Diderot 15:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As well, WP:NPOV is quite clear that "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." Jayjg ^(talk) 18:28, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Diderot is quite right. Isn't there someone who can summarize Sartre's explanation? There are others -- Richard Rubenstein has a somewhat psychoanalytic theory, Marx has one ... Slrubenstein | Talk 18:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've written on the Marx here: Roots of anti-Semitism: Karl Marx's On the Jewish Question, and linked it to the Karl Marx's article, in the section: Marx's critique of bourgeois democracy and of anti-Semitism . El_C 12:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. The preferred solution would be to complete it, not delete it. Also, you might want to consider changing the section title to "Purported scientific attempts to explain anti-Semitism" or something similar to signify that it is just a theory and not commonly accepted. Another way is not to give it a section of it's own, since it is so small, and rather incorporate it elsewhere in the article. Your reasonings here seem sound and to my way of thinking ought to be used to rebut the theory. Wholesale deletion might appear in the derogatory light of censorship. That reasoning (so called scientific) is by no means novel or limited to that fellow. We've all come across it from time to time haven't we? It's not isolated enough to be discarded entirely.--A. S. A. 18:42, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

MacDonald's "group evolutionary strategy" theory, and associated "science", is, as far as I know, unique to him. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Positions and sentiments described in the deleted section have a passing familiarity insofar as I've come across such reasoning, but it is not widely held, nor can I identify an actual formulated theory; only the general reasoning behind it. Regardless, I have said my piece regarding the dangers of censorship, and I think the article would be better served mentioning the theory, and the good rebuttals outlined by Diderot, but not it it's own section. I have not reverted the deletion or made any related edits because I am not qualified or informed in this area--A. S. A. 20:08, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Modern anti-semitism

The disclaimer at the top of the article says that modern anti-semitism is dealt with in another article, yet this article does in fact go on to talk about it. Shouldn't this material be deleted and (if necessary) merged with the other article? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the article attempted to make a distinction between Anti-Semitism in modern times, and "The New Anti-Semitism", which is discussed in the other article. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh; then perhaps the disclaimer should be made clearer. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I removed the outdated disclaimer which referred to an article that no longer exists. Modern anti-Semitism and "The New Anti-Semitism" were previously both part of one article but have since been seperated. The contnent of the original modern anti-semtism article that dealt with the non-controversial anti-semitism did has been include in this article. I don't think it needs to be a reworded discliamer refering to the "New Anti-Semitism" article as section on it at the bottom of this article will serve just fine in pointing people to that article. --Cab88 22:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I returned the disclaimer, if it can be called that. I think it is a useful disambiguation guide. Can it be edited rather than deleted? --AladdinSE 04:57, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC).

I rewrote the disclaimer so as refer directly to "New Anti-Semitism" and not "modern anti-Semitsm" which now simply links back here. An article dealing with modern antii-semtism after WWII could be created if one feels this article is too long to add such information. --Cab88 23:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)