726:
significant number of people believe this, and it is antithetical to
Knowledge to judge them as ignorant or weasely. We could also give space to two (logical) other views, that all criticisms of Israel are anti-Semitic (off hand I know of no one who believes this and would like to see hard evidence that a significant number of people believe this), and that no criticism of Israel can possibly be anti-Semitic (a position which, on its face, would seem hard to sustain and I no of no public figure who claims this -- but would be happy to see evidence that some significant number of people believe this). These remarks are meant to constructively guide us in working on this section. Can anyone suggest a more constructive approach that works within our goals of being encyclopedic and maintain NPOV?
737:
rather popular these days, with the preponderance of the inane rhetoric of the so-called War on Terror. But "criticism" simply means making comments, analyses, etc, some of which may be disagreeable but which still refer to something concrete - in that respect, a
Japanese person living abroad, or someone descended from Japanese persons, who criticizes Japanese culture/ media/ policy etc is no more "anti-Japanese" than a Jew in a similar position. There is a lot of baseless prejudice directed at Israel, and at many other nations; but that is different from criticism, because criticism is something legitimate. Calling Jews or perhaps Israelis, say, money-grabbers, is not criticism; it's prejudice. Saying Israelis occupy disputed land is not prejudice, it is criticism. Now the criticism may be
562:"of central relevance" to anti-Semitism, it is only one among several factors - it might be central to a specific anti-Semite's agenda, or a Jewish fundamentalist agenda, but it has no other privilege, and highlighting it only encourages the two extreme interpretations.3)There is a clear difference between the passage I removed and your explanation above. The removed passage uses terms like "God" and "His Will", capitalized, without any self-consciousness, ie without a concern for whether there are such things beyond theological confines. Your explanation, on the other hand, makes a historical generalization, without theological presumptions. But in either case I do not believe it worthy of inclusion as an example. --
742:
include being careful with the words in use, despite their inherent vagueness, instead of bandying them around to mean whatever they could possibly mean, which is what some members are engaged in here. If I call them simple-minded, I'm actually being generous in trying to account for the constant vandalism, lies, slander, propaganda and the basic ignorance, fear and prejudice that constitute their discussions, which is not going to change overnight. Being constructive would also include keeping them in check, so that even-handedness prevails over piles of garbage. --
711:
Israeli politicians and is disowned by most self-respecting
Israelis. The problem on this page, however, is constant vandalism and a subsequent revision of history by the vandals to make themselves seem like persecuted victims - when irrelevant material is removed after explanations, they keep pasting it back in; they remove neutralizing comments and POVs; they delete work without explanation and then cry "censorship" when their own additions have been removed after discussion; it is clearly difficult to work with such immature characters. --
189:
good. From Kerry Bolton 21 August 2003 This article from the
Waikato Times is interesting because shortly after, Edwards was on Paul Holmes' radio show, and both were discussing Jewish influence over the media very frankly. Both talked of the barrage of mail from Zionist interests which follows any criticism of Israel. I recall that years ago Holmes concluded one of his TV shows with a slight criticism of Israel. The next evening he was making a statement clarifiying that he and the station were not "anti-semitic."
423:
added. We said that according to groups A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, anti-Semitism was resurgent across the globe; links were then given so that people could follow up on this (e.g. the the report on resurgent anti-Semitism by the
European Union). Incredibly, Simonides repeatedly deleted all this NPOV data, then added polemical personal remarks denying that this phenomenom exists, offered us no sources, and repeatedly has given us a loony conspirary theory about "special interest groups" (i.e. the Jews.)
31:
725:
way assist in writing such an article. It is a fact that many people consider at least some criticisms of Israel to be anti-Semitic. How many people and who, and how many criticisms (some, most, or all) and which, are empirical questions we should research and try to answer. But it is clear that a
636:"early accusations of theological anti-Semitism" to me means that someone was accusing Christians of theological anti-Semitism. It seems unlikely that such accusations would have come from Christians, but that's what the rest of the sentence seems to say. Next, is the Church supposed to have co-opted
429:
Simonides then states that there are no sources to support the idea that anti-Semitism is on a resurgence...yet it is
Simonides himself who keeps deleting all of these sources. Note that Simonides is deleting sources from the European Union, the Secretary General of the UN, many researchers, and then
251:
Well, it's not my section or claim, I was just responding to the request for sources. I don't see the actual sentence or section in the article, but as you've presented it here it's a bit too convoluted to make any strong point. I think it's an important point that many view anti-Zionism as a cover
594:
Secular, as an adjective, simply means "not overtly religious"; in this case, since I removed the above passage on account of its overt religiosity, being neutral and being secular are synonymous. In that sense, an article that refers to any religious group needs to remain secular, without inserting
422:
Why is this article still protected? As far as I can tell, the only problem is User
Simonides. He is outrageously violating our NPOV policy. Our NPOV policy says that we do not just state a fact; rather, we say that Group A believes position B, while Group C believes position D. That is all that was
741:
by anti-Semitism, but when the criticism is legitimate the motivation is not only difficult to prove, but it becomes redundant. You can simply go around saying all criticism is motivated by racism or prejudice of some sort, and everything becomes a farce. So a "constructive" approach should always
710:
There are no real problems defining anti-Semitism among the sane and perceptive. Only ignoramuses, or rather weasely people involved in politics, or attention-grabbing simpletons see criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism or (when it applies) self-hate, a view that has been actively promoted by some
736:
The statement was a reply to Ed's "problem". There are plenty of statements on this page that do not assist in writing a good article, so your objection is superfluous. As for the latter point, you seem to be confusing the terms "criticism" and "hate/prejudice/etc." I understand this confusion is
188:
And don't fall for the huff-and-puff of those individuals who attempt to bluff and bully you into silence by using this stupid and senseless word 'antisemitism'. Users of this word are morally and intellectually bankrupt because they use the racist concept to pervert humanity, and that cannot be
751:
Thank you for your clarificaton. I think your distinction between criticism and prejudice/hatred is valid and valuable. Given how contentious this issue is, I suggest not only being careful about which words you use, but being more explicit so that other readers (and remember, most readers of
143:
Would whoever added this "straw man" section in the first place care to source either claim? Who says that this is "one of the new forms of anti-Semitism, and who says that "Jews view all criticisms of Israel or of
Zionism as anti-Semitic"? If this claim is sourced, it can be edited into an
668:
But I am not a "self-hating Jew", and I don't think it's _all_ our fault that the subject of anti-Semitism is so muddled. At least 75% of the problem (maybe 98%?) comes from groups so vehemently hostile to us that they feel no qualms whatsoever about telling outright lies. This morning's
513:"God"? "His Will"? Rabbinic exclamations? What is this doing here as an example? I don't see the need for a vague, presumptuous, hypothetical and theological passage on a secular encyclopedia article, but if the majority can agree it is essential, then it should at least be reworded. --
205:
The greatest ideological weapon in the
Zionist arsenal is the charge of antisemitism...If I accomplish nothing else in this talk, I hope to create space for some who are repelled by Israeli actions but are held back from condemning Zionism by a desire not to be
720:
The purpose of talk pages is to facilitate work on the article. As Ed remarks, the article should be neutral and accurate. Statements like "Only ignoramuses, or rather weasly people involved in politics, or attention-grabbing simpletons" in
582:
Neutral and secular are never synonymous when discussing religion, as secularism is itself a POV. It's significant enough to be well worth presenting, but it (secularism) should be presented neutrally as one more Point Of View.
656:
One problem with saying what anti-Semitism _is_, is that we Jewish people are very sensitive -- and especially wary since the
Holocaust. I think this sensitivity and wariness can sometimes blind us to the distinction between:
389:. There is always a "good" reason, even if it is self-contradictory: Jews brought about Communism (alt: Capitalism, etc), they are powerful and mean (alt: they dribble their victimhood and make industry out of it), etc.
557:
1)Neutral and secular are synonymous in the current context. 2)Many major religions claim a history of connection to their idols or gods - the Jewish do so in their own way. "The claim of being the chosen people" is
469:
A contributor may edit an article so as to cast doubt upon a piece of evidence, for example by listing the names of people and organizations who disbelieve in the authenticity of that particular piece of evidence.
752:
Knowledge are not going to be as careful with words as most editors) will be clear. You may want to specify "criticism of Israeli politics or policies" or "specific criticisms (as opposed to general hatred)"
118:
criticisms of Israel or of Zionism as anti-Semitic"? Answer: nobody I've ever heard of. With some effort, you might be able to find someone making the massive over-generalization that Jews view all
573:
Surely you're not saying Knowledge is obligated to write a "secular" article about a major religion ("the Jewish" as you put it) and how people hate or oppose them -- merely to be "neutral". --
546:
generally call these biblical remarks "anti-Semitic". So it's plain that the making of adverse or criticl remarks is not necessarily anti-Semitic -- it's more complex than that. --
234:
OK, that's enough sources for claim (2), though a few of them don't belong in the list. Now how about claim (1) - who says that this is "one of the new forms of anti-Semitism?" -
506:
Posted by Ed Poor: "For instance, if God proposed to punish the ancient Israelites for disobedience to His will, ought this to be considered anti-Semitic?
360:"Anti-Semitism" is a characterisation of political speech and opinion as belonging to (or exacerbating of) irrational persecutory sentiments toward Jews.
110:"Some hold that one of the new forms of anti-Semitism is the claim that Jews view all criticisms of Israel or of Zionism as anti-Semitic." - uh,
172:
whereas the anti-semitic classic relates every calamity to Jewish conspiracy, Jews relate to anti-semitic conspiracy every criticism of Israel.
277:. And because I lack tact and good judgement, I thought I'd submit it for review here on the talk, rather than just leave things be. Thanks, -
466:
is rather a transparent tactic of denial. It has no place in Knowledge collaboration, but there is a similar tactic which does have a place.
595:
fluff like "His Will", that assumes specific religious beliefs among its readers. Nowhere was secularism as a doctrine brought up. --
521:
But this is not a "secular encyclopedia article". It's a neutral article on a people who claim a history of connection to God (via
164:
What is more, the use of "antisemitism" has long been an opportunistic ploy of supporters of Israel to counter criticism of Israel
385:
It is in a human nature to rationalize our actions or beliefs. Never met (or read about) any AS who would admit their hatred is
197:
Only one vital step to go now in this tawdry logic: Israel is a Jewish state, therefore any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic.
542:
which Jews themselves revere contains dozens if not hundreds of adverse remarks about the ancient Jews; and Jewish leaders do
273:, I read up a little, and that led me to rewrite the intro as a line by line definition. It's modeled after the compromise at
97:
89:
84:
72:
67:
59:
684:
In the face of unremitting hostility, one is apt to become tongue-tied or even confused. As Christian psychiatrist
38:
493:
It's better to add comments; it's best to know whether someone is lying before you rush to their defense. --
408:
270:
615:
While many more subtle manifestations of Church anti-Semitism can be traced to anti-Jewish sentiment in
619:, these more blatant early accusations of theological anti-Semitism has been particularly prevalent in
610:
I removed the following paragraph because I couldn't make heads or tails of what it was trying to say:
624:
282:
691:
I condemn anti-Semitism, of course, but the challenge we Wikipedians face is how to write about it:
404:
401:
252:
for anti-Semitism and/or a form of anti-Semitism and/or anti-Semitic in result, if not intent.
753:
727:
442:
191:
47:
17:
126:
towards Israel, as anti-Semitic, but even that will be difficult. "Straw man" is right! -
278:
698:
neutrally -- which is even harder: how can one write about murder without getting upset?
743:
712:
596:
563:
514:
494:
199:
441:
RK, may I help? Let's start with "being better than our opponents", so as to take the
182:
685:
539:
526:
235:
145:
127:
703:
688:
says, one of the touchstones of evil is that one becomes confused in its presence.
670:
620:
574:
547:
486:
446:
158:
135:
644:. If this can be clarified, then it might be possible to examine it for accuracy.
631:
mythology were not co-opted by the Church since they countered Christian doctrine.
166:
156:
What the ADL is trying to do is equate all criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.
661:
valid criticisms of the behavior or thinkng of Jewish individuals or groups; and,
645:
584:
347:
313:
298:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
628:
253:
220:
174:
702:
That's where I'm coming from, and I hope it helps us all with the article. --
332:
274:
180:
The Zionists refuse to separate criticism of Israel from criticism of Jews.
208:
344:
340:
382:
Any "ism" has its history, which should not be a part of its definition.
522:
434:
424:
336:
328:
445:. I'm going to refator your remarks above accordingly, if I may. --
674:
616:
507:
458:
I think that removing evidence and than claiming that the lack of
695:
accurately -- which is hard, since its practitioners lie about it
318:
302:
25:
375:
is an AS? The current def is: it is animosity towards them
192:
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Racecard/antisemitism4.htm
134:
Indeed. That whole fourth section needs a good pruning. --
144:
acceptable state; if not, it should simply be removed. -
200:
http://www.eclipsereview.org/issue9/antisemitism.htm
371:Would this mean that anyone who persecutes any Jew
183:
http://www.studentorg.vcu.edu/fpn/antisemitism.html
159:http://www.cairotimes.com/news/antisemitism.html
664:completely unwarranted criticism or persecution
167:http://www.swans.com/library/art8/herman05.html
219:Is that enough sources, or do you need more?
8:
510:generally say no (or "I should say not!")."
485:-- thus-providing a source for the doubt. --
483:so and so doubts the veracity of this source
175:http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h092903.html
529:" is of central relevance to the issue of
392:I see the same subjectivity problem with
209:http://racetraitor.org/massarttalk.html
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
642:the rejection of the Exodus mythology
533:so many people hate (or oppose) Jews.
7:
418:Why is this article still protected?
627:sentiment and the rejection of the
525:). Indeed, the claim of being the "
343:, that at times has escalated into
24:
321:, dating back thousands of years.
430:denying that any sources exist.
29:
652:Problems defining anti-Semitism
353:"Anti-Semitism" can refer to a
538:Anyway, the point is that the
377:as a religious or ethnic group
327:refers to an overt irrational
1:
770:
357:latent animus toward Jews.
437:00:58, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
706:21:20, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
648:16:35, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
517:23:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
489:22:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
477:sources, it's better to
432:That is called trolling.
286:18:55, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
130:08:28, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
746:02:14, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
715:22:28, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
599:22:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
587:16:35, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
577:14:10, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
566:06:00, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
550:02:08, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
497:23:37, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
449:22:52, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
411:22:18, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
256:19:44, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
238:18:41, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
223:18:36, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
148:23:25, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
138:10:06, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
114:claims that "Jews view
677:'s head, listing four
640:, or to have co-opted
462:proves that there is
42:of past discussions.
638:the Exodus mythology
464:no evidence whatever
673:has an article by
481:a comment such as
460:presented evidence
454:Dealing with doubt
433:
331:toward Jews as an
269:Since I added the
443:moral high ground
431:
265:Definition, again
103:
102:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
18:Talk:Antisemitism
761:
398:characterisation
106:Straw men galore
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
769:
768:
764:
763:
762:
760:
759:
758:
681:of these lies.
654:
608:
504:
456:
420:
267:
108:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
767:
765:
757:
756:
749:
748:
747:
731:
730:
717:
716:
700:
699:
696:
666:
665:
662:
653:
650:
634:
633:
607:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
589:
588:
579:
578:
570:
569:
568:
567:
552:
551:
535:
534:
503:
500:
499:
498:
455:
452:
451:
450:
419:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
390:
383:
380:
373:for any reason
364:
362:
361:
358:
351:
322:
310:refers to the
305:
290:
266:
263:
262:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
244:
243:
242:
241:
240:
239:
227:
226:
225:
224:
214:
213:
212:
211:
202:
194:
185:
177:
169:
161:
150:
149:
140:
139:
122:to Israel, or
107:
104:
101:
100:
95:
92:
87:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
766:
755:
750:
745:
740:
735:
734:
733:
732:
729:
724:
719:
718:
714:
709:
708:
707:
705:
697:
694:
693:
692:
689:
687:
686:M. Scott Peck
682:
680:
676:
672:
663:
660:
659:
658:
651:
649:
647:
643:
639:
632:
630:
626:
625:Anti-Egyptian
622:
618:
613:
612:
611:
605:
598:
593:
592:
591:
590:
586:
581:
580:
576:
572:
571:
565:
561:
556:
555:
554:
553:
549:
545:
541:
540:Old Testament
537:
536:
532:
528:
527:chosen people
524:
520:
519:
518:
516:
511:
509:
501:
496:
492:
491:
490:
488:
484:
480:
476:
471:
467:
465:
461:
453:
448:
444:
440:
439:
438:
436:
427:
426:
417:
410:
406:
405:Humus sapiens
402:
399:
395:
391:
388:
384:
381:
378:
374:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
359:
356:
352:
349:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
325:Anti-Semitism
323:
320:
316:
315:
309:
308:Anti-Semitism
306:
304:
300:
296:
295:Anti-Semitism
293:
292:
291:
287:
285:
284:
280:
276:
272:
264:
255:
250:
249:
248:
247:
246:
245:
237:
233:
232:
231:
230:
229:
228:
222:
218:
217:
216:
215:
210:
207:
203:
201:
198:
195:
193:
190:
186:
184:
181:
178:
176:
173:
170:
168:
165:
162:
160:
157:
154:
153:
152:
151:
147:
142:
141:
137:
133:
132:
131:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
105:
99:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
754:Slrubenstein
738:
728:Slrubenstein
722:
701:
690:
683:
678:
671:New York Sun
667:
655:
641:
637:
635:
621:Christianity
614:
609:
606:deleted text
559:
543:
530:
512:
505:
482:
478:
474:
473:Rather than
472:
468:
463:
459:
457:
428:
421:
397:
393:
386:
376:
372:
363:
354:
324:
311:
307:
294:
288:
281:
268:
206:antisemitic.
204:
196:
187:
179:
171:
163:
155:
123:
119:
115:
111:
109:
78:
43:
37:
348:persecution
314:persecution
312:history of
299:persecution
36:This is an
679:categories
394:perception
387:irrational
120:opposition
98:ArchiveĀ 15
90:ArchiveĀ 12
85:ArchiveĀ 11
79:ArchiveĀ 10
744:Simonides
739:motivated
713:Simonides
597:Simonides
564:Simonides
515:Simonides
495:Simonides
355:percieved
333:ethnicity
275:terrorism
73:ArchiveĀ 9
68:ArchiveĀ 8
60:ArchiveĀ 5
704:Uncle Ed
575:Uncle Ed
548:Uncle Ed
487:Uncle Ed
475:deleting
447:Uncle Ed
365:--/clip
341:religion
271:template
236:Mustafaa
146:Mustafaa
128:Mustafaa
523:Judaism
345:violent
337:culture
317:toward
297:is the
283:vertigo
136:Viajero
39:archive
646:Wesley
629:Exodus
585:Wesley
508:Rabbis
329:animus
289:--clip
124:enmity
675:MEMRI
617:Egypt
254:Jayjg
221:Jayjg
16:<
502:Huh?
409:Talk
396:and
319:Jews
303:Jews
623:.
560:not
544:not
531:why
479:add
339:or
301:of
279:Ste
116:all
112:who
723:no
435:RK
425:RK
400:.
335:,
94:ā
64:ā
407:ā
403:ā
379:.
350:.
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.