Talk:Antisemitism and Pride 2: Difference between pages

Revision as of 21:39, 15 December 2006

Revision as of 18:54, 14 July 2007

Line 1:

{{incomplete}}

{{WikiProject Jewish history}}

{{facfailed}}

{{Infobox MMA event

{{Message_box|

| name = PRIDE 2

id =antisemitism|

| image = PRIDE FC II.jpg

backgroundcolor =Pink|

| promotion = [[PRIDE Fighting Championships]]

image =Stop_hand.svg|

| date = [[March 15]], [[1998]]

heading = We know that the [[Semitic|Semites]] include Arabs.|

| venue = [[Yokohama Arena]]

message = Please see [[Antisemitism#Etymology_and_usage]] for why antisemitism exclusively means anti-Jewish sentiment.}}

| city = [[Yokohama]]

| attendance =

| buyrate =

| previousevent = [[PRIDE 1]]

| followingevent = [[PRIDE 3]]

}}

'''PRIDE 2''' was a [[mixed martial arts]] event held by [[PRIDE|KRS-PRIDE]] (later renamed PRIDE Fighting Championships). It took place at [[Yokohama Arena]] in [[Yokohama]], [[Japan]] on March 15, 1998. Kazushi Sakuraba, Mark Kerr, Vernon White, and Marco Ruas all made their PRIDE debuts at this event.

{| class="infobox" width="270px"

|-

!align="center" |[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br>[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]

----

|-

| align="center" |'''Chronological archives'''

|-

|

* [[/Archive 1|1]], [[/Archive 2|2]], [[/Archive 3|3]], [[/Archive 4|4]], [[/Archive 5|5]], [[/Archive 6|6]], [[/Archive 7|7]], [[/Archive 8|8]], [[/Archive 9|9]], [[/Archive 10|10]],

* [[/Archive 11|11]], [[/Archive 12|12]], [[/Archive 13|13]], [[/Archive 14|14]], [[/Archive 15|15]], [[/Archive 16|16]], [[/Archive 17|17]], [[/Archive 18|18]], [[/Archive 19|19]], [[/Archive 20|20]],

* [[/Archive 21|21]], [[/Archive 22|22]], [[/Archive 23|23]], [[/Archive 24|24]] ...

|-

|

----

|-

| align="center" colspan="2"|'''Topical archives'''

|-

|

* [[/Abuse|Supposed abuse of the term "Anti-Semitism"]]

* [[/Etymology|Etymology and usage issues]]

* [[/Etymology complete|Etymology (complete)]]

* ''See also'': [[Talk:Anti-Zionism]]

|}

==Bullshit removed==

Removed this:

== Results ==

As of December 01, on estimation of the author of this remark, there is perhaps as little as several weeks before total destruction of Russia's Jewish diaspora, the fact clearly known by local Jewish religious leaders (although not all of them) but for some reason deliberately hidden from the Jews. Author of this note has attempted to warn the Jews and did whatever he could but to no avail. Author of this note knowns the reason for this treachery and suggest that the readers consider it in view of the coming events. Author of this note suspects that the local population is watching some video films which show in good quality the dietary habits some self-proclaimed Jews. While what is happening is apparent to anyone with a trained professional eye, the Jews (deceived by their leaders) see nothing and are being pacified by the leaders. Author suspects somehow that the leaders (which in his view has sold the Jews to the enemy) expect a war conflict with America to save their own asses, which wouldn't affect the ignorant Jews of the diaspora most likely.

==={{flagicon| BRA}} [[Royler Gracie]] vs. {{flagicon| JPN}} [[Naoki Sano|Yuhi Sano]]===

-

Gracie defeated Sano by armbar at 33:14 of round 1.

- Did you know that? Maybe it is time to stop being a fool and do something to prevent this? Especially considering the global character of the problem. Maybe the noble Mossad will stop hating me for attemting to help the Jews and attempts to perform their real duty? Or is there any other way to save someone's treacherous asses still available? Or maybe it is me who is the enemy of Jews for telling this? Or what? Disgraceful treachery.

==={{flagicon| BRA}} [[Juan Mott]] vs. {{flagicon| JPN}} [[Akira Shoji]]===

:Whoa -- who wrote this? Was it the ever "[[end times]]" obsessed [[Glenn Beck]]? Or perhaps it was [[Vladimir Putin]]'s slimy American [[doppelgaenger]]? Seems like we'll never know I suppose. Based on this individual's assessment, it seems like NYC better start watching its water-supply extra carefully in the coming weeks and months -- looks like we're in for an '[[Ashkenazi]] implosion.' THANKS so much for the enigmatic warning, Anon! --[[User:Pseudothyrum|Pseudothyrum]] 04:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Shoji defeated Mott by submission (Rear Naked Choke) at 3:47 of round 1.

::Sorry, I couldn't resist another quick jab (though this one may be a bit below the belt). Anon writes: "Author of this note suspects that the local population is watching some video films which show in good quality the dietary habits some self-proclaimed Jews." -- this person must be referring to the copious amounts of [[Methylenedioxymethamphetamine|ecstasy pill]]s (aka [[MDMA]]) being consumed by Jews (whether they are religious or secular) these days. It's very well known that Israeli crime-syndicates operating largely out of the Netherlands and a few other strategic countries [http://www.cbp.gov/custoday/oct1999/ecstasy.htm] control the worldwide ecstasy market. I've even heard of certain (very naughty) Jews wrapping the tablets in strips of bacon and then downing them...talk about "unclean." All in the name of 'good fun,' of course. Oy! The walls are alive with the smell of [[Tzaraath]]... --[[User:Pseudothyrum|Pseudothyrum]] 05:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

==={{flagicon| JPN}} [[William Roosmalen]] vs. {{flagicon| USA}} [[Ralph White]]===

== Recent Additions ==

William Roosmalen defeated Ralph White by KO (knee to the body).

==={{flagicon| JPN}} [[Kazushi Sakuraba]] vs. {{flagicon| USA}} [[Vernon White]]===

Bait or, Bat Ye'or is not a reliable source for her views --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 08:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sakuraba defeated White by submission (armbar) at 6:53 of round 3.

:Nonsesne. How come a scholar cannot be a reliable source for his or her own view? [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 08:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

==={{flagicon| BRA}} [[Renzo Gracie]] vs. {{flagicon| JPN}} [[Sanae Kikuta]]===

::For using them in wikipedia per [[WP:RS]] --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 08:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Gracie defeated Kikuta by submission (guillotine choke) at :43 round 6.

==={{flagicon| TRI}} [[Gary Goodridge]] vs. {{flagicon| BRA}} [[Marco Ruas]]===

:::What? Again, I just cannot understand what you mean, if anything. [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 09:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ruas defeated Goodridge by submission (Heel Hook) at 9:09 of round 1.

==={{flagicon| CRO}} [[Branko Cikatic]] vs. {{flagicon| USA}} [[Mark Kerr]]===

Lewis, Cohen, Esposito all reject her as having extreme views and writing myth. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 08:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Cikatic was disqualified for grabbing the ropes at 2:14 of the first round.

:References? I'm not aware of Lewis or Cohen rejecting her "as having extreme views and writing myth". [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 08:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

==See also==

References:

* [[List of PRIDE events]]

== External links==

[[Bernard Lewis]] states that<blockquote>"If we look at the considerable literature available about the position of Jews in the Islamic world, we find two well-established myths. One is the story of a golden age of equality, of mutual respect and cooperation, especially but not exclusively in Moorish Spain; the other is of [[dhimmitude|“dhimmi”-tude]], of subservience and persecution and ill treatment. Both are myths. Like many myths, both contain significant elements of truth, and the historic truth is in its usual place, somewhere in the middle between the extremes."cf. Bernard Lewis, [http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/21832.html 'The New Anti-Semitism'], The American Scholar Journal - Volume 75 No. 1 Winter 2006 pp. 25-36. </blockquote>

* [http://www.pridefc.com/ Official PRIDE Website]

* [http://www.sherdog.com/fightfinder/fightfinder.asp?search=yes&eventid=47 Sherdog.com]

Lewis says these are myths and that like many myths, both contain significant elements of truth and according to Mark Cohen, Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, they equally distort the past. ref: Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. by Mark R. Cohen. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01082-X, p.xvii , p.11

{{mixedmartialart-stub}}

Lewis in his book The Jews of Islam listed one of Bat Ye'or books as emphasizing the negative aspects of the Muslim record.

[[Category:Mixed martial arts events|PRIDE 02]]

[[Category:1998 in sports]]

:This is the only explicit mention of her in the quotes above. "Emphasizing negative aspects" does not even remotely equal "having extreme views and writing myth". What Lewis means is that Bat Ye'or is correct about the facts, but the fact she presents do not amount to a full picture. If anything, this citation confirms Bat Ye'or's standing because in the same footnote to Chapter 1 of ''The Jews of Islam'' Lewis reviews works of [[Antoine Fattal]], [[Arthur Stanley Tritton]], [[Shelomo Dov Goitein]], [[Norman Stillman]], and other distinguiahed scholars. This is an enviable company to be in. [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 09:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

:: You can refer to Cohen's book or read [[Dhimmitude]] about this term. "The term entered English-language use after the 1996 publication of the book "The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam. From Jihad to Dhimmitude. Seventh-Twentieth Century"[2] and the 2003 followup "Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide"[3] by Bat Ye'or. She is widely thought to have invented the word[4] but she credits assassinated Lebanese Maronite leader Bashir Gemayel for the term."--[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 09:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

::: Read this [http://www.meforum.org/article/396] Beit Or. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 09:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

::::"Go read something" is an offensive comment, not a response to my argument. [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 09:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::Beit or, I didn't say go read... Anyways, all I added was well sourced to Lewis. Do you think Bat Ye'or contradicts Lewis and Cohen? --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 09:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[[John Esposito]], a professor of International Affairs and Islamic Studies at [[Georgetown University]], criticized Bat Ye'or for lacking academic credentials. <ref> Reported in "State of 'dhimmitude' seen as threat to Christians, Jews" by Jula Duin appeared in "Washington Times," October 30, 2002 </ref>

:Frankly, I can't care it less for the opinions of that Saudi-sponsored writer, who never produced a single valuanle piece of research. [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 09:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

:: He is an scholar. And that's my point. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 09:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Really? What topics did he research? What did he contribute to our knowledge of Islam? [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 09:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Being the editor-in-chief of The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, The Oxford History of Islam, The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, and Oxford’s The Islamic World: Past and Present is enough. He is quite wellknown.--[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 09:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

--

The previous version[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism&diff=88772837&oldid=88772548] is unsourced and when it is sourced, it is sourced to Bat Ye'or. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 08:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

:What about George Gruen? And are contending that one needs a secondary source for the Qur'an? [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 08:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

: For Qur'an yes, it is a primary source. please read [[WP:RS]]. Most of the sentences there are unreferenced and account for original research (please see [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]). You can also have a look at the sourced material I've used and their references. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 08:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

:I've pointed to you at leats one more good source and you have ignored it. Furthermore, inline references are not required, and this article has extensive literature in the "references" section. [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 09:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

:: The Qur'an on its own couldn't be used(it is a primary source) and if one references to a book, page number and book should be specified. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 09:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the documents Bat Ye'or presents are useful but her conclusions are not. And that's the point of others objection. She acts like a lawyer and tries to prove a pre-decided case rather than having a quest for truth. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 08:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

:It's just your personal opinion, which has no significance. [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 08:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Eitherway. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 09:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have to use Lewis et al to buttress your point, you must be in trouble.

==There was no such a thing, yeah right==

: The version that starts with "There was not such a thing that would be called Antisemitism in Muslim lands before the establishment of the state of Israel" is severely POV and factually wrong. I am not saying the other version is perfect, but [[quote mining]] cannot not change facts. See [[Maimonides]], [[Farhud]], etc. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 10:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, that's true. please find secondary academic sources(preferably not a medieval one) for that to *make it neutral* (if you think it is not). You can at most argue that it is POV not that it is unfactual.

H.S. regarding [[quote mining]], please see [[WP:Assume good faith]] (an official policy).

By mainmoinds you probably refer to his letter to the Jews of Yemen. Regarding that [[Mark Cohen]] however quotes Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson, a specialist in medieval European Jewish history, who cautioned that Maimonides' condemnation of Islam should be understood "in the context of the harsh persections of the twelfth century and that furthermore one may say that he was insufficiently aware of the status of the Jews in Christian lands, or did not pay attention to this, when he wrote the letter". Cohen, continues by quoting Ben-Sasson who argues that Jews generally had a better legal and security situation in the Muslim countries than in Christendom --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 10:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I am going to sleep for now. bye bye--[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 10:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

: I do AGF, thanks for reminding. No, I am not talking about only one letter. Maimonides was a refugee from the [[Almohades]]. And "better than Chr-ty" does not mean there was no AS. To say "There was not such a thing" would be ''factually'' wrong. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 10:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

H.S., the point is that hostility or persecution is not equal to anti-semtism. Anti-Semitism is a theological hostility; to persecute Jews simply because they are Jews. Surely, Christians were also persecuted under [[Almohades]]. Anti-Semitism is a purely western concept alien to traditional Islam, Lewis says(please see the above link). Cheers, --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 10:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please also read the above discussion. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 10:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

: I wish this was true, but it is not. And Farhud you decided to avoid. Even your version is full of "however" and omits important (but I guess inconvenient) points - you replaced them with template sect-stub. Won't work. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 11:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

H.S. the stub is for new-antisemitism. I dunno about Farhud. It happened in 19xx, please find a reliable source published by a renowned press /or written by a renowned scholar and add it. If you are in the process of finding it, then please add POV tag. Your approach is not proper. You are removing reliable sources and replace them with OR. That's unacceptable. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 11:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

H.S. A quote doesn't fix the OR problem. I need to check the source yet. The publisher is New York: HarperCollins Publishers, not a univ press or other ones which particularly publish scholarly books, meaning that it is not peer reviewed. The claim is so strange. In comparison with Christianity Lewis states:

:"But until fairly modern times there was a much higher degree of tolerance in most of the Islamic lands than prevailed in the Christian world. For centuries, in most of Europe Christians were very busy persecuting each other; in their spare time, they were persecuting Jews and expelling Muslims—all at a time when, in the Ottoman Empire and some other Islamic states, Jews and several varieties of Christians were living side by side fairly freely and comfortably."

And this tells me more that there should be problems with your source. Will add some quote from Cohen soon. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 11:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[[Mark Cohen]] states that "Islam has, despite of many upsets, shown more toleration than Europe towards the Jews who remained in Muslim lands". cf Cohen (1995) p.xvii --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 11:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Lewis states that in most respects the position of Dhimmis "was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval Europe": for example, in contrast, Dhimmis rarely faced martydom or exile, or forced compulsion to change their religion, and with certain exceptions they were free in their choice of residence and profession.--[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 11:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

:Sourced text which was referenced by scholarly publishers like [[Princeton University Press]] is removed and text from [[HarperCollins Publishers]] is added, which is not even a scholarly press. And still we are asked to [[WP:AGF|Assume Good Faith]]. [[User:truthspreader|<b><small><font color="#0D9D2D">TruthSpreader</font></small></b>]]^{[[User talk:truthspreader|<font color="#0C9AAD">Talk</font>]]} 11:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Even then, the added source doesn't mention the word "antisemitism". It should be specifically linked to anti-semtism. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 11:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The scholarship of the author should be checked. The paragraph, to my eyes, is contradicting Lewis's arguments. I don't have Lewis book with myself now though.--[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 11:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

:[[Paul Johnson (journalist)]] is a journalist! [[User:truthspreader|<b><small><font color="#0D9D2D">TruthSpreader</font></small></b>]]^{[[User talk:truthspreader|<font color="#0C9AAD">Talk</font>]]} 11:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

:Every book, which has [[ISBN]] doesn't make it a scholarly work. To the best of my knowledge, all polemics also have ISBNs for their publications. It is the publisher that distinguishes a scholarly book from others. [[User:truthspreader|<b><small><font color="#0D9D2D">TruthSpreader</font></small></b>]]^{[[User talk:truthspreader|<font color="#0C9AAD">Talk</font>]]} 11:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

:: Of course, it doesn't. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 11:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

My own 2c of why his argument is not true: TruthSpreader might not agree with this argument though :) The regulation of Dhimmi, most of it, was designed later, not even by the four khalifa (the pact of Omar was written later). The jizya (Qur'an 9:29) verse refers to particular oath-breaking Jews and Christians at the time of Muhammad. Those Jews happened to worship Ezra as the Son of God, a heretic view, thus Qur'an treated them like polytheist (I have academic references for all these) (next verse to jizya verse: Qur'an 9:30). Thus most of the regulations was written later, partly copied from Byzantium, party from Persian, but initially in an attempt to be tolerant towards Dhimmis. But the problem was that the fair and usual definition of tolerance as understood and applied in pre-modern time was that: "I am in charge. I will allow you some though not all of the rights and privileges that I enjoy, provided that you behave yourself according to rules that I will lay down and enforce." Thus, that theory/practice idea is just off. Of course, later Muslims at times persecuted Jews, no question about that. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 11:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

:Aminz, if you want other people to take your comments seriously and respond to them, keep your comments succint and to the point. [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 14:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

::OK, this is a sticky one, If we assume that ''"I am in charge. I will allow you some though not all of the rights and privileges that I enjoy, provided that you behave yourself according to rules that I will lay down and enforce."'' is a fair description of freedom and equality in pre-modern times then the Muslim attitude towards Jews goes beyond this. Jews were advisors, Judges and Ministers under several Muslim Dynasties this showed that if you abide by the laws of the land (which the Jews where part of) then you enjoy [[Freedom of religion]] and allowed to live within the law.

::The fact of the matter is that Jews were not attacked because they are Jewish, Some Jews were targeted along with Christians and other sects because they were not Muslim and these incidents were very rare and did not constitute an official or unofficial practise amongst Muslims.

::As for your Quran quotes these quotes refer to unique events in the past and no where in the text dose it say that, in furture, Jews should be targeted because of their faith or the way they look, talk or because they are rich or successful (which what anti-Semitism is) People of the Book are protected in Islam, so the rule is to protect and not to oppress.

::JEWS AND CHRISTIANS were awarded special status in the Muslim Empire and in many cases were treated as equals; there were never any systematic hate or incitement to hate Jews in pre-modern Muslim regions. Muslim attitudes towards Jews were the antonym of Christian attitudes. Jews are only treated equally in Europe under some secular states (mostly out of guilt and shame). --[[User:Palestine48|Palestine48]] 05:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

::: Was Islam less oppressive than medieval Christian antisemitism? Definitely.

::: Is this a true statement: "There was not such a thing that would be called Antisemitism in Muslim lands before the establishment of the state of Israel"? Definitely not. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 23:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Being oppressive has nothing to do anti-semitism. persecution <> antisemitism. And you are right, antisemtism was not entirely absent as scholars usually assume. I haven't read S. D. Goitein's argument carefully. I just browsed it. I remember Cohen was also pointing out to some signs of existence of antisemitism. You might want to read his book. In overall there is a consensus among scholars (not myth-writers) that antisemitism was alien to Islam and Muslim culture. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 00:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

== Reverting ==

This is not accceptable &mdash; "There was not such a thing that would be called Antisemitism in Muslim lands before the establishment of the state of Israel (However S. D. Goitein argues that anti-semitism was not entirely absent as it is assumed and aims to prove its existences through Geniza letters .." It's not properly written; the first sentence isn't sourced; and the Geniza letters are mentioned without being explained. Please stop reverting to it. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 02:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, the other version is full of OR. You've already seen some of the sources. Please also have a look at the two last one. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 02:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:Also, please read the above two sections. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 02:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

== Edit War ==

First of all, I would like to express my resentment at the assertion in an edit summary that I've promoted any original research here. I reverted the article once for the following reasons, and after all of about a minute and a half of reviewing the new version:

* The new version appeared to have removed a significant amount of information, which could just as easily have been included with <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags, at least long enough for a concerned party to find sources for said information.

* The new version appeared to replace what had been on the page (which I had not read in detail) with a copious amount of apparently controversial information, which gave the appearance that the author was replacing sections of the article with his or her own opinions.

* The new version had been reverted to several times on the basis that it was the "scholarly" version; where the other version had been reverted to on the basis that the new version was removing too much information. This gave the appearance that the author of the new version was engaged in an edit war with multiple other editors, cementing my belief that he or she was a common vandal.

I edited the article as a good faith effort to combat what I had thought was vandalism on Wikipedia. I am now writing this in response to several blunt, rude, and frankly irrelevant comments on my talk page. I would like to apologize for ever becoming involved and step out, encouraging you folks to seek mediation rather than flooding the article history with an edit war. I'd also encourage you to learn to assume good faith. I've stated my reasons for thinking that Aminz was a vandal, and apologized. Evidence that I'm a vandal includes my failure to post here and the fact that some of the content in the version I reverted was sourced. If every removal of sourced content constituted vandalism, Wikipedia comes to a standstill, sorry. But here's my point: I've never read this article in full, I was making a good-faith mistake by reverting it, and I don't appreciate the influx of accusations and abuse on my talk page as a result of my very limited and brief involvement. I've apologized, not much more you can expect from me.

Hope you all decide to get a mediator. -[[User:Moralis|Moralis]] 02:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Moralis, the information that was already there in the article was in contradiction with reliable sources and had to go away. They were OR. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 03:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:Hence my apology and refrain from further edits. I think you're failing to realize that I'm not arguing with you. --[[User:Moralis|Moralis]] 03:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:: I apologize for there is a possibility that it turns out that I am wrong; and you are leaving. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 03:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

== Dhimmi + Antisemtism ? ==

I also found this comment from an admin from way back: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam_and_antisemitism#Dhimmi_.2B_anti-Semitism.3F]. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 05:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

== My revert ==

I reverted the latest edit again because the writing is poor, the sourcing poor, and some of it is clearly false. However, the version I reverted to is a little problematic too because the first part seems to be OR. We can't quote from the Koran directly; we have to find a reliable secondary source who makes that point. Also, I'm not sure it's a good idea to rely entirely on Bat Ye'or; she's controversial and it's not clear how qualified. I'm not saying she can't be used, because she does count as a reliable source, but I'd caution against relying on her as a sole source for any contentious point. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 20:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:Actually, the only sentence sourced to Bat Ye'or is the one her introducing the term "dhimmitude". The rest of the first paragraph is more or less common knowledge... [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 20:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

::You need to source "common knowledge" items. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small>} 23:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please point to an specific sentence which was false (per other sourced material you have of course). Please show one poorly sourced material. Also, Dhimmi regulation has nothing to do with Anti-semitism since it was also applied to Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus etc etc. Antisemtism is a theological hostility towards Jews and Lewis makes it clear *again and again* in his book, the Jews of Islam, that "In Islamic society hostility to the Jew is non-theological. It is not related to any specific Islamic doctrine, nor to any specific circumstance in Islamic sacred history." that it is quite different from Christian antisemtism. Normal Stillman states that during 19th and 20th century the anti-semitic ideas were imported into Muslim lands but were "too new and too palpably foreign for any widespread acceptance among Muslims" and were only found a reception among Arabic-speaking Christian. How many more sources and scholars is required to make the article *not poorly* sourced? --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 21:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:These are not the sources per se that is problematic, but rather highly selective and tendentious usage of them as well as a tendency to dump quotes into the article, which makes for awful reading and renders the article unencyclopedic. [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 21:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:: [[WP:Assume good faith]]. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 21:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:::[[User:Beit Or]] did not fail to assume good faith. Beit Or merely explained the flaws in your sourcing. An issue can be explained while assuming good faith and I see nowhere in the above post that AGF was violated. --[[User:Moralis|Moralis]] 22:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you please explain exactly the flaws more exactly instead of just claiming it. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 23:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:You are making a distinction without a difference. Persecuting Jews because they are Jews is antisemitism, plain and simple. Are European [[blood libel]]s examples of antisemitism, but the [[Damascus affair]] not, because it involved Arabs? There were many of these incidents in the 1800s; Aleppo (1810, 1850, 1875), Antioch (1826), Beirut (1824, 1862, 1874), Damascus (1840, 1848, 1890), Deir al-Qamar (1847), Homs (1829), Tripoli (1834), Jerusalem (1847), etc. And that's just blood-libels, not other antisemitic incidents and actions. Also, keep in mind that Lewis is just one source, good on topics regarding the history of Muslim countries, but not the final expert on antisemitism. This has been explained to you before. Finally, you've not quoted Lewis properly anyway, nor attributed your claim. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small>} 23:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not only Lewis, but also Stillman. Also [[Claude Cahen]] who said "There is nothing in medieval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism". what about "Nissim Rejwan, Israel's Place in the Middle East: A Pluralist Perspective, University Press of Florida, p.31" (see last paragraph here [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0813016010&id=vPnfmxTcyL8C&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&vq=anti-semitism&dq=Israel%27s+Place+in+the+Middle+East:+A+Pluralist+Perspective&sig=dnFSXMt5uGsnfWpyt5TWAOo3_tM]) and "Joel S. Migdal, Boundaries and Belonging (2004), Cambridge University Press, p.55" (see [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0521835666&id=vahSdZ2JBvwC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&vq=anti-semitism&dq=Boundaries+and+Belonging&sig=2SkllVtrqZSFCORNdw3DYudkod0] '''"The success of this system was reflected... in the virtual absense of anti-Semitism from Ottoman landscape"''')?

It is not me who hasn't provided sources, but rather it is the other side who either writes OR or uses journalists as a reliable source. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 00:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:Stillman doesn't make that exact claim, and you seem to have confused "the Arab world" with "medieval Islam". Paul Johnson has written many best-selling works of history, and you still haven't answered the question - what is the [[Damascus affair]]? Did the [[Farhud]] happen "after the establishment of the State of Israel"? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small>} 00:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:Rejwan is a polemicist, and Migdal talks about a "virtual", not complete absence, and even then only from "the Ottoman landscape". Cherry-picking authors for specific out of context quotes doesn't really give a rounded view of the situation. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small>} 00:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, I didn't meant by those sources to prove that statement. But rather to prove it in some cases. Stillman writes that antisemitism ideas when first imported in Muslim lands didn't recieve any reception '''because they were too new. ''', yes, again he doesn't say Anti-semtism didn't happen. Lewis says:"President Khatami of Iran, in his interview on CNN, pointed out—correctly—that "anti-Semitism is indeed a Western phenomenon. It has no precedents in Islam or in the East. Jews and Muslims have lived harmoniously together for centuries.", "Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism..."

And this is the second time you accuse me of cherry picking. Assume good faith please. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 00:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

: I am sure your friends wouldn't agree that antisemitism was virtually absent in Ottomon Empire which lasted for a long long time. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 00:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:: It seems that we do not have enough coverage on pre-1948 anti-Jewish violence in the Muslim lands. It is not because there was none. This white spot needs to be fixed. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 05:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you like Encyclopedia of Islam? It addresses the topic on this article quite perfectly. Stop removing it. [[user:BhaiSaab|BhaiSaab]] ^{[[user talk:BhaiSaab|talk]]} 05:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

: I don't know what it is, but see [[WP:RS]]: "In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources." ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 05:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

::Read the [[Encyclopedia of Islam]] article please, and then tell me what you think. [[user:BhaiSaab|BhaiSaab]] ^{[[user talk:BhaiSaab|talk]]} 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

::: After that quote it doesn't seem trustworthy. In addition to the evidence already provided, see [[Shiraz blood libel]]. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 10:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:: That article is completely based on Litman (is he the husband of Bat Ye'or?) and I can not see how it might be related to theological hostility towards Jews. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 10:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

::: See [[denial]]. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 10:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

::Aminz has cherry-picked a quote out of context from the article "Yahud" in the ''Encyclopaedia of Islam'' so as to make professor Stillman say something he never said. As a matter of fact, 80% of the article is devoted to vilification of Jews in various Muslim texts from the Qur'an to medieval literature. [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 18:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

::: Discussed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam_and_antisemitism#Encyclopedia_of_Islam here] --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 22:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antisemitism&diff=89278511&oldid=89216706 Accusations] over [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antisemitism&diff=89124141&oldid=89123925 accusations]. Bad faith edits over bad faith edits. POV warring over POV warring; and we have normal editors, Admins and ArbCom members. Soon everything will be solved. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 20:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

== [[Encyclopedia of Islam]] and [[Paul Johnson (journalist)]] ==

In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism&diff=89170450&oldid=89169621 a recent edit], assertions backed by the [[Encyclopedia of Islam]] were replaced by contrary assertions by [[Paul Johnson (journalist)]]. Depending upon one's POV, the Encyclopedia of Islam might be considered authoritative, and Paul Johnson biased, or alternatively, the Encyclopedia of Islam might be considere biased and Paul Johnson authoritative. However both sources are '''reputable'''. It is my understanding of [[WP:NPOV]] that when reputable sources conflict, an article should represent ''both'' POVs. I therefore think it was wrong to remove either the content supported by the Encyclopedia of Islam or the content supported by Paul Johnson. --[[User:BostonMA|BostonMA]] <font color = "blue">^{[[User talk:BostonMA|talk]]}</font> 03:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:But Johnson has only a lower-second class degree in Jesuit method; not in Islamic studies or in Antisemtism studies. Furthermore he only has a lower-second class degree. I honestly haven't seen any scientific encyclopedia which uses popular conservative journalists. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 04:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:Furthermore as discussed above, The publisher is New York: HarperCollins Publishers, not a univ press or other ones which particularly publish scholarly books, meaning that it is not peer reviewed --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 04:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:: First, Encyclopedia of Islam is a tertiary source, why would we rely on it when there are plenty of secondary ones? Second, Paul Johnson is a authoritative historian. Third, Bernard Lewis is another authoritative historian for sure (he wrote ''Semites and Antisemites''), the problem is that Aminz picks only quotes corresponding to his POV. See discussion above about one that he insists upon, ''"There was not such a thing that would be called Antisemitism in Muslim lands before the establishment of the state of Israel"''. And now he is canvassing for voices to impose his POV. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 04:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::: Claims are repeated and repeated again. If you read the Lewis's article on new-antisemtism and how it formed he says:"Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, '''but not what could be called anti-Semitism'''...", "President Khatami of Iran, in his interview on CNN, pointed out—correctly—that "anti-Semitism is indeed a Western phenomenon. It has no precedents in Islam or in the East. Jews and Muslims have lived harmoniously together for centuries."

::: Professor [[Norman Stillman]] says:

:::: Increased European commercial, missionary and imperialist activities within the Muslim world during the 19th and 20th centuries '''introduced anti-Semitic ideas and literature into the region.''' At first these prejudices only found a reception among Arabic-speaking Christian protégés of the Europeans in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt '''and were too new and too palpably foreign for any widespread acceptance among Muslims.''' However, with the ever-increasing conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine during the period of the British Mandate, the language and imagery of European anti-Semitism began to appear in political polemics both in the nationalist press and in books (Stillman, New attitudes toward the Jew in the Arab world, in Jewish Social Studies, xxxvii [1975], 197-204; idem, Antisemitism in the contemporary Arab world, in Antisemitism in the contemporary world, ed. M. Curtis, Boulder and London 1986, 70-85). For more than two decades following 1948, this trend increased greatly, but peaked by the 1970s, and declined somewhat as the slow process of rapprochement between the Arab world and the state of Israel evolved in the 1980s and 1990s; it remains to be seen how the tensions arising in 2000 will affect the trend.

::: H.S. you go around and repeat this your claim of misrepresentation of sources. I may bring this to WP:ANI since it really bothers me --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 04:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::: Here is the relevant paragraph from Cahen in which you were suspicous of misrepresentation:

::::It cannot be denied that from the last three or four centuries of the Middle Ages there was a general hardening against dhimmis in Muslim countries, helped materially and morally by the change in numerical proportions. Before proceeding further, however, it must be noticed that this hardening of opinion was contemporary with that which appeared in Christendom against the Jews and against Muslims where there were any, without our being able to say to what extent there was convergence, influence, or reaction. On the other hand it must be emphasized that the populace were more easily excited as a result of the deterioration in the economic climate, and that generally changes in the Muslim attitude had been occasioned more by political than by religious considerations. Hitherto ''there had been scarcely any difference in the treatment accorded to Christians and Jews (at most they were distinguished by prescribed differences in dress); but it later came about that some categories of d̲h̲immī s were looked on as friends of foreign powers and were worse treated, and naturally some Christians were in this respect more of a target than the Jews. There is nothing in mediaeval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism. ''

:::--[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 04:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:::: Do not threaten me, and do not quote out of context to represent your POV. BTW, sorry if this is news: Khatami is hardly an authority on the subject. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 04:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Despite certain users' POV, this section should not begin and end with Israel. Here are a few things we need to keep in mind when describing this topic:

* Status of [[Dhimmi]]

* Pogroms during the reign on [[al-Hakim]]

* [[Almoravid]]s & [[Almohad]]s

* [[Maimonides]]

* [[Yellow badge]]

* 1465 pogrom in Fez

* Destruction of synagogues and forced conversions

* [[Mellah]]

* [[Damascus affair]]

* [[Shiraz blood libel]]

* [[Farhud]]

* And of course we should say prominently about tolerance, especially in comparison with Christian Europe, and that Muslim lands often were a place of refuge. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 05:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Starting from beginning:

1. Dhimmi status is discussed in [[Dhimmi]] article. It has nothing to do with Anti-Semitism. [[Claude Cahen]] says: "''there had been scarcely any difference in the treatment accorded to Christians and Jews (at most they were distinguished by prescribed differences in dress); but it later came about that some categories of d̲h̲immī s were looked on as friends of foreign powers and were worse treated, and naturally some Christians were in this respect more of a target than the Jews. There is nothing in mediaeval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism.''"--[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 05:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

=== Anti-Neyshaboor ===

Well, Neyshaboor is a city in Iran. During the history, there are records of huge massacre of its population by rulers, by foriegner attackers ... Can we start the Anti-Neyshaboor article? NO! Because were it another city in the place of Neyshaboor, it would have been persecuted as well at times. It is very easy. The persecuters didn't care who lives in that city or what that city is called. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 05:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:Good example! :) [[User:truthspreader|<b><small><font color="#0D9D2D">TruthSpreader</font></small></b>]]^{[[User talk:truthspreader|<font color="#0C9AAD">Talk</font>]]} 05:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:: E.g. Upon the mongol attacks, all the population, 1.7 million men, women and childern were killed. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 05:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

: There is another city in Iran, Kerman. Not very long ago, maybe 500 years ago. The eyes of all the population were taken out on the order of an oppressor conquerer. The history is full of such massacres. Not specifically here. But I've never ever heard of anti-Kermani sentiment... --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 05:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::Do you have any references to the residents of Neyshaboor being consistently referred to as, say, "apes and pigs" by the residents of surrounding areas or by rulers? Do you have any sources discussing the phenomenon of anti-Neyshaboorism? If so, feel free to start ths article. [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 06:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:::This is exactly what Aminz is trying to say! Do you have reliable secondary sources i.e. [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]] claiming that antisemitism was part of traditional Muslim society? If yes, please show them! [[User:truthspreader|<b><small><font color="#0D9D2D">TruthSpreader</font></small></b>]]^{[[User talk:truthspreader|<font color="#0C9AAD">Talk</font>]]} 06:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:::The concept of conversion of some Jews into apes is accepted, but to deduce that Jews are decendants of apes is just a propaganda by some Muslims. And to deduce the antisemitism from it, is even worse, as it is pure [[WP:OR|Original research]]. [[User:truthspreader|<b><small><font color="#0D9D2D">TruthSpreader</font></small></b>]]^{[[User talk:truthspreader|<font color="#0C9AAD">Talk</font>]]} 06:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:: Yes, the "ape" thing is irrelevant but if I want to comment about it: Certain Jews '''were''' transformed into "apes" because they broke Sabbath. That some Muslims misuse it, doesn't make them anti-semitic. In Iran, people in jokes refer to Turks as "donkeys" and make fun of them (the connection is that they are fool like donkeys). It is bad but it is not anti-Turkism. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 06:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::Just giving another example, though I respect every person on the planet, but in Pakistan, people always think that [[Pashtun people|Pashtun]] are all gays, which is wrong and it doesn't make Pakistanis anti-Pashtuns either. [[User:truthspreader|<b><small><font color="#0D9D2D">TruthSpreader</font></small></b>]]^{[[User talk:truthspreader|<font color="#0C9AAD">Talk</font>]]} 06:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::Hey, In Iran, [[Qazvin]]is are considered gay and there are lots of funny jokes about it. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 06:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Actually the examples you just listed above are racist, xenophobic, and homophobic. What is your point exactly? --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 07:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::::The point is very simple. Calling X by some name doesn't constitute Anti-Xism. As shown by Aminz on this talk page and also on [[User_talk:Humus_sapiens#WP:RS.2C_WP:NPOV.2C_WP:Assume_good_faith]] that [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]] compatible sources seem to agree that antisemitism was not part of traditional Muslim society. It is a new phenomenon and it should be dealt this way. Examples quoted by other wikipedian brothers doesn't constitute antisemitism, as it is purely original research. Such views are only getting momentum because of current [[Islamophobic]] attitudes, hence as a wikipedian, I would strongly advice that we should strictly follow [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] policies when dealing such a sensitive issue. [[User:truthspreader|<b><small><font color="#0D9D2D">TruthSpreader</font></small></b>]]^{[[User talk:truthspreader|<font color="#0C9AAD">Talk</font>]]} 07:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::::: I don't think [[Islamophobic]] attitudes is correct. I have read about it way back and don't remember correctly what happened. Apparently there are two well-established myths: one that Islam provided a peaceful heaven for Jews and the other is that Islam persecuted them. Jewish scholars, writing at the beginning of 20th century, like Gacs(I believe) were all very much towards the first myth, the peaceful heaven and equality. They were comparing Muslims with Christians and were for example pointing out to the Jews who became even close advisors of the Muslim kings without requirement of conversion. Were our brothers living in 1900s probably they would have had a over-positive estimate of Islam's treatment of Jews. During the conflicts between Jews and Muslims, the motivation for a dramatic change was available. I can't exactly remember how these view changed but I know that the works of Bat Ye'or was very influencial. Infact, Bat Ye'or was holding an extreme position, but its effect on academia was that it challenged the myth of the peaceful heaven observed in previous works. So, she did really contribute something to the academic circle. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 07:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::: That was Graetz. This is indeed over-politicized so let's try to keep cool heads. The events I listed above (+much more) have occurred. As MPerel correctly pointed out above: homophobic, anti-Turkish, and anti-Christian hostilities do not cancel out antisemitism. I have added another quote where Johnson cites Goitein.

:::::: You wrote "Jews had traditionally accepted their status as a Dhimmi with gratitude" - even if this was true, we can find slaves who "accepted their status with gratitude" because they did not know better. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 08:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::: Let's continue the talk on the content here. Aminz asked me to check Goitein, p.279. Unfortunately I don't have that book. Johnson refers to it and I tried to make this clear. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 08:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::::You are right! If someone treated slaves properly doesn't mean that he was a bad person. As it might be the best thing to do for that time. But associating a hideous concept of anti-semitism with traditional Muslim societies is wrong. As this concept is non-existent in Academic writings. I just came back from library, I looked into three book: The Oxford dictionary of Islam, The concise encyclopedia of Islam by AltaMira Press, ISBN 0-7591-0189-2, and Encyclopedia of Islam and Muslims world by Macmillan Reference USA and all of these doesn't even have a entry for antisemitism, more over this that even index doesn't have an entry for anti-semitism. [[User:truthspreader|<b><small><font color="#0D9D2D">TruthSpreader</font></small></b>]]^{[[User talk:truthspreader|<font color="#0C9AAD">Talk</font>]]} 08:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::All you have demonstrated is that these sources are either badly incomplete or badly biased or both. There is considerable scholarship on Muslim antisemitism, and even Lewis does not claim that antisemitism doesn't exist in Islamic societies. [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 17:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have hard time finding it. But you didn't answer my question. Why it is okay for you to use those sources but not for me? --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 08:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

oh, got it [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0520221591&id=QH3BHQulNpsC&pg=PA278&lpg=PA278&ots=TYxLuunB9U&dq=anti-semitism+Geniza+letters&sig=yOSitKMKnMwnuLR9KsUlQWQ5Al0] . Johnson, the journalist, is refering to the page after this. Let's read it together :) --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 09:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Page 279 is not accessable. Need to go to library. But you guys can see on page 278, it says that "antisemitism was not enirely absent from Medieval Islam, as has been assumed. Its existence can be best proved ..." So, I am really interested to see how page 279 can change this view dramatically as the journalist concluded. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 09:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I am reading page 278 but can not understand the point about "haters". On one hand, the source says it was specifically used for an Islamic sect, the Ismailis, but then a Jew had close relations with that sect and what happened later? If someone understands the argument, I would be thankful to share it with me. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 09:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the actions of admin Humus sapiens here. He removed the quote I inserted because he assumed the Encyclopedia of Islam was a "POV source." The encyclopedia is considered by many to be one of the most, if not the most, authoritative sources on Islam. Why did he assume this source was POV? Is it because I am a Muslim writing on a section that relates to Muslims in the article? [[user:BhaiSaab|BhaiSaab]] ^{[[user talk:BhaiSaab|talk]]} 21:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:The problem was the POV, tendentious, and selective usage of this and other sources, rather than this particular source per se. [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 21:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::Not according to him: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=89180712] "...and replaced it with tertiary source POV one..." [[user:BhaiSaab|BhaiSaab]] ^{[[user talk:BhaiSaab|talk]]} 21:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antisemitism&diff=89206191&oldid=89176508] "After that quote it doesn't seem trustworthy..." Why is not trustworthy? Because it doesn't agree with his POV? [[user:BhaiSaab|BhaiSaab]] ^{[[user talk:BhaiSaab|talk]]} 21:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:::It's not trustworthy because it was lifted out of context so as to support a POV entirely alien to the source. [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 21:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Oh really? Prove it. [[user:BhaiSaab|BhaiSaab]] ^{[[user talk:BhaiSaab|talk]]} 21:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::::: BhaiSaab, do you want them to add another bad faith comment to their record? --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 21:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::I don't really care. I am asking for proof to this accusation. First one says that the encyclopedia of Islam is a POV source, then another says that I am lifting the quote out of context - these assumptions are bad faith in themselves. [[user:BhaiSaab|BhaiSaab]] ^{[[user talk:BhaiSaab|talk]]} 22:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::: I have got used to them. Welcome in BhaiSaab. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 22:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab, they are not going to accept it. Don't bother yourself. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 21:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

== "Goitein concludes" ==

H.S. I don't consider the journalist to be a reliable source but anyways, in the quote, the phrase "Goitein concludes" appears. The phrase "Goitein concludes" doesn't appear in 1988 edition of the book. In fact, in 1998 edition, the word Goitein doesn't appear in the relevant page and it is not prosed as a conclusion attributed to Goitein. Which edition are you using? And can you please let me know the page in which the phrase "Goitein concludes" appears. Thanks --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 09:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

: Just as the article says: 1987 ed., p. 205. I can email the scanned pages. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 10:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the 1988 version of the book p.204 [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0060915331&id=mv0grelUicsC&pg=PA204&lpg=PA204&ots=kg0Pohgezl&dq=Parts+of+Islam+were+much+worse+than+others+for+Jews.+Morocco+was+fanatical.+So+was+northern&sig=dEaPBcwO9EmMzoUvYltBoe7nZYM]

Please have a look at it and let me know if it is different from yours. If yes, then he has changed this in 1988 edition. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 10:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

: p.204 looks the same. "Pages 205-207 are not part of this book review." ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 10:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Goitein concludes" doesn't appear in p.204, am I right? --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 10:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you please let me know in which page does it appear. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 10:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

p.205. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 10:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I got the sentence: "Goitein concludes that the evidence does not support the view that in egypt, at least, anti-semitic was endemic or serious." Please let me know if you are refering to this conclusion. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 10:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

: Here's the quote after that 1121 Baghdad letter that spills over from page 204 to 205:

:"During most of this period Egypt was a relatively safe place for Jews, though Alexandria retained its long tradition of anti-Semitism dating from Hellenistic times. The writer of one genizah letter, describing an anti-Semitic outbreak there when a Jewish elder was falsely accused of rape, added: 'anti-Semitism is continually taking on new forms and everyone in the town has become a kind of police inspector over the Jews to express their sinuth. 78 ''(this is the ref to Goitein -HS)''

: But in Fustat and Cairo, the genizah papers show that Jews, Christians and Moslems lived mingled together and went into common business partnerships. Goitein concludes that the evidence does not support the view that in Egypt, at least, anti-Semitism was endemic or serious. But then Egypt under the Fatimids and Ayyubids was a refuge for persecuted Jews (and others) from all over the world."

: ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 10:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please put references at the end of sentences. Thanks. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 10:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

: I tried to make it clear. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 10:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

From Goitein firsthand: "''Although the term [antisemitism] is perhaps inapprorpiate in medieval Islamic setting, it is used here to differentiate animosity against Jews from discrimination practiced by Islam against non-Muslims in general. The Genizah material confirms the existence of a discernible form of anti-Judaism in the time and the place considered here, but that form of 'anti-Semitism', if we may use this term, appears to have been local and sporadic rather than general and endemic.''" (''A Mediterranean Society: An Abrudgment in One Volume'', p. 293) As Goitein has correctly pointed out, the issue is solely about terminology: whether we call anti-Jewish sentiment "antisemitism" or apply some other term. Because scholarly sources usually use the term "antisemitism" to describe anti-Jewish sentiment, so will we. Please do not restart this pointless discussion about terminology. [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 12:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:The source under-discussion has already a problem of being reliable secondary source. We can't ignore all the other sources. By this, you want to conclude that others including stillman, Watt, and Lewis and many more just got confused in the terminology!!!! This source even if presented in the article, cannot be a dominant source when compared with all other sources which have been mentioned in the discussion. [[User:truthspreader|<b><small><font color="#0D9D2D">TruthSpreader</font></small></b>]]^{[[User talk:truthspreader|<font color="#0C9AAD">Talk</font>]]} 12:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::As a matter of fact, no one seriously disputes the existence of hostility towards Jews in medieval Islam; the only issue is whether to call this hostility antisemitism or not. I'm unaware of Stillman or Watt ever saying that there was no antisemitism in medieval Islam (I'm further unaware of Watt writing anything about antisemitism, and even if he indeed wrote something like that, I wouldn't accept this antisemite as a credible source on this issue). Lewis indeed redefines antisemitism so as to include only Christian and Chrisitanity-influenced varities of Judeophobia. Here he is at odds with the entire extant scholarship of antisemitism, which traces the origins of this phenomenon to the Hellenistic period rather than to the emergence of Christianity, as Lewis does. [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 16:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hostility at times happened but a particular hostility that is directed against Jews because they are Jews is anti-semitism. As I said before there were rare instances of that. But it was rarely. Goitein also in the above quote said that they were sporadic and local. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 21:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:It's good that you have finally agreed that antisemitism existed in medieval Muslim societies. [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 21:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::I said that from the very beginning. Some scholars say it wasn't however others say it was rare. I even quoted Goitein in my very first edit which you were quickly removing.--[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 21:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Come on, I'm not that forgetful and gullible. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism&oldid=88772208#Antisemitism_and_the_Muslim_world This] is your version that I reverted. It starts with a brazen claim: "''There was not such a thing that would be called Antisemitism in Muslim lands before the establishment of the state of Israel.''" Why would you resort to such blatant misrepresentations? [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 22:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:::: You also reverted this. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism&diff=88962682&oldid=88955667]. Most of its reverts were done by H.S. though. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 22:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::The first sentence in this version is identical to the earlier one. In addition, you didn't add Goitein in your first edit, nor did you present your version as a dispute among scholars. Instead, you presented the purported lack of antisemitism among Muslims as facts, and then you quoted Goitein as feebly arguing that some minor antisemitism indeed sometimes emerged. So, please stop misrepresenting the article history. [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 22:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

== Scholarly version ==

Here is the scholarly version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism&diff=89553276&oldid=89553083#Antisemitism_and_the_Muslim_world]. Complete it using real academic works. No un-peer-reviewed works by journalists please. Thanks --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 00:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

: And no bad-faith comments please. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 00:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

:: Your version is simply inadequate. We already talked about it. You make it impossible to AGF. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 01:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Well if you can't assume good faith, then you should step back from editing this article and stop removing reliable sources. [[user:BhaiSaab|BhaiSaab]] ^{[[user talk:BhaiSaab|talk]]} 02:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

::::The [[WP:AGF]] policy does not give a green light to edit in bad faith.- [[User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg]] | [[User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Talk]] 02:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::And none of these edits are in bad faith. [[user:BhaiSaab|BhaiSaab]] ^{[[user talk:BhaiSaab|talk]]} 02:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

H.S. If you have any scholarly sources go ahead and add it. The POV tag is there for that. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 04:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

: The events I listed above are historical facts. [[Paul Johnson (journalist)#Bibliography|Johnson's bibliography]] speaks for itself, but that is not the problem here. The problem is your inability to face the facts and to write NPOV. Hiding behind handpicked quotes and wikilawyering won't work. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 11:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

:You are making claims of fact that aren't supported by your sources. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small>} 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

:: One example please. You can find the other version here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism&diff=89564361&oldid=89563176]--[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 07:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Example: not a single source supports your ungrammatical claim that "''There was not such a thing that would be called Antisemitism in Muslim lands before the establishment of the state of Israel.''"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism&oldid=88772208#_ref-LewisBrandeis1_1] [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 07:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

:::: I can explain that but please address the diff I provided above. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 07:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

== Anti-Semitism in the 21st Century ==

As I was reading through the article I realized that it is very brief about current Anti-Semitism. So according to our article Anti-Semitism today is either very minor, or it is almost gone. We all wish it was the latter, but that raises that matter of a better coverage. I would like to propose a series of Anti-Semitism articles, country by country. A history part would be included, as well as the 21st Century, where more could be written about the current situation in each country or region. This way, we would have better classified articles that can be updated easily as current events happen. Please let me know what you all think about this. It is just an idea yet, and it is up to you what you want to do. Thanks, ([[User:Edebundity|Edebundity]] 02:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC))

:Anti-Semitism today is NOT "very minor" as you suggest, but actually seems to be growing quite a bit despite what official polls may say. I've noticed that there are more anti-Semites than ever popping up in the USA, many of them blatant and more aggressive than ever before; also, true to its history, many parts of Europe are still anti-Semitic (most notably France, Eastern Europe, Russia, the UK, and others), along with the entire Middle East (obviously...), Indonesia (the largest concentration of Muslims in the world), Australia, Canada, and much of (industrialized) South America. In fact, it seems that the only parts of the world that aren't glaringly anti-Semitic are Sub-Saharan Africa, the major Asian countries, and India (only because these parts of the world have little history of Jewish involvement in their cultures and economies, and thus hold no deep-seated grudge against them). So, hold on to your hats ladies and gentiles: better start diggin' a deep well in the ol' back-yard and hoarding canned goods, 'cause a storms' a'brewin' -- [[hee-haw]]. --[[User:Pseudothyrum|Pseudothyrum]] 04:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== Other concerns ==

Aside from the above-mentioned concerns, the section on Anti-semitism and Islam starts with a paragraph on Qur'an and Dhimmi. One needs to find a reliable source which draws connections between these events and anti-semitism, otherwise they are not relevant to this article. Similarly, (though the journalist isn't a reliable source) but his first quote should be mentioned explicitly in the context of anit-semitism (i haven't checked it). The usage of "traditional Islamic judeophobia" doesn't appear in the reference provided (whether it is reliable or not I haven't checked). This section as it stands is OR and POV.

I think this section should also uses reliable sources like [[Mark Cohen]] to show how politics affected the conception of some Jewish circles of Muslim anti-semitism; that they created a theme in which Muslims starting from the beginning were persecuting Jews and their arguments. What were the motivations and its influence in academic circles; the influential writers, etc etc. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 07:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

: Judeophobia is another name for Antisemitism. I find the current section [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism&oldid=90013582#Antisemitism_and_the_Muslim_world] more or less NPOV, unlike the version you were proposing. Johnson is a reputable historian and he is not Jewish, therefore your allegation of "some Jewish circles" is irrelevant at best. And you conveniently "forgot" to address the list above. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 12:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

:: Johnson is a Christian. In any case, it is not me who needs to address the list. You need to find reliable sources which connect those events to anti-semitism, not me. The proof should come from you, not me. And again, you need to find reliable sources connecting every claim (such as Qur'anic ideas or Dhimmi) explicitly to anti-semitism. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 18:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

: Why do you consider Johnson a historian? What makes him historian? Which academic degree does he have? Just writing about history doesn't make one historian. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

::Please excuse my limited knowledge, but who is Johnson? Is he some famous person with whom I should be familiar? ([[User:Edebundity|Eddie]] 19:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC))

::: Just a journalist. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 22:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

:::: A journalist and bestselling historian. See [[Paul_Johnson (journalist)#Bibliography]]. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 04:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::If best selling books is the criteria, then I am sorry, most of the bigots will fit into this category and would qualify as a reliable secondary source e.g. [[Ibn Warraq]], [[Robert Spencer]], just to name a few. [[User:truthspreader|<b><small><font color="#0D9D2D">TruthSpreader</font></small></b>]]^{[[User talk:truthspreader|<font color="#0C9AAD">Talk</font>]]} 05:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::Yup. They're not bigots though, just smart. [[User:Arrow740|Arrow740]] 10:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::::: A conservative journalist with no rigorous education, but his job is writing. Although one may find some of his works which are peer-reviewed, but his job is writing not research. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 04:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::An [[University of Oxford|Oxford]] degree is usually deemed to be "rigorous" by most academic standards. --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 09:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::Yea come on Aminz, not all of us could afford to attend Bob Jones Bible College.- [[User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg]] | [[User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Talk]] 09:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Beit Or, your sources should explicitly connect an issue to anti-semitism. Just referencing is not enough. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 22:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

::: Aminz, please read the definition of antisemitism. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 04:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:::: We apparently have different views as to which incidents are anti-semitism. Every attribution to anti-semitism needs to be sourced (otherwise it is OR). Also wikipedia is not a source for wikipedia.--[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 04:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

::::: See [[Denial]]. "Antisemitism: hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious or ethnic group". ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 04:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::: H.S. This is not an argument. Just to let you know, I didn't know what does anti-semitism means while ago and educated myself about it merely through reliable sources. So, I feel my position to be defendable. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 04:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::: Shows how much you know on the subject. You have a lot to learn then. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 08:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::: H.S. You are not understanding the point! You are defining anti-semitism by one way or the other and then linking it with Islam, without relying on [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]] compatible sources. This is called [[WP:OR|Original Research]]. [[User:truthspreader|<b><small><font color="#0D9D2D">TruthSpreader</font></small></b>]]^{[[User talk:truthspreader|<font color="#0C9AAD">Talk</font>]]} 05:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::The article has a plenty of reliable sources on Muslim antisemitism. [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 05:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Yes, it does have plenty of reliable sources, but conclusion drawn is definitely [[WP:OR|Original research]]. Does Qur'an alleges Jews for curruption of their scripture? Yes! But does that constitute antisemitism or does it have a link to antisemitism? Any answer from a source other than "reliable secondary source" will constitute "Original research", and this is what is happening in the article. [[User:truthspreader|<b><small><font color="#0D9D2D">TruthSpreader</font></small></b>]]^{[[User talk:truthspreader|<font color="#0C9AAD">Talk</font>]]} 06:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::::: Sure it is, because "Antisemitism is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious or ethnic group". ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 08:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::H.S. I stated above and I will reiterate: The connection between these hostilities and "Antisemitism" is your own personal invention which is inspired by non-reliable secondary sources. It is called [[WP:OR|Original Research]]. [[User:truthspreader|<b><small><font color="#0D9D2D">TruthSpreader</font></small></b>]]^{[[User talk:truthspreader|<font color="#0C9AAD">Talk</font>]]} 08:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::::No, it isn't. If you really badly want to see the word "antisemitism" printed near the Quranic attacks on Jews, see the works by Gerber or Lacqueur, or ''Encyclopedia Judaica'', all referenced in the article. [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 13:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify exactly what the problem is here truthspreader and Aminz. I am honestly having trouble following your point. Is it that the cited sources are saying something that you feel is actually true and therefore are not reliable? [[User:Elizmr|Elizmr]] 21:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:If you can please check the history of this article and see the version of the article, which was proposed by Aminz and the one which is now, and see which one is more scholarly. :) [[User:truthspreader|<b><small><font color="#0D9D2D">TruthSpreader</font></small></b>]]^{[[User talk:truthspreader|<font color="#0C9AAD">Talk</font>]]} 05:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

: I am in the library and trying to find the books Beit Or mentioned. I noticed "The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion". It says (p.53):

:: "In the Muslim world, antisemitism developments were far less overt, except in periods of religous extremism. There was little specific antisemitism, and Jews were treated (or ill-treated) like other infidels."

: --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::: I won't object inserting this quote. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 03:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:::: What is the difference between this quote and the previous ones? This source says "There was little specific antisemitism"; some others say:"There were no antisemitism" or that it was not absent as it is assumed. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 04:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have got Encyclopedia Judica. It would be very interesting for me to see what would be the reaction of the Beit Or, who goes around and accuses others of misrepresentation of sources.

Beit Or, just mentions one sentence from this source. He doesn't mention the conclusion that the source arrives at. That in sum, anti-semitism could be employed only with qualifications in reference to Islam. The source seems to me is not only getting at anti-semitism but explaining the general position of Jews and Christians under Islam. Let's start from the beginning. The source starts: "From the theological standpoint, the Koran also contained attacks against the Jews, as they refused to recognize Muhammad as the prophet sent by God. In certain respects Muhammad utilized the Bible in a manner similar to that of Christian theologians..." and then goes on explaining the positions of Christians and Jews under Islam: "The religions of the two "People of the Book" were officially recognized , and a special status combining subjection and protection was evolved for them." The source mentions that "Apart from the distinguishing colors of their insignia, the dhimmi Jews and Christians were subjected to the same measures and were obliged to pay the same tax. But in regions were Islam reigned, the forms of anti-Judaism and anti-Christianity each evolved in their own way." The source continues: ''When Islam began to spread, the majority of the subjected territories were Christian...One source of anti-semitism in Islam, therefore may derived from ancient Christian anti-semitism..Thus a number of anti-Jewish traditions and legends from Christian folklore penetrated, with appropriate adaption, into that of Islam. However,... In sum, the term anti-Semitism, which becomes a particularly blatant semantic misnomer when used in connection with the Arab world, also regarded as "Semitic" can be employed only with qualifications in reference to Islam."''

And lastly, Beit Or has skipped all positive references to Muslim perceptions of Jews. He easily jumps over where the source mentions that only in exceptional cases Jews "were invested with the satanic character and attributes frequent in Christian literature." or that "There are Islamic literary sources in medieval age in which the contemporary Jew is endowed with positive characteristics." --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 04:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

: Beit Or, please check other sentence before putting them in this article. I know that what you've taken from Encyclopedia of Islam isn't in the context of anti-semitism, so you might want to add it to other articles. I honestly don't have time to check your sources one by one. Please remove the ones you are not certain about. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 04:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::I'm not sure, Aminz, what you want to prove with this quote dump. [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 05:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Quote dumping can give one a pleasant feeling and assuage deep-seated, justified doubt. [[User:Arrow740|Arrow740]] 11:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::: Which part was unclear? --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 06:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::::You have copied and pasted a chunk of text from the ''Encyclopedia Judaica''. Apparently, you want to demonstrate something with its help, but I'm not sure what. [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 20:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe I was very clear. The context of the discussion was the way you are using the sources. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 20:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not going to waste my time deciphering your comments. Perhaps, it's pointless to try and extract arguments out of you. [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 21:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

== Anomaly? ==

"only thirty-nine percent of Americans felt that Jews should be treated like other people. Fifty-three percent believed that "Jews are different and should be restricted" and ten percent believed that Jews should be deported"

39 + 53 + 10 = 102

So one hundred and two per cent of Americans have opposing views on how Jews should be treated. Either there is such a percetage and I'm just being stupid, or another survey should be targeted towards discovering the average arithmatic of American data-collectors.

CO.

*You're assuming that the three groups are disjoint, but there's no reason that the second group does not include all of the third group. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]^{<small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]]</small>}

==Religious antisemitism vs. anti-Judaism==

These two concepts are not exactly the same. Relgious antisemitism is hostility toward Jews ''as an ethnic group'' because of their relgious practices, whereas anti-Judaism is hostility toward Judaism ''as a religion''. It is true that in many case anti-Judaism can lead to religious antisemitism. It is also true that real antisemitism can ''disguise'' itself as anti-Judaism.&mdash;but the two concepts are still not exactly the same. Just thought I explain this before making my edit. [[User:Taxico|Taxico]] 06:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

:Can you cite sources supporting your view? [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 17:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

::Not right now, so I'm taking back the idea momentarily. But the current version also doesn't cite any sources. Let's see if I can find anything. [[User:Taxico|Taxico]] 19:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

== Is antisemitism racist? ==

A recent edit in the article points out that it is a fallacy to make Jews into a racial group, which indeed is true. But then again, all discrimination and bigotry is based on a fallacy, and there is no question that at least some antisemites think (or thought) that Jews were a separate race. So, in the mind of the bigot, Jews are a separate race, and he/she is therefore a racist. Can we agree on this premise? --[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] 19:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

*Nah. It's just that "racist" is a convenient generic term for ethnic/cultural/religious-group-based bigotry; we could also fit "Islamophobia" into that category, for example. We don't need to assume motives on the part of the bigots to loosely use the term. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]^{<small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]]</small>} 20:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

**Sorry, this is an encyclopedia and it must be precise. [[Racism]] has a precise definition, and we should not throw this term around at whim. [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 21:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

***Actually, [[racism]] shows clearly that it does ''not'' have a precise definition: ''The term racism is sometimes used to refer to preference for one's own ethnic group (ethnocentrism), fear of foreigners (xenophobia), views or preferences against interbreeding of the races (miscegenation), and nationalism, and/or a generalization of a specific group of people (stereotype); regardless of any explicit belief in superiority or inferiority embedded within such views or preferences.''--[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]^{<small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]]</small>} 21:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

****Actually, it has a precise definition, even if ''sometimes'' people use the word with a different meaning. The sentence you have cited simply highlights the problem with the Wikipedia article on racism, which fails to differentiate between an encyclopedia and a dictionary. [[User:Beit Or|Beit]] [[User talk:Beit Or|Or]] 21:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

as it is now the definition: ''Antisemitism is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious or racial group'' to me says that jews are indeed a racial group, why can we not strike out the word racial, since racial antisemitism is explained a few lines further down with explanation that the assumption of jews being a race is faulty...

[[User:Trueblood|trueblood]] 21:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

*That the reason they hate us is false doesn't change the reason they hate us. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]^{<small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]]</small>} 21:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

:whatever that is supposed to mean, i want the article to be accurate.[[User:Trueblood|trueblood]] 22:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

::Indeed. And the definition there is correct. Look at it like this: It is not true that Jews have horns. Some people, even in this day and age, believe Jews have horns. Judeocerophobia is hostility to or prejudice againt Jews as people with horns. See? Antisemitism is directed against what is perceived as a racial group; in fact, as the article points out, the term "antisemitism" was coined to distinguish so-called racial Jew-hate from religious Jew-hate; some people on Wikipedia have objected to the term "antisemitic" being used to describe Martin Luther, because he didn't know for race -- his vitriol was all religiously based. So if we're erring, we're not erring in the direction you think we are. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]^{<small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]]</small>} 03:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:::to stay with your example, if the article were to state that antisemitism is hatred against jews, because the have horns, i would want to mention to jews ususally don't have horns.[[User:Trueblood|trueblood]] 16:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Usually, nope. Does the "etymology and usage" section insufficiently belittle the hornal, er, racial theory? --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]^{<small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]]</small>} 17:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Since Jews are widely agreed to be an ethnic group (if not a "race," though that term is too charged and imprecise to be of any real usage these days), you could say that people who dislike Jews are "ethnicists" (as opposed to racists) and practice "ethnicism" (as opposed to racism) -- either way, it's all childish semantic games because it is clear to anyone that investigates the facts that Jews are ethnically/racially group, thus rendering them a "race." However, they are Semitic and thus originally of Arab-stock, and due to their long history in Europe and to some extent America, some Jews do contain a dose of "Caucasian blood." NOTE: this has ''nothing'' to do with the Jewish religion (properly termed [[anti-Judaism]]), only Jews as a distinct ethnic group (because anyone can technically convert to Judaism, but they cannot convert their DNA to gain "Jewish genes").

Those doubting the ethnic/racial status of Jews only need to look to the immigration laws of Israel, the "Jewish State" -- only proven ethnic/racial Jews are allowed to legally immigrate to the country; however, they don't HAVE to attend a synagogue or be religious in the least once there. In fact, the majority of Israel's Jewish citizens are secular, entirely non-religious, as are most of the Jews in America, Argentina, Russia, Europe, and so forth.

Also, note that for thousands of years, Jews married and had kids exclusively with other Jews -- in fact, like many other ethnic/racial groups, they were quite fanatical about the "purity of their blood," as many [[Ultra-Orthodox Jews]] and [[Hasidic Jews]] still are today; notice for yourself the clone-like appearance of Ultra-Orthodox Jews ([[Haredi Jews]]) and tell me that they haven't been marrying/breeding with each other for a ''very'' long time. Some Jews are still so strict that even in today's relatively 'free' Western societies they will refuse to marry and have kids with a "mixed Jew," much less a Gentile! This goes back to the whole idea of "kosher" -- certain things are not to be mixed: milk/meat, work/Sabbath (sacred/profane), and Jew/Gentile. According to strict Jewish doctrine, some things are "clean" (kosher), while other things are thought to be "unclean" (non-kosher). Thus, the strictest Jews view Gentiles as "unclean" and will not and never have racially mix with them -- in the distant past racial mixing was VERY uncommon because Jews largely lived in ghettos (often self-imposed, by the way) and thus Jewish women rarely if ever met with foreign men because it was such a closed community. Save the occasional rape of a Jewish female and/or straying of Jewish male, Jews definitely DID NOT breed with the Gentiles -- thus, they are clearly a distinct ethnic-group/race.

Intermarriage and the rise of "mixed Jews" ([[Mischling]]s) only began in the mid-19th Century or so, mostly in Germany with the rise of the [[Reform Judaism|Reform movement]] and the [[Haskalah]], and later on in the former USSR, when the most idealistic Jewish Communists sought a classless/raceless/religionless society and thus sometimes married Gentiles. Jews didn't start marrying/mixing with non-Jews in semi-large numbers until modern times, around the time of the Industrial Revolution, when people of all races and religions were tossed together in to mass factories and worked together; the rise of public schooling also contributed to intermarriage quite a bit, especially as Jews have become increasingly secular and left behind private Jewish schools, Yeshivas, Jewish seminaries/universities, and so forth. It is interesting to note that today, in the USA, that since most if not all of the Ivy League universities and flagship state universities are heavily Jewish/Asian (many over 40%, some well over half), they serve almost the same purpose as a private Jewish school or university: to keep Jews from being exposed to Gentiles and Gentile society, thus decreasing the chance that they will marry and have children with them. I've read of anti-Semites calling elite universities "Jewish breeding grounds," of course reserving the most scorn for ultra-elite Harvard University, calling it instead "Hebrew University." Thus, the definite homogeneity by the Jewish gene pool, maintained through their religion and other forms of "social control," has endured over MANY generations despite exile from their ancestral homeland -- this attests to their status as a distinct ethnic/racial group.

The short answer is that YES, anti-Semitism is in fact a form of racism/ethnicism unless it is focused specifically on the ''religion'' of the Jews; however, the overwhelmingly vast majority of anti-Semites could care less about Judaism -- the people they don't like are the Jews themselves, the Jewish people whom they call the "Hebrew race." --[[User:Pseudothyrum|Pseudothyrum]] 06:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

::wow, thank you for sharing that. i.ve often wondered about them orthodox jew all looking alike. now i know, they are cloned.[[User:Trueblood|trueblood]] 06:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with you people? Of course it's a race. You think hitler killed any Judaism practicing Aryans? No, in fact he had jewish people on his athletic teams for the olympics so long as they had blonde hair and blue eyes, because he's too much of a bastard to actually represent the race he thinks is perfect. However, there's no doubt that it is in fact a race, otherwise Hitler wouldn't have had anything to chase after. As well, I think it's extremely racist to say that it's not a race and as well worse than the persecution of them as a race. I personally have racial jewish heritage and there is no disputing genetics.

::While this self-indulgent rant doesn't lend any support to the distinction of "Jews" as a wholly separate ethnicity (provide more evidence than somehow feeling your own genetics and paragraphs of hearsay), this may serve as an excellent demonstration of pseudo-ethnic arrogance that is often stereotyped to be practiced by all Jews. Unfortunately this practice of self segregation may very well be at the heart of the history of anti-Judaism. It doesn't take much for this sort of thinking to transform into helicopter pilots getting direct orders to strafe Palestinian children. What's wrong with US people? Sorry, but a dozen or so generations of dad giving lectures to his kids about the dirtiness of "those who are not like us" is not sufficient grounds to establish a separate ethnicity. Invent a method for analyzing DNA that somehow isolates your religion-defined ethnicity, and a time machine, and then you can gather enough evidence to prove what you are so certain of. There is no disputing time travel. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/24.73.96.170|24.73.96.170]] ([[User talk:24.73.96.170|talk]]) 17:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

== Move page ==

The standard spelling is anti-Semitism. I think the page should be moved. [[User:Theshibboleth|Theshibboleth]] 13:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:Both spellings are widely accepted. The decision on Wikipedia is to go with the current one. --[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] 13:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::Yeah, the "anti-Semitism" spelling is both confusing and a misnomer. It's a misnomer because the "anti-" prefix is usually used to mean "opposition to" (e.g., anti-Communism, anti-Socialism, anti-imperialism, anti-nationalism, etc.). It is primary used to mark opposition movements to certain ''ideologies'' (e.g., Communism, Socialism, imperialism, nationalism, etc.). But there's no ideology called "Semitism", so it doesn't make sense to talk about "anti-Semitism". The confusing part is that "anti-Semitism" (wrongly) reminds people of [[Semitic peoples]], but antisemitism is only used in reference to Jews. So I think antisemitism is fine. [[User:Taxico|Taxico]] 14:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:::It still ''has'' the anti prefix, the only issue is whether or not to ''hyphenate'' the prefix. This is commonly done with prefixes which end in vowels to prevent comprehension confusion. I keep reading "antise" before my mind has to back up, realize the "e" does not make the "i" long, and that this is stand-alone. Websters, which spells it with the hyphen, also has "anti-Arab" and "anti-Asian" ''not'' antiarab and antiasian. -- [[User:Kendrick7|Kendrick7]]^{[[User_talk:Kendrick7|talk]]} 19:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Wikipedia consensus was to use "antisemitism", as suggested by many scholarly sources. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small>} 20:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

*Here's the discussion about this from last time. Two weeks ago, was it? [[Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 23#Requested move]] --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]^{<small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]]</small>} 20:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::And how many people dropped by here a week to inform you that it was mispelled before it was changed? -- [[User:Kendrick7|Kendrick7]]^{[[User_talk:Kendrick7|talk]]} 08:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

::: Where is this requirement coming from? I am against switching to a more confusing version. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 10:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the big deal anyway? Antisemitism, anti-Semitism. They're all the same! We're talking about the same exact thing. All the other pages redirect to this one. You can use "anti-Semitism" when editing this article (or any other article). Is all this discussion really necessary? Do people really want to put this to vote and spend 7 days days fighting over a hyphen??? Well I don't. I've got better things to do, and there's a lot more that needs to be done here. I'm done discussing this. Forever. [[User:Taxico|Taxico]] 10:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:Wrong. Most supporters of the previous move claimed to be doing so because they are not the same. Not believably, but that is what they claimed. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 20:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

== assimilation ==

since i am half involved in an edit war that evolves around a question :is proposing assimilation (for jews) antisemitic (see [[Rudolf_Steiner#Steiner_and_Antisemitism|Rudolf Steiner]]) i thought i bring that up here. would it be worth including a section on assimilation. as far as i know it was widely discussed in germany in the 19th century.[[User:Trueblood|trueblood]] 06:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

: Good idea. There is some content to add about pressures to assimilate in Russia as well. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 10:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

== "banks, newspapers, ... and accumulation of wealth" ==

Anti-Semitism seems to be often tied to the idea that Jewish people control the flow of money and media, but the article only briefly mentions this, and even then only in the section on Catholic anti-semitism. I was wondering if someone could give some background on this alleged conspiracy. Was there any statistical truth that Jewish people owned a disproportional high number of banks and media? If not, why did people think that they did? If so, are there any theories about how they got this control? And why was this control such a big deal to people? --[[User:Arctic.gnome|Arctic Gnome]] 18:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:You're exactly right, and YES there is much statisitical proof that Jews hold a disproportionate amount of power despite their small numbers; however, as you can see, this is a VERY touchy subject for most Jews because your honest question on this page was soon deleted and/or ignored. Try to gather some facts/statistics from '''reliable''' sources, work out a few paragraphs on the topic here on this talk page, and we'll get a section going on this "disproportionate influence" of Jews in the modern world (especially in America in the 20th-21st Centuries). The [[Jewish lobby]] page sums up some arguments regarding this: "The '''Jewish lobby''' is a term referring to allegations that Jews exercise undue influence in a number of areas, including politics, government, the media, academia, popular culture, public policy, international relations, and international finance. It is used most commonly by the far right, far left, and Islamists." Just dig and you shall find... --[[User:172.163.93.102|172.163.93.102]] 16:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

::Here's a bit more: [[Yuri Slezkine]]'s mainstream academic book ''The Jewish Century'' is a GREAT resource for this theory of anti-Semitism, especially in Europe/Russia: it gives a reason for German anti-Semitism circa 1900: [paraphrasing] -- "'''Around 1900, despite being only 1% of the German population, it is estimated that Jews controlled around 20% of Germany's economy'''." Remember, this author is a respected, mainstream historian at prestigious UC-Berkeley, and his book published by Princeton UP. Given these amazing numbers, it's quite understandable then why the German people would be indignant toward this minority that wielded so much power within their borders. Slezkine's book focuses on Jewish economic success in the 20th Century, linking their incredible economic and cultural influence in Europe with a brand of anti-Semitism that would culminate in the Holocaust.

::Also, here's some info copied/pasted from the [[History of the Jews in Hungary]] article, possibly pointing to reasons (largely economic) for rampant Eastern European/Hungarian anti-Semitism (Hungary's Jewish population topped out at around 5%; many of them were eventually killed in Auschwitz in the 1940s): << In his book ''The Jewish Century'' (Princeton, 2004; ISBN 0691119953) writer-historian-professor Yuri Slezkine paints a portrait of remarkable Jewish success in the first few decades of the 20th Century in Hungary. He writes that: "...in 1921 Budapest, '''87.8 percent of the members of the stock exhange and 91 percent of the currency brokers were Jews''', many of them ennobled..." (48). He continues on to write that: "...in interwar Hungary, '''more than half and perhaps as much as 90 percent of all industry was controlled by a few closely related Jewish banking families'''" (48). Soon afterward, he says: "In 1930, about '''71 percent of the richest Hungarian taxpayers (with incomes exceeding 200,000 pengo) were Jews''' (48). Slezkine says that Jews were disproportionately represented amongst college students in 19th-20th Century Hungary: "In Hungary, where Jews constituted about 5 percent of the population, they represented one-fourth of all university students and 43 percent at Budapest Technological University" (49). Jews were also disproportionately a part of the professional class of post-WWI Hungary: "In 1920, '''59.9 percent of Hungarian doctors, 50.6 percent of lawyers, 39.25 percent of all privately employed engineers ans chemists, 34.3 percent of editors and journalists, and 28.6 percent of musicians identified themselves as Jews by religion (If one were to add converts to Christianity, the numbers would presumably be much higher''') (50). >> He also writes that "In large parts of Eastern Europe, virtually the whole 'middle class' was Jewish (pg. 50). There is TONS of information regarding Jewish success and wealth in both Russia and the USSR in the book too; far too much to put here. For other countries, check out the book for the mind-boggling statistics similar to those listed above.

::As for America...well, that's trickier: much information is often suppressed or kept strictly hush-hush here in the USA despite the "freedom of press" and "free-flow of ideas/information" we hold so dear; many Jews seem to feel quite embarrassed regarding their success in America, preferring to keep it quiet lest it inflame anti-Semitism (jealously at the success of Jews is often a factor in anti-Semitism as well). [[Kevin B. MacDonald]] and ''many'' others have done some research in this area, though his work has branded him as an "anti-Semite" by most Jews. However, he quotes fully accurate and neutral sources to back-up his assertions -- here's a bit from an article [http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/UnderstandJI-1.htm] on Jewish influence in the USA: "'''Recent data indicates that Jewish per capita income in the U.S. is almost double that of non-Jews''', a bigger difference than the black-white income gap.62 '''Although Jews make up less than 3% of the population, they constitute more than a quarter of the people on the Forbes list of the richest four hundred Americans. Jews constitute 45% of the top forty of the Forbes 400 richest Americans. Fully one-third of all American multimillionaires are Jewish'''. The percentage of Jewish households with income greater than $50,000 is double that of non-Jews; on the other hand, the percentage of Jewish households with income less than $20,000 is half that of non-Jews. '''Twenty percent of professors at leading universities are Jewish, and 40% of partners in leading New York and Washington D.C. law firms are Jewish'''.63 / In 1996, there were approximately three hundred national Jewish organizations in the United States, with a '''combined budget estimated in the range of $6 billion—a sum greater than the gross national product of half the members of the United Nations'''.64 For example, in 2001 the ADL claimed an annual budget of over $50,000,000.65 SOURCES: 60. Lynn 1992. -- 61. Salter 2002. -- 62. Thernstrom and Thernstrom, 1997. -- 63. Silbiger 2000. -- 64. Goldberg 1996, 38–39. Remember, that MacDonald is quoting MAINSTREAM sources, many of them by Jewish authors! He is more of a compiler/gatherer of information in this particular article.

::See Karl Marx's supposedly 'anti-Semitic' essay ''[[On the Jewish Question]]'', which equates blind and irresponsible capitalism with Jews (even though Marx was himself a Jew!). Also check out the recent paper by respected (not quack) scholars out of Harvard: ''[[The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy]]'', along with the general article [[Israel lobby in the United States]]. --[[User:172.163.93.102|172.163.93.102]] 17:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Well, yeah. And so what? It's hardly news that Jew-haters find the the financial success of Jews bothersome -- and conclude somehow that there must be some Great Joosh Conspiracy or something. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]^{<small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]]</small>} 18:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I didn't find the original questioner to be offensive, the question was phrased in a straightforward informational manner. That said, the concept that somehow Jews "control" one thing or another because they are proportionally overrepresented is silly. So the percentage of Jewish professors is 20% and Jewish lawyers is 40%; the percentages of nonJews are 80% and 60%. Most folks would come to the conclusion that the 60% probably is more in "control" than the 40%, no matter how overrepresentative the 40% is.

:::The Bush administration provides a typical example. People name like 4 Jews in high positions, and use this as evidence that the Bush administration is a puppet of the Jews, despite dozens of nonJews in similar or higher positions, including of course Bush and Cheney; and despite the fact that Jewish Americans voted against Bush 60% of the time in both elections and against the Republicans 80% in the last election.[[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] 15:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Apropos, I just saw a documentary on Hitler that called attention to his attempts to negotiate with Jews, or use Jews to negotiate with the US and UK, to reach a peace. The point that the documentary made is that Hitler really seemed to believe that all Jews were organized into some vast conspiracy controling the West and that such negotiations really could lead to a settlement with the US and UK. He simply could not recognize that for the most part the US and UK didn't care about the fate of the Jews and "the Jews" did not have the power to influence them. It didn't matter that, for example, Morgenthau was FDR's Sect'y of Treasury. Hitler seemed to have this mental map in which Morgenthau, other prominent Jews, and prisoners of the concentration camps were all connected. They weren't, and they aren't. The point is, ''Morgenthau'' may have had power and influence, but that does not in any way mean that this vague abstract group called "the Jews" have power. I think the key to the antisemitism of the above comments is their insistence on reducing those lawyers, bankers, and so on as "Jews" (with the implication that they think and act as a group) when (1) people have many different identities besides race or religion, and those other identities are often more salient, and (2) even people who strongly identify the same way can have conflicting desires and interests and are often - in any meaningful practical way - are just unconnected. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 16:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::Which is convincing proof that antisemitism is a form of insanity; you can't even get jews of the same synagogue to agree on much. [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] 20:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Clearly the idea of a Jewish conspiracy is silly. But if Jewish people do own more banks and newspapers than would be proportional by their population, it’s an interesting social situation that’s worth looking into. It’s just like the question of why men are disproportionably overrepresented in government; no one thinks that there is an organized male conspiracy, but it’s still something that’s worth studying academically. --[[User:Arctic.gnome|Arctic Gnome]] 17:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Oh, certainly; and it has been looked into, and will probably continue to be. It doesn't need a lot of examination in this article, though, except inasmuch as the perception of such success and the illusion of control are used by Jew-haters as justification for their bigotry. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]^{<small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]]</small>} 17:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

== Howcome there's not a "causes" section ==

I was looking through the archives section and I saw this has been brought up several times. I'm sure a lot of scholarly writing has been done on theories of underlying causes, but none of this is discussed in the article. I'm wondering why this is.

I'm thinking the reason this isn't included is because there are only three possibilities for the nature and origin of antisemitism, none of which are politically correct:

1. The notion that anti-semitism is widespread and has been widespread throughout the world for as long as there have been Jews isn't really true, and the prejudice/zenophobia against Jews hasn't actually been worse than that against other minority groups.

2. Anti-semitism is caused by jealousy because Jews are actually superior to gentiles.

3. Jews have actually done more bad things than other minority groups and this has provoked prejudice against them.

There could be other possibilities I haven't thought of, but I haven't really seen any others discussed. But at any rate, it seems a major failing of this article to discuss a phenomenon in such depth without looking at its underlying causes... [[User:69.29.30.178|69.29.30.178]] 22:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

*If you can provide some material from a [[WP:V|verifiable]] [[WP:RS|reliable source]] discussing the causes in the terms you suggest, we can use it. The second one there is the only one that makes even a slight bit of sense, though; the other two are air. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]^{<small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]]</small>} 23:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

::Well it's nice to know which one you prefer ;-) I'm not wed to it being discussed as one of the three, it's just that *underlying* causes in general need to be discussed. There may well be other possibilities, I just haven't heard of any. If you know of others then please enlighten me. You seem quite interested in the whole issue of antisemitism, so surely you must have some thoughts as to its origins. Care to share?... :-) [[User:69.29.65.78|69.29.65.78]] 04:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

:::My own opinions, of course, aren't relevant to the article, so: no. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]^{<small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]]</small>} 05:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty funny, because I have read some of the historians and sociologists who have theorized causes of anti-semitism and they never bring up any of the three "possibilities" the anonymous user brought up. Alas, I read that stuff back in college and do not remember (Yehuda Bauer was one important person but only one and there are many more). Needless to say the best scholarship does not offer global theories of anti-semitism but specific theories to explain specific forms and moments of anti-Semitism (blood libel in the middle ages, pogroms in early modern eastern europe, and the Holocaust) but their specific explanations of course have broader implications. I wish we had an editor who actually knew this literature and could incoprorate it into the article. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 13:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

:::The first possibility I raised was that antisemitism (in most parts of the world and for most of the history of the Jewish people) hasn't been more severe than bigotry against any other minority group. This would fit with your thesis of no one global big cause but rather smaller local causes at different places and times. However, if you reject possibility #1 and assert that bigotry against Jews has tended to be more severe than bigotry against other minority groups - both throught the history of the Jewish people and throughout the different majority cultures of the world - then there has to be a larger *underlying* cause of this. The two explanations I have heard are listed as possibilities #2 and #3. There may well be others, and if you've heard of any then by all means discuss them. [[User:128.206.59.141|128.206.59.141]] 18:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Perhaps you are right about point #1 - I would only add that your point #1 is two points. But just to be clear, the reason I was dismissing your comment was this: your points do not explain why there is no section on "causes." I interpreted your point #1 to be a possible explanation for why there is no "causes" section. If we agree that Jews have not always suffered from anti-semitism, and that anti-semitism has taken different forms and has been expressed with differing levels of intensity depending on time and place, this is '''not''' a reason for not having a "causes" section, it just means the causes section would have to be subdivided into different causes for different forms of anti-semitism. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 13:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

:And of course, the most likely theory; Antisemitism is just one form of paranoid mental illness which has been historically less socially unacceptable. [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] 16:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

:::So then why has this "form of paranoid mental illness" (at least according to many) been more directed at Jews throughout the world than any other minority group? Or is antisemitism no more special then any other form of zenophobia and bigotry?... [[User:128.206.59.141|128.206.59.141]] 18:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Anon. user 128.206... has a point -- NO OTHER ethnic/racial/religious group has been as despised as the Jews during their history; '''Jews have been expelled from over 80 countries/territories''' (and these are only the ones we have documented), not to mention slaughtered en masse in many of these same countries/territories. Surely there is a definite reason for this other than "mass psychosis" or "paranoid mental illness," unless extremely different cultures and people spanning thousands of years have been infected with this mysterious "illness"? Surely there is a definite reason this particular group has drawn the ire of ''every group of people'' they settle amongst.

::::I personally believe the reason to be economic exploitation and parasitism rather than simple "religious intolerance" -- real and/or perceived economic exploitation and the Jews as a parasitic element of society was the main reason for their mass expulsion and/or murder in Spain and Portugal in the 1400-1500s ([[Spanish Inquisition]] & [[Alhambra decree]]), Medieval England ([[Edict of Expulsion]]), Nazi Germany (forced emigration and/or mandatory ghettoization and subsequent deporation), and Russian 'containment' within the [[Pale of Settlement]] along with anti-Semitism within the USSR when Stalin deported/killed thousands of Jews and implemented numerous anti-Semitic measures ([[Joseph Stalin and antisemitism]]) post-WWII. In fact, it seems that the only places where the Jews have yet to be kicked out of are the countries of the "New World," i.e. North and South America. Even then though certain instances exist (see Ulysses S. Grant's [[General Order № 11 (1862)]]), especially in South and Central America pre-1900, The West prides itself as being 'tolerant' and generally respectful of others, except when they feel like they are being taken advantage of.

::::I speculate that if the Jews had settled in large/semi-large numbers in Japan and had, over time, gained vastly disproportionate cultural and financial influence as they have in most everywhere they've settled, that anti-Semitism would have eventually reared its ugly head there as well; but since Japan is so fanatically closed, they would have never been allowed to settle there in the first place. In fact, Jews seem to thrive in so-called 'open' societies; the more closed a society is (such as Japan), the less likely Jews are going to be able to gain any influence in that country/territory because that host population is itself wary of outsiders, much as the Jews are. However, the more 'open' a culture is, the more Jews thrive culturally and economically, despite the fact that, paradoxically, Jews themselves are actually a very 'closed' group, shunning 'outsiders' and Gentile influence. Herein lies the double standard of Jews and Jewish culture: if Jews aren't allowed to participate in the economic/cultural life of a country that place is deemed 'anti-Semitic' -- however, it's a given that Jews will never allow the Gentile societies they live amongst to participate in their own cultural/economic life because they are very 'closed' communities. --[[User:172.166.75.105|172.166.75.105]] 10:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::Maybe we should just create a sub-page where anti-semites can just spout their crap.

==Jewish Bias==

This article comes across as Jewish-extremist propaganda and a hit piece against Islam and other groups. This is not scholarly. The offending parties have all documented themselves through circular logic and ad hominem attacks against other more objective editors above. Case in point, we actually have an editor stating that he agrees "Jews are superior to gentiles." Racism and this type of fascist supremacism has no place here. [[User:Sarastro777|Sarastro777]] 06:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

*Not sarcasm either, apparently. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]^{<small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]]</small>} 06:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You and Mel Gibson apparently share a unique understanding of sarcasm. [[User:Sarastro777|Sarastro777]] 06:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

:That would be funnier if you spelled your ID Sarcastro. [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] 16:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

:Getting back to discussion on the article, and not [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attacks]], what particular parts of this article do you believe are "Jewish propaganda?"--[[User:Sefringle|Sefringle]] 05:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

::Let's not feed the trolls.- [[User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg]] | [[User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Talk]] 07:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Very mature Moshe, but the insult is a poor substitute for a coherent idea. Maybe you can work on that. Moving on...I mentioned the areas already, but to give some specifics examples:

<BR><BR>

"'''Muhammad's attitude towards Jews was shaped by ..'''" <BR>

''This is the author's opinion, as he/she obviously does not converse with Mohammed. There is also no source'' <BR><BR>

"'''Muslim holy text defined the Arab and Muslim attitude towards Jews to this day..'''"<BR>

''This implies there is a single unified attitude, which is untrue. This is otherwise known as a stereotype... or an example of prejudice where one assumes ALL Muslims think <x> '' <BR>

<BR>

Tip of the iceberg and the worst form of intellectual diarhhoea!

[[User:Sarastro777|Sarastro777]] 03:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

*Well, actually, the first one is footnoted at the end of the next sentence, though to be honest I'm not sure what the footnote is referring to -- it simply says "Lacqueur (2006), p. 192", so someone needs to fix that reference. As far as the second is concerned, are you suggesting that the Qur'an does not define Muslim attitudes in general, or just not toward Jews? --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]^{<small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]]</small>} 03:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the second sentence, it does not state what you just asked me... as far as qualifying with "general" (which is a weasel word). The quotes contain obvious references to Jews, though whether those quotes were written because Muhammed "hated Jews" (was anti-semitic) is another matter. Any so-called "anti-semitic" behavior they allegedly inspired needs to be specifically documented and not summarized with a stereotype about "arabs and muslims" [[User:Sarastro777|Sarastro777]] 04:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

*The rest of the section does exactly that. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]^{<small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]]</small>} 04:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

== Journalist ==

Please replace Johnson, the journalist, with another source. It is a violation of [[WP:RS]], particularly edits like these: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism&diff=89170450&oldid=89169621]. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 08:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:Johnson is a best-selling historian, and qualifies as a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. Please give up your campaign against him. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small>} 22:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. Surely more reliable than Lewis in your view [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aminz&diff=89124411&oldid=89077061] or more reliable than Encyclopedia of Islam and all other sources per other campaigners. Johnson is no more than a popular journalist with no real academic degree whatsoever. His books could be used only when they are peer-reviewed, meaning that they are published in a scientific press. Can you find even one other source (of course not another journalist but a real academic source) which agrees with him or with you? I am not asking much. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 03:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

: Aminz: Your activism won't make the facts disappear. Your problem is not with Johnson but with historical facts. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 05:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:: *Facts*!?!?! --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 05:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Yes, facts. You know, like the fact that he has an honors degree from Oxford (whereas you claim "he has no real academic degree whatsoever"). Or the fact that he wrote over two dozen history books, well recieved within the profession. That sort of thing. As Jayjg said, it's time to give it up.[[User:Isarig|Isarig]] 19:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:::: Sure, academic degrees!!! '''second lower class degree in Jesuit method'''... I am not going to repeat my arguments ''here'' again. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 21:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

== Anti-Judaism in the New Testament ==

Despite being text in the Bible, people are seeing it the wrong way. Not all the Jews were said to be evil. There have been other verses in the Bible where there are Jews whom did accept the Holy Spirit and remained Jewish. I hope for somebody to add a verse countering the interpretation that Jesus and his desciples were talking about all Jews or a sentence that describes what Jesus and his desciples meant. No biased comments, please. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 16:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:Please review [[WP:NOR]]. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small>} 22:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

== Pro-India garbage ==

This is utterly fantastic reading ;)

"There have been no antisemitic incidents from the Hindu majority in India in the nearly 3-millennium history of Indian Jewry"

I find that quite hard to believe though..but of course let's blame everyone else for the anti-semitism in our country. First the Christians:

"Anti-semitism first came to India with the Portuguese Christian Missionaries in the 16th century"

And how about the muslims?

"Contemporary anti-semitism in India comes largely from Muslims through Pakistan-based Islamic terror outfits like Lashkar-e-Toiba, operating illegally in India, who have declared Jews to be the "enemies of Islam"" {{unsigned|84.238.16.12}}

: The section contains several references. Do you have something better than empty bitterness? ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]} 05:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)