Jump to content

Talk:Antisemitism: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Limboot (talk | contribs)
347 edits
Line 150: Line 150:


This is an article abot antisemitism so it should cover all uses of the term (it does mention the propaganda term "new antisemitism"), but if this article isn't suitable, which article is? // [[User:Liftarn|Liftarn]]
This is an article abot antisemitism so it should cover all uses of the term (it does mention the propaganda term "new antisemitism"), but if this article isn't suitable, which article is? // [[User:Liftarn|Liftarn]]

==Anti-judaism is no antisemitism !!!!!!!!!!==
There is nothing against to critice judaism, like there is nothing against criticing christianity and criticing islam. So "discrimination of jews as a religious group" has to be deleted as antisemitism or at least also written (othen called anti-judaism) but that is also deleted. Like {{POV-check}}. Do you know what we "reason" was to murder 6.000.000 Jews. Not there religion. Also atheist Jews were murdered in Auschwich ect. You, and apperently judaists want to CRIMINALIZE CRITICISERS OF JUDAISM ((like criticizers of islam are criminalized as "islamophobians)). You have to shame your selve. Especialy Jews (I presume) like Avi. [[User:Limboot|Limboot]] 14:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:20, 5 May 2007

WikiProject iconJewish history Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Troll warning

Archive
Archives
Chronological archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

Topical archives

Causes

No mentions AT ALL of causes of antisemitism I know it is racist, but the cause of antisemitism (mainly jews being rich or in power) are never cited. At least cite it as "the supposed reasons those evil people had for hating jews" or something. C'mon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.49.101.18 (talk • contribs)

Anon, please do not reuse someone else's signature. You are wrong factually. The hatred did not disappear when Jews are poor and powerless. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not possible that jews is hated just for being different. And causes for the hate is just our human way of hiding that we are all bullies in the genes.

If it does exist causes. Here is some more possible ones: The poor has always hated the rich. So why doesn't poor people hate rich jews? Doesn't judaism say that jews are better then other people (chosen by god). This kind of elitism might well be another reason for distrust and hate against jews? And that the jews killed crist has made many christans angry(so much for turning the other cheek). The modern hate of jews from arabs is of course about the occupation of palestine. Reko 09:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does antisemitism really concern religion?

I don't think so. If some body hates judaism that because of his christian or muslim point of view. So hatred against judaists is no antisemitism but "christianity" of "islamic". Real antisemitism is hate based on etnic grounds. Limboot 13:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See religious antisemitism (and please stop making absurd changes to the article to promote your personal view). // Liftarn
The term concerns both types of hate. Why does someone being Christian or Muslim need to make them be anti-Jewish (ie. antisemitic)? Yonatan talk 13:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because of there religion (christian of muslim). So that hate against jews is because of the religion of the christian or muslim (and so not "antisemitism because of religion"). I want also make the point that many christians and many muslim hate all Jews because THEY believe that all etnic Jews are judaists (because those christians and muslims are indoctrinated by their believe. So I want to make a point of the fact that antisemitism is not against the religious of the Jews but against all etnic Jews. Antisemitism as the same as "islamophobia" is just ridiculous. Limboot 14:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While Antisemitism encompasses more than religious antisemitism, it undoubtedly includes it, and thus removing that from the lead is tantamount to saying that the category of Human beings does not include Men, because it also includes Women. -- Avi 14:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be made clear that different definitions are in use. In the late 19th century there was an outpouring of anti-Jewish ideas; this was given the name "antisemitism", and it was definitely a racial, racist ideology. This is a narrow definition, and some writers prefer to restrict the term "antisemitism" to that particular current because they wish to contrast it with other kinds of belief. In everyday terms, though, antisemitic and anti-Jewish tend to mean the same thing, a broader or looser definition. This kind of definitional problem happens with all sorts of words and is one of the problems that an encyclopedia always has to grapple with. Itsmejudith 15:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When somebody say something about Israeli gouvernment than supporters of israeli gourvernment calls that "antisemitism". Just to criminalice their opponents. And now when somebody says something about the religion Judaism supporters of judaism or religion (islamophiles) call that also semitism, just to criminalize their opponents. :: I think the first declared atheists were Jews (Jules Verne / Karl Marx). In your point of view critism on atheism should also be "antisemitism".Limboot

Then the proper way to handle that is a brief paragraph on the religious version with a {{main}} tag pointing to Religious antisemitism. To deny that the latter exists, and is a form of antisemitism, is just patently bizarre. -- Avi 15:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Not to forget to mention that the lead discusses those forms rather clearly as it stands with its three bullet points. -- Avi 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May be I am not right but I miss my question that I as an opponent of judaism am an antisemite according you (as deleter of my changes in the definition of antisemitism)? Limboot 16:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One can be critical of a religion without being prejudiced against it. -- Avi 16:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. After some googling I found that I am not right. Rests only Karl Marx as founder of atheism so should critism of atheism also be called "religious antisemitism" Limboot 16:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not in any way, and I can't imagine why you think criticism of an individual Jew's beliefs or philosophy would be considered antisemitism. Anyway, you're right in that the term "antisemitism" was coined to mean specifically racial as opposed to religious hatred of Jews; however, the general usage refers to hatred of Jews for any reason, or no reason. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Founding atheism is not in the list of Karl Marx's achievements. Jpgordon's point is basically correct, but definition of this term is a complex issue and the article should reflect that fact. I believe that the article should go into more detail about the different definitions so that the kind of confusion reflected in this discussion cannot arise. At present the paragraph dividing antisemitism into exactly three categories is over-precise, moreover it lacks a source. Itsmejudith 10:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Different definitions? If supporters of George Bush definite fascism as "opposition to George Bush" has Wikepidia also definite fascism as "opposition to George Bush". So it doesn't matter how some people missuse words like "fascism", "racism" and antisemitism. Hirsi Ali is also called a racist because her opposition to islam (a racist while she is more black then the average muslim but I won't be surprised wikipedia definite racism as "opposition to islam" Limboot 15:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I as anti-christianity also a "antisemite" ?

I don't believe in a God who has killed billions of people (including childeren) because they didn't obeyed to an allmighty God (e.g. to offer animals and disbolish it later). I don't believe in a story which tells that the entire world is inbreed (3 sons of Noach and their wives and two animals of each animalspecie, fresh water fish and salt water fish that survived all to gether the same water of Noach flood). I don't believe in a God who had a "chosen people". So I am anti-judaism. But .... this part of judaism is als christianity. SO ACCORDING DEFINITION OF WIKIPEDIA OPPONENTS OF CHRISTIANITY ARE ANTISEMETIC !!?><:!@ !!!!!!!!!! Limboot 15:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're an atheist. -- Avi 16:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you read here that I am an atheist. You are an unitheist (Someone who believes that every monotheist believes, or has to believe, in the same God). Limboot 15:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, you are engaged in an edit process that also would seemingly have you branded as a soapboxing, POV-warrior troll, so you may wish to review wiki policies and guidelines as how to properly edit here. Not to mention you are violating WP:TALK as well. -- Avi 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"You'd better not talk that way about Him, honey," she warned him reprovingly in a low and hostile voice. "He might punish you."
"Isn't He punishing me enough?" Yossarian snorted resentfully. "You know, we mustn't let him get away with it. Oh no, we certainly musn't let Him get away scot-free for all the sorrow He's caused us. Someday I'm going to make Him pay. I know when. On the Judgement Day. Yes, that's the day I'll be close enough to reach out and grab that little yokel by His neck and -"
"Stop it! Stop it!"
"What the hell are you getting so upset about?" he asked her bewilderedly in a tone of contrite amusement. "I thought you didn't believe in God."
"I don't," she sobbed, burting violently into tears. "But the God I don't believe in is a good God, a just God, a merciful God. He's not the mean and stupid God you make him out to be."
(from Catch-22) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antisemitism

Somebody placed the following notice on the top of this article. I am moving it here.--Sefringle 02:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The related Category:Antisemitism has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.

Islam and Antisemitism

I previously tried to make this section neutral [1], [2] using quotes from Bernard Lewis, Mark Cohen, Norman Stillman, The Oxford Dictionary of Judaism, etc etc, but of no benefit. Here is a quote from Jewish leaders themselves. Quote regarding the view of the Jewish leaders of Iran: "Historically, say Jewish leaders, anti-Semitism here is rare, a fact they say is often lost on critics outside, especially in Israel, where many Iranian Jews have relatives." [3]. --Aminz 08:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats one country. We're talking about the entire muslim world here. Even in the Christian world, jews were not constantly being persecuted in every country. It happened in one country, then a different country, then a different country, etc. Even in Germany, before the Nazis came to power, antisemitsm was not that common; seems just as common as it was in Islamic Persia, with occausional persecutions and massacures. A Holocaust surviver once told me he never would have believed the Holocaust could have occured in Germany before it did. But to get to the point, nobody can deny the antisemitism in both the Christian and muslim world, unless they are ignorent of it or in denial. In this case, I think we are best doing what World Book Encyclopedia does with antisemitism; give equal attention to both Christian and islamic antisemitism.--Sefringle 22:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you in danger of making antisemitism trivial? No one treats different people or people of different race/religion the same as they treat "people like us" but that's not really antisemitism, unless it singles out one group of different people is it? I recently came across serious contemporary anti-semitism (the Jew Watch website). I was shocked and didn't actually think this stuff still existed (and maybe its just a cranky US thing) but probably I would have been much more aware of the real problem if there hadn't been a massive over-use of the term as a get out of jail free card. --BozMo talk 08:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Double standards. That the root of all EVILs.--Aminz 09:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this section for many reasons, one of them being it is way too long for an introduction.

Traditionally Jews living in Muslim lands, known as dhimmis were allowed to "practice their religion, subject to certain conditions, and to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy" and guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying the jizya (a per capita tax imposed on free adult males) to Muslims.[1] Dhimmis had an inferior status under Islamic rule. They had several social and legal disabilities such as prohibitions against bearing arms or giving testimony in courts in cases involving Muslims.[2] Many of the disabilities were highly symbolic. The most degrading one was the requirement of distinctive clothing, not found in the Qur'an or hadith but invented in early medieval Baghdad; its enforcement was highly erratic.[3] Jews rarely faced martyrdom or exile, or forced compulsion to change their religion, and they were mostly free in their choice of residence and profession.[4] The notable examples of massacre of Jews include the killing or forcibly convertion of them by the rulers of the Almohad dynasty in Al-Andalus in the 12th century. [5] Notable examples of the cases where the choice of residence was taken away from them includes confining Jews to walled quarters (mellahs) in Morocco beginning from the 15th century and especially since the early 19th century. [6] Most conversions were voluntary and happened for various reasons. However, there were some forced conversions in the 12th century under the Almohad dynasty of North Africa and al-Andalus as well as in Persia.[7] Antisemitism in Muslim countries increased in the 19th century. The nature and extent of antisemitism among Muslims, and its relation to anti-Zionism, are hotly-debated issues in contemporary Middle East politics.

The introduction to this section needs to be shortened greatly, and second, this section should be evaluated further for POV. Parts of it seem to be making light of the situation, especially the part relating to dhimmis and the Jizya.--Sefringle 00:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sefringle, this is a neutral account of the status of Jews under Islam. --Aminz 00:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it is also way too long for a lead. Parts seem also to be irrelevant. What does Jews given certian rights have to do with antisemitism? Absolutly nothing.--Sefringle 01:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think it is good as a sub-section on the "Status of Jews under Muslim rule". --Aminz 01:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but I think the first sentence needs editing for POV and relevance.--Sefringle 01:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Gerber

The article reads: "Islamic law does not differentiate between Jews and Christians in their status as dhimmis. According to Bernard Lewis, the normal practice of Muslim governments until modern times was consistent with this aspect of sharia law. This view is countered by Jane Gerber, who maintains that of all dhimmis, Jews had the lowest status."

Now, Gerber's view is very dissent (the first time I am encountering such thing). I was wondering what the credentials of Jane Gerber is that disputes the common view of scholars such as Bernard Lewis, and Claude Cahen (e.g. in Encyclopedia of Islam, 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.") and others? Why is she a reliable source? --Aminz 01:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a google search. She is a faculty memeber at Columbia University. --Aminz 02:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some information: [4] She is a professor of Jewish history and the director of the Institute for Sephardic Studies at City University of New York. Here is some more information [5]--Sefringle 02:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to say. As she is presented here(countering Lewis's view), she is not only countering Lewis but many other scholars of the field (everybody I know).--Aminz 02:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But at the same time, she is a scholar and of authority to do so.--Sefringle 02:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that she is countering Lewis's view as harshly as it is presented here. My guess is that she is at most saying in certain places and times there were something. Like S. D. Goitein who says: "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."--Aminz 02:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the exact quote? That's the only way to know for sure.--Sefringle 02:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No unfortunately.--Aminz 03:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

Avraham was clearly right to remove those edits, but I don't think they really count as vandalism or that an RFC is needed. We need to discuss them here with the editor responsible. Of course the article needs to reflect in an unbiased way all the different usages of the term. The relationship between "antisemitism" and "anti-Judaism" is complex and differs between writers. The solution is to put on the table all the proposed usages and the relevant authors, then we can decide how much weight should be given to each. Itsmejudith 18:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between open and honest communication, and rampant POV pushing. Please see Limboot (talk · contribs)'s contributions for an example of the latter. -- Avi 18:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree w/ Avi as Limboot edits are part of OR and he's just edit warring after having failed to better explain his edits here. Nothing is sourced at all. However, if we have to go thru a RfC, the established users i've just mentioned on my edit summary should have to explain their nonsense reverts of well-sourced edits. I haven't restored Jimmy Carter case as it is part of WP:POINT -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think, as a guideline, anyone complaining that "well-sourced edits" are being removed should be reverted as a matter of principle - the principle being, one shouldn't use nonsensical arguments to defend an edit. The fact that something is sourced doesn't mean that it must therefore be included in an article; Wikipedia is not a random collection of information or claims. Is the information relevant? Are the sources high quality? Are the claims made presented properly? Do they represent an extreme minority view? Are they being used to support original research? Do they add valuable information regarding the topic? There are many hurdles a statement must overcome before it should be included in an article; if the only claim made for it being included is that it is "well-sourced" and the removal is "censorship", then it obviously is being promoted by someone who has no understanding whatsoever of what it takes to write a proper Wikipedia article. By the way, feel free to review Talk:Antisemitism/Archive_25#Blanking. Jayjg (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the archive Jayjg but it wasn't convincing at all. I am being more convinced by Leifern's comment than anything else. Maybe it is my problem but i don't think i am the only one having problems here. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Epithetology"

This is an article about antisemitism, not about how the term is used in political rhetoric. This is discussed in quite a bit of detail in the article on New antisemitism and doesn't belong here. --Leifern 19:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Scholars of antisemitism should be quoted here, not political opportunists. Jayjg (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Leifern for your explanations and using the talk page. Your action is well-noted. No comment on Jayjg's POV. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And after all the discussions, User:Aminz chose to jostle the same strawman arguments into the intro, next to New antisemitism paragraph. Who needs NPOV when we talk about those pesky Jews? ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read these discussions. I added the new introduction of New Antisemitism here(which was agreed upon after lots of discussion). I doubt that the Jewish POV is downplayed here Humus sapiens. --Aminz 02:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only after I had to RV your POV edit. I do not enjoy RVs, and I won't always be there to uphold NPOV for you. I don't think the new addition "proponents vs. critics" belongs in the intro either, but I won't RV right now. And BTW, there is no such thing as "Jewish POV" - Jews are free to hold opinions across the entire political spectrum and do not have a secret cabal of Elders. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reformulated that sentence based on my understanding of discussion here. And please avoid ironic language. --Aminz 05:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article abot antisemitism so it should cover all uses of the term (it does mention the propaganda term "new antisemitism"), but if this article isn't suitable, which article is? // Liftarn

Anti-judaism is no antisemitism !!!!!!!!!!

There is nothing against to critice judaism, like there is nothing against criticing christianity and criticing islam. So "discrimination of jews as a religious group" has to be deleted as antisemitism or at least also written (othen called anti-judaism) but that is also deleted. Like

. Do you know what we "reason" was to murder 6.000.000 Jews. Not there religion. Also atheist Jews were murdered in Auschwich ect. You, and apperently judaists want to CRIMINALIZE CRITICISERS OF JUDAISM ((like criticizers of islam are criminalized as "islamophobians)). You have to shame your selve. Especialy Jews (I presume) like Avi. Limboot 14:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Lewis (1984), pp.10,20
  2. ^ Lewis (1987), p. 9, 27
  3. ^ Lewis (1999), p.131
  4. ^ Lewis (1999), p.131; (1984), pp.8,62
  5. ^ Lewis (1984), p. 52; Stillman (1979), p.77
  6. ^ Lewis (1984), p. 28
  7. ^ Lewis (1984), pp.17,18,94,95; Stillman (1979), p.27
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antisemitism&oldid=128428704"