This 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles 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.
removed "Rejection of Jesus as the Messiah" section which said nothing about "New Testament rejection of Judaism" and seems to have involved intojust be an unfortunate defense of antisemitism
removed "Observance of Mosaic law" section which also said nothing about "New Testament rejection of Judaism" and also seems to have involved intojust be an unfortunate defense of antisemitism
removed "Conversion of Gentiles to Judaism" which said nothing about that, also said nothing about "New Testament rejection of Judaism" and was just meandering and full of WP:OR
removed "Criticism of the Pharisee" while promising, had no citations and is covered by the remaining section
There was also a strange softening of the lead, that didn't reflect the contents of this article, which I corrected. Happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
also removed "Early differences" which said nothing with sourcing about actual roots of antisemitism in Christianity. was more apologetics about christians having it bad than anything Jytdog (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC) (copyedit, i surely meant "evolved into" but make it more simple and not assume this history Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC))
I have reverted all these except the changes to the 1st para of the lead. They seem to reflect nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. While the stuff removed was, like most of the article, largely unsourced, it seemed fairly standard stuff, & necessary to cover the subject properly. I have changed the headings, which seem to represent a major complaint above, trimmed some weak or dubious stuff and moved bits around. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Please take my edits as good faith, as we are meant to. Please explain how the sections I deleted are within the scope of this article. And please note that per the policyWP:VERIFY "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." Everything I did was according to policy. I acknowledge it was drastic, which is why I opened this section when I did it. As I said, happy to discuss, but please respond to the points I have made. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I am happy to take you edits as good faith, but I can't see them as an improvement. All the material clearly had bearing on the subject of Christianity and antisemitism. If WP:VERIFY was strictly enforced here, there would be almost nothing left, as in so many articles. The objections you made above mainly related to "said nothing about "New Testament rejection of Judaism"", a problem I have largely solved by changing that rather POV heading. I can't see any "unfortunate defense of antisemitism" in what is left, please give details. You removed material that was referenced, while I have added some references, though by no means as many as are needed. I notice from your edits you mostly remove text from articles, and add stuff to talk. Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
WIth respect to sourcing, WP:VERIFY is policy. I am now working on this article and I will be removing more unsourced content. Wikipedia is not a platform for OR or soapboxing. Things need to be verified, and if removing OR/Soapboxing leaves a stub for a while, so be it. On the scope issue, this article is about Christian antisemitism. What does does Christians being persecuted by Rome, or Rome waging war on Jews, have to do with that? This is the kind of issue I had. If you look at each of the sections I deleted, they had nothing - zippo - to do with the topic of this article. It is real question - please respond to that, which regard to each section I deleted. Thanks! And your description of my editing is wrong. I add lots to WP. I also am vigilant for people abusing their editing privileges by adding OR and soapboxing which unfortunately they do pretty often - I do delete that stuff. And in any case, per WP:TPGdiscuss content not contributor. Do NOT personalize this. We are discussing this article and its content, based on WP policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I've tagged the sections that are problematic pending our discussion here.Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
You made no attempt to remove the unreferenced material in most of the article, just those sections on the early period you don't like, for some reason you have not yet articulated. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Johnbod would you please continue the discussion? I checked your contribs and you are editing today, and I would like to move forward on improving this article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I won't have much/any time in the week. I suggest you get some sources and start reading them, before adding references and material. Your latest edits are also unhelpful - removing largely the wrong FR & EL. The EL ones especially; this article is not about the Holocaust. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Wow that is an arrogant response. duh it is not about the holocaust - that is just the culmination of a long history. Your characterizations of my edits is still wrong. It has nothing to do with WP:DONTLIKEIT - it has to do with the scope, which you are not dealing with, even still. I will just keep working on the article. Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
It's just plain fact. Why do you keep trying to remove most of the "long history"? Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ so "the sky is blue" is just plain fact. it is a fact that has no place in the scope of this article... so that is not a meaningful answer.
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Editor2020 you just left an edit note saying "only off topic thing I see" in the "Observance of Mosaic law" section. Would you, and if you like, Johnbod, please say explicitly what anything in that section has to do with "Christianity and antisemitism"? The section itself makes no explicit connection. Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see. You are saying the whole section is off-topic. Do you feel that this material should be covered in Anti-Judaism? Or that the background provided is unnecessary? Editor2020, Talk 15:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
hooray! :) yes, if i try to fill in the explicit connection for each of the sections that I deleted, as they currently stand, here is what I come up with: "here is a legitimate reason why christians think that jews are going to hell and why they should be converted, destroyed, or shunned". it just looks ugly to me. IF we were to keep subject matter in the article about "Rejection of Jesus as messiah" for example, it would not be written like it is. It would have some pretty careful (and well sourced) content introducing it that says something like: "Christians with anti-semitic beliefs or positions have used certain beliefs of Jews, some interactions between Jews and Christians, and some beliefs about Jews as justification for some part of their anti-semitic beliefs", and have nuance and examples (and sources!) in the section, to actually tie the content to the topic in a thoughtful way. but even in that context, i struggle to see what "observance of Mosaic law" has to do with the topic. (for what it is worth - and it is not much - i have engaged in a lot of structured jewish-christian dialogue and have taken several courses in jewish-christian relations and history, and "observance of mosaic law" is not a topic that comes up - I have no idea what that section has to do with the topic) And likewise I have no idea what the section on "Roman-Jewish tensions" is doing in this article. What could it have to do with Christianity and anti-semitism? (real question!) Nothing in it explicitly ties it to the topic, that's for sure. but i remain interested in what others would say, about how the current sections relate to the subject matter. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Took it off because it is not directly related to the article and not entirely true (Ignoring the status under the pact of Omar and under the Safavid dynastyCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).