Talk:Islam and antisemitism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Peace dove.svg Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Stop hand.svg

We know that the Semites include Arabs.

Please see Antisemitism#Etymology_and_usage for why antisemitism exclusively means anti-Jewish sentiment.
          This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith   
Religious syms.svg
Religion portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Unrated ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Religijne symbole0.png
 This article is supported by Interfaith work group.
WikiProject Judaism (Rated B-Class, Mid-importance)
Star of David.svg
Judaism portal
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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Jewish history (Rated B-Class, Mid-importance)
Hebrew Chai Symbol trans.svg 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Islam (Rated B-Class, Mid-importance)
Shahada.svg
Islam portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 4 July 2006. The result of the discussion was keep (no consensus).
Face-sad.svg The history (older versions) of this talk page was unfortunately mislaid when it was moved and the corresponding move back was done by copy and paste rather than using the "move" button. You can find the history at Talk:Islam and Judaism. Wikipedia apologies for any inconvenience.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
Archive 7

Contents

[edit] Misleading link

Another hadith says: "A Jew will not be found alone with a Muslim without plotting to kill him."[42] According to another hadith, Muhammad said: "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him'".(Sahih al-Bukhari 4:52:177) This hadith has been quoted countless times, and it has become a part of the charter of Hamas.[54]

And then the link goes to a page in a book by Walter Laqueur. The link should be made directly to pertinent information within the Hamas charter.


[edit] Things in the article need to be fixed

Well, here some criticism which, I hope, will be contructive.


The Judaism in theology section says " The conventional epithets in the qur'an are apes for Jews and pigs for Christians. ([Qur'an 2:61], [Qur'an 5:65], [Qur'an 7:166])[22] "

This is just not true: the Quran says God transformed one group of Jews into apes and swine because they transgressed the Sabbath (just read the verses cited). It has nothing to do with Christians, and they are certainly no "conventional epithets" for Jews!

If this story has any relevance in anti-semitism (I think it does, as it is sometimes (mis)used today by anti-semitic Muslims), the wording needs to be modified. Right now it sounds as if the Quran 'conventionally' refers to Jews and Christian as apes and pigs, which isn't the case.

Also, "Lewis adds, negative attributes ascribed to subject religions (in this case Judaism and Christianity) are usually expressed in religious and social terms, but very rarely in ethnic or racial terms. However, this does sometimes occur." Is there any example of the Quran insulting the Jews on the basis of their ethnicity (rather than criticizing minor points of Judaism or the behaviour of the Jews contemporary to Muhammad)? I think it wouldn't even make sense, seeing that the Jews of Medina were ethnic Arabs following Judaism. I also fail to see how the Quran could possibly abuse Christians on 'ethnic or racial terms', as Christians do not constitute a race or an ethnicity.


The section on 'remarks on Jews' is terrible. It should be totally rewritten and put in order. For example, take this paragraph:

" Walter Laqueur states that the Qur'an and its interpreters has a great many conflicting things to say about the Jews. It is really easy to find quotations stating that jihad (holy war) is the sacred duty of every Muslim, that Jews and Christians should be killed, and that this fight should continue until only the Muslim religion is left ([Qur'an 8:39]). Al-Baqara says about the Jews, slay them (the sons of apes and pigs) whenever you catch them. Jews are said to be treacherous and hypocritical and could never be friends with a Muslim.[8]

Frederick M. Schweitzer and Marvin Perry state that References to Jews in the Koran are mostly negative. The Qur'an states that Wretchedness and baseness were stamped upon the Jews, and they were visited with wrath from Allah, That was because they disbelieved in Allah's revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully. And for their taking usury, which was prohibited for them, and because of their consuming people's wealth under false pretense, a painful punishment was prepared for them. The Qur'an requires their "abasement and poverty" in the form of the poll tax jizya. In his "wrath" God has "cursed" the Jews and will turn them into apes/monkeys and swine and idol worshipers because they are "infidels." Yet ordinarily, "the Jews" could not be said to have "killed" Muhammad. There is no accusation of decide, no appropriation of the Jewish bible as an Islamic sacred text, and "virtuous Hebrews" is not translated into "virtuous Muslims" in contrast to the "stiff-necked, criminal Jews."[7] "

It is lapidatory to to translate 'jihad' and 'jahada' in their Quranic usage as holy war; it is not 'easy' to find verses saying that "Jews and Christians should be killed" (there is only 1 instance in the 6000+ verses of the Quran that talks about fighting 'the people of the book', in the context where the Jews of Khaybar were leagued with the Meccan ennemies of the Muslims); 8:39 says the fight should continue until people desist from fighting Muslims; the mention to Al Baqara is non-sense (the passage (2:190-193) the article quotes from (out of context) is about 'fighting those who fight you' and was directed at Pagan tribes and not Jews); Jews aren't called the sons of apes and pigs; the verses about Jews being hypocritical, treacherous, incurring the wrath of God etc. aren't about all Jews but always some particular groups of Jews, in reference to Biblical stories or to the behaviour of the Jews contemporary to Muhammad; God will not turn the Jews into apes, swine, idol worshippers etc. etc.

Also: "The standard Qur'anic reference to Jews is the verse [Qur'an 2:61].[27] It says: And abasement and poverty were pitched upon them, and they were laden with the burden of God's anger; that, because they had disbelieved the signs of God and slain the Prophets unrightfully; that, because they disobeyed, and were transgressors.[28]"

Among all the verses that talks about Jews, positively or negatively, who decides what the 'standart' Quranic reference is? The verse is, again, quoted out of context and truncated. (It talks about these men among the ancient Hebrews who were criticizing Moses about little things instead of being grateful for he had saved them from slavery in Egypt- that is not a general statement about Jews)

I think the article should be general when dealing with the Quran's stance of Jews. It suffices to say that it harshly criticizes some members of the Jewish tribes the early Muslims encountered, that it mentions Biblical stories where some Hebrews stray from the path (as in the Golden Calf tale), but that the Jewish religion in general and its porphets are given respect and even praise (and to develop these points). But if the article needs to mention in detail all that the Quran says about Hebrew history and the Jews that lived around Muhammad, then it should be done in a fair, unbiaised way. The article is generally good and balanced, but it seems someone just inserted anti-Islam POV stuff in the middle wherever he could. The rest of the section also needs to be put in order.


The 'life under Muslim rule' section needs to be expanded. I think the theory and the practice of the laws Jews were subjected to quite varied throughout the ages and from one region to another. It has to be mentioned where and when the laws listed in the article were applied, etc.


Last point: the 'sermon' section needs to be re-written. Listing all the documented events where a Muslim preacher insult Jews in a sermon isn't encyclopedic. The section should be much more general. Important anti-semitic preachers should be named (but who on earth are these Ibrahim Mahdi, Ibrahim Al-'Ali, Sheikh Ba'd bin Abdallah Al-Ajameh Al-Ghamidi, Dr. Muhammad 'Abd Al-Sattar? Is it necessary to name them and quote them, when none of them seems important enough to have a Wikipedia page on him?) and give some examples of such anti-semitic speech, but there is no need to devote so much place to the details of all instances of Muslim anti-semitic preaching. (Just go and compare to the 'post WWII anti-semitism' section of the 'Christianity and anti-semitism' page. There are only really vague references to anti-semitic stances of Christians with no detail at all, no list of quotes and preachers etc. as there is here). More importantly, what the article should show is the stance of the leading Muslim authorities and Muslim governments or head of states, instead of bombarding the reader with quotes (it's confusing). It is the importance and frequency of these sermons that needs to be analyzed, from reliable sources.

On the other hand, I think that the importance of anti-semitism among Muslims today is not emphasized enough (I believe it is quite extremely widespread).


Also, Wikipedia usually uses Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation of the Quran, and the verse numbering do not always match the system Yusuf Ali uses.

[edit] Proposed merger

I'm nominating this article to be merged with Islam_and_Judaism. In my view, it contains no information which would not fall more appropriatly under the heading "Islam and Judaism" (overlap). The title "Islam and Antisemitism" is inherently incapable of giving rise to an article that meets the WP:NPOV criteria, appearing to be essentially a fork for discussing the ways in which Islam is alleged to be antisemitic.

I not that the article was nominated for deletion way back in 2006. I make no accusations against any particular editior, but it looks to me like it may have been saved from deletion on that occasion by CAMERA. --FormerIP (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This statement makes no sense; how on earth would it have been saved by the CAMERA case, and why would CAMERA care? What is your evidence? Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

i support a merge. any useful information here would be better represented in the Islam_and_Judaism article. this pov fork apparently has no hope of becoming a balanced article. untwirl(talk) 03:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. 'the unmistakable language of European Christian Anti-semitism' arises for the first time in the 20th century in the Islamic world (Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam 1984 p.185). This was the result of the work of Catholic Arabs predominantly. For the first 1400 centuries Lewis, like most scholars, can find nothing in Islam that compares to the intense, bimillenial obsession in Christiandom with antisemitism, which lay at its theological, textual and doctrinal heart. Some major surveys of anti-semitism, like Yves Chevalier's L'Anti-sémitisme (Editions du Cerf, Paris 1988) don't even mention Islam. Therefore we are dealing with a very late foreign influence on Islam arising 1400 years after its inception. To make an article on 'Islam and Anti-semitism' when most authorities agree the latter was extraneous to the nature of Islam, except for the last century, is to create the impression there is an intrinsic nexus between the two, between Islam as a creed and Antisemitism as an outlook. Evidently, given the scholarly consensus, there is something odd about mimicking the Christianity and antisemitism page in an Islamic context. I think the best title would be ‘The Rise of antisemitism in modern Islam’, since the most authoritative scholars appear to concur that antisemitism has no roots in Islamic theory or practice historically. A change of title would be sufficient to save the page from its apparent insinuation that Islam's attitude to the Jews is on a par with Christianity's.Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Simply because some major surveys of anti-semitism do not mention Islam, does not mean that anti-semitism is therefore proven to be a foreign influence on Islam. The absence of proof that anti-semitism is present (or indeed, commentary on it one way or another) is not proof of its absence. If you wish to prove the assertion, you will require very different sources - ones that actually state that anti-semitism is a foreign influence. -moritheilTalk 11:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that this article needs to be broken up and it's material distributed to several articles... the current article is a hodge-podge mix between a semi-scholarly examination of what the quaran says about Jews (which can be interpreted to support antisemetic views, but is not on its own antisemetic) and what various Muslem antisemites have said (comments which are antisemetic, but not necessarily reflecting the views of Islam as a whole.) I definitely agree that the current title has to go. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Aside from the original research recently inserted by User:Nishidani, the sources themselves explicitly discuss Islam and its relationship with antisemitism. It is not Wikipedia editors who make this connection (either to support it or refute it), but rather reliable sources that do so. Jayjg (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • oppose There is, sadly, plenty of well-sourced material on Islam and antisemitism.Historicist (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that misses the point a bit. There is a lot of well-sourced material on a lot of things, but that doesn't mean they all need WP articles. The point here is that the article title is inherently anti-NPOV, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The article title is describing a major world phenomena, without any kind of opinion or point of view inserted. If the correlation is unflattering, don't blame Wikipedia, because many prominent Islamists (presidents, clerics, kings, news editors) are very brash and vocal in encouraging anti-semitism as an Islamic virtue or duty. Take it up with those guys. There is a lot of well-sourced material on this topic and it is not some minor political or paranoid conspiracy - it's a major part of the Middle East conflict and the Islam-Western conflict, etc, etc. It's one of the most major and pressing religious conflicts of this generation - and the readers deserve a collaboratively edited, properly sourced Wikipedia article on it. Clearlight418 (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Please respond to the question about CAMERA, above. Jayjg (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose This information contained in this article is too large to be merged. It has to remain separate (otherwise the resulting article will become so large that it will be very cumbersome, especially since this topic is controversial and frequently edited.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC))
  • Oppose Too large to merge per WP:SUMMARY, too important to leave fallow. -- Avi (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too large to merge, and not really about the same subject. Antisemitism is prejudice against Jews. Judaism is a religion, practiced by many Jews, to be sure, but the people and the faith are not identical. Jayjg (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Once the original research and material sourced to unreliable sources is removed from this article, I think you will find what is left will fit easily into the article on Judaism and Islam. I'm quite surpised this shoddy piece of POV work has remained in place for so long. Tiamuttalk 09:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Most sources in the article state that Muslims were not particularly hostile to Jews in their 1400 history. Hostiles and anti-Jewish actions in the recent years (the past 60 years), which is caused by the bitter I/P conflict, does not warrant the current article title. Antisemitism was originated in Europe and not in the Middle East Imad marie (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The subjects are distinct enough to necessitate two articles.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose A well documented article that requires its own page as does Christianity and antisemitism.ShamWow (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
that article is a steaming pile of OR. have you looked at it? i couldn't get more than halfway through. here are some highlights of the examples of Christian antisemitism used on that page:
"* the assertion that the Jewish covenant with God has been superseded by a New Covenant.
  • criticisms of the Pharisees. (Matthew 23)
  • criticisms of Jewish parochialism or particularism."
my favorite, unsourced line, "Not all early Christians were antisemitic though."
definitely a candidate for deletion, or stubbing at minimum. just another reason i tell everyone never to use wikipedia for facts. untwirl(talk) 19:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: We do not have articles on "Judaism and Islamophobia", "Judaism and anti-Arab racism", "Germany/Germans and antisemitism" et al, and eyebrows would rightly be raised if we did, on the basis of the titles alone. However, all could also probably be cobbled together quite easily with vaguely impressive-looking sourcing, perhaps with some decent content (that would probably be better split and and covered in different articles) but mostly with material that skirts the wrong side of WP:NPOV, WP:OR and in particular WP:SYNTH. In addition the first two pages could also for example be stuffed with quotes from Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and Meir Kahane, which would nonetheless be just as ridiculous as the equivalent section here is. --Nickhh (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Nickhh's assessment is completely correct about the imbalance in how doubtful material is tolerated in Wikipedia. Putting the small amount of usable material into Islam and Judaism would help the balance a lot. Zerotalk 05:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The article Islam and Judaism is only 36 kB and much of this article is on "Antisemitism in the Islamic Middle East" which as G-Dett points out is completely redundant to Antisemitism in the Arab world except it also allows for Iran and Turkey. That could be solved by moving that article to Antisemitism in the Middle East. The relevant remaining material would fit fine in the Islam and Judaism article so I really dont see the basis for having a separate article. nableezy - 05:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article is clearly distinct from the "Islam and Judaism" article. The correlation between contemporary Islamic philosophy and the resurgence of anti-semitism is quite well documented, and it is an essential facet and flash-point of the Middle East conflict and world terrorism. Islamic anti-semitism is not a minor, fringe or debatable phenomena (like the above proposed "Judiasm and Islamophobia"). It is a significant, full-blown, well-documented aspect of contemporary Islamic religious discourse and politics that most major Western print news and opinion sources have covered in depth. Wikipedia should have a page on it, too! . Clearlight418 (talk) 04:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • oppose I agree with Clerlight418. I think that Islamic Anti Semitism is a distinct topic that should be dealt with separate from the "Islam and Judaism" in order to prevent undue wieght being given to anti semitism in that article. Having a separate article prevents future arguments. :)Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Recap. The essential problem as I see it is being lost in the fog

The nub of the problem which occasioned my reentry is this:-

The article reads:-

'Al-Baqara says about the Jews, slay them (the sons of apes and pigs) whenever you catch them.'[9]' (The source is Laqueur p.192)

The sentence is not from Al-Baqara (first error). It is a composite statement patched up from Al-Baqara 2:191 and Al-Ma'ida 5.60 by Walter Laqueur from

(a)Al-Baqara 2:191 slay them whenever you catch them. The commentators, modern and ancient cannot agree to whom this refers. It may refer to heathens. It may refer to certain groups of Christians or Jews, or both. The context suggests the advice is given to fight back against those who attack Muhammad and his followers, who had as many adversaries among heathens, Jews, Christians, Arabs, polytheists as he had friends. The second error therefore consists in asserting, against the consensus of scholarship, that the identity of 'them' is secure. The third error consists in asserting that them refers exclusively to Jews.

(b)Al-Ma'ida 5.60 contains the phrase 'the sons of apes and pigs'. Apes refers to some Jews, pigs to some Christians, apparently.

So what Laqueur has done is to take a generic statement, where them could refer to any group of people hostile to Islam, and, by an interpolation, make it say the only group referred to consists of Jews, and that here the Qur'an can be cited as justifying the slaughter of Jews wherever and whenever they are found. In other words, these words, as tampered with, are made by Laqueur to provide sacred Qur'anic authority for pogroms and even genocide. The gravity of this manipulation of a sacred text should be self-evident.

A further anomaly, Laqueur's fourth error, arising from this conflation is that the Qur'an is made to say Jews are the sons of pigs, a generic epithet in later times used in Muslim abuse not of Jews but of Christians.

In my view, Walter Laqueur, having no credentials in Arabic or Islamic studies, should not be cited as an authority on how the text of the Qur'an should be read. In Jayjg's view, he can be cited authoritatively because he is an expert on Antisemitism, one half of the topic covered by this page. Experts on antisemitism should not be cited when they are caught forging or manipulating evidence, evidence on a subject they have no professional knowledge of, moreover.

In my view, if evidence exists that the Qur'an incites its readers to slaughter Jews and Christians wherever they are found, the vast scholarship by Christian and Jewish experts on the Qur'an will have found it, and documented it. I can't find it, but if it exists, it should be referred to from an authoritative scholarly source on the subject, and absolutely not from a scholar unqualified to make such a subjective interpretation of that text. To insist this malicious misreport be left untouched only stokes suspicions that wiki pages like this are being edited to serve a partisan cause in a conflict. Everything that distracts from this is mere sand in the eyes. Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

For better or for worse, Nishidani, unless you can have your critique above published in a third-party journal, it is WP:OR. However, what may be appropriate is to attribute the entire sentence to Laquer, ala "According to Walter Laquere, the Quran…" -- Avi (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean, if a scholar makes an error, it should be included, when he is in an area outside of his competence, at the very time that my citation of scholars who are preeminent in this field, is challenged? Why does Laqueur deserve such an extraordinary prominence in this section, where we have literally hundreds of scholars who are specialists in how to read the Qur'an who have not been cited? Avi, such a precedent would create pure madness for editors. Anything any scholar might say could be hauled into articles, without the minimal regard for discretionary judgement or appropriateness! Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
A better solution would be simply to remove it.--G-Dett (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Nishidani, in addition to Avi's correct comment, please note that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth - it's the very first sentence of the WP:V policy. Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
There are in fact many thresholds for inclusion; the sentence in question probably shouldn't have been selected for presentation in this article, and can now simply be deleted.--G-Dett (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure the minimum threshold is verifiability. But if we can show, here on the talk page not in the article where WP:OR applies, that the source is fraudulent why would we put it in an encyclopedia article. Even if 2:191 is referring to Jews when it uses the word kafirrun (disbelievers), and from what I have been reading it does not seem likely, it is without question not referring to them as "the sons of apes and pigs". The Quran has been studied for more than a 1000 years and not a single serious study of that text lends itself to the idea that 2:191 is referring to "the sons of apes and pigs". If it were true there would be much better sources on this, meaning actual experts in the Quran and classical Arabic. nableezy - 02:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh come on, Avi! I've never seen you make such an elementary lapse in judgement. Both you and Jayjg, in asserting I have made a 'critique' (and introduced it, worse still, into the text) have confused the nature of my article edits with the extensive note on the talk page I wrote on why that passage from Laqueur is not appropriate to the article (it is a miscitation of a primary source, by a scholar with no professional background in Qur'anic hermeneutics).
My actual edits on this point, introduced by Lewis and Laqueur, consist of adding more material on the issue they raise (Jews and apes). Since neither Laqueur nor Lewis are the final word on anything, I did what any responsible editor would do, I looked at what other ranking scholars say of the same passages, and added their comments.
As it stands, the Jew = ape equation, once mentioned by Lewis and Laqueur, is now referred to Lewis (topnotch source), by Laqueur (who messed it up, and Jayjg has yet to justify using Laqueur as an WP:RS on the hermeneutics of the Qur'an, nb), by Hawting, Ayoub, and Firestone (respectively by a Christian, Muslim and Jewish expert).
To prove your adventitious assertion, you would have to show where I combine or synthesize the distinct remarks on this equation in these three additional, eminently authoritative, sources to produce a conclusion not in those sources. This I certainly have not done. If you are both troubled by the additional sources, the compromise would be to ask I add, to each separate statement, according to Hawting/Goiten, according to Ayoub, etc. The text already partially does this. I don't add it everywhere (since the source is in the footnotes) simply for stylistic reasons. Scholars, as opposed to youngsters, know that a footnoted statement means 'according to'.
There is gentleman no synthesis and no original conclusion drawn by me from these sources. To assert that I have engaged in original research (Jay's apparent synonym for wide preparatory reading in secondary sources, without which no wiki page can be written) and edited it into the article is an extremely serious accusation, and I repeat, accusations must be proven, not simply asserted.
To repeat, Jayjg must show why Walter Laqueur, an expert perhaps on antisemitism, can ipso facto be cited for the meaning of a verse in the Qur'an that is not shared by any professional scholar of Islam, Christian, Jewish, pagan, or Arab, I am familiar with. The burden of proof lies with him to justify his defense of the retention of an off the cuff, idiosyncratically synthesized citation that cannot be found in the original text, and which does not appear to mean what Laqueur says it means. Nishidani (talk) 09:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Nishidani, if I implied you are trying to edit the article from a partisan perspective, I apologize; that was not my intent. I've been on the receiving end of the same argument myself. For better or for worse, we have to be careful about what we add or subtract from an article. Perhaps I am misremembering, but hasn't Laqueur's work been quoted by many people vis-a-vis this specific issue? That adds to its relevance here. Nishidani, wouldn't the better option be to bring Laqueur and then following that with two or three quotes from reliable and verifiable sources that make the argument that he is in error? This way, the reader is more informed and not less informed. If it was I instead of Laqueur, then it should be removed posthaste; but, and anyone please correct me if I am wrong, if Laqueur's work was quoted by other reliable sources a number of times, then it has relevance to the discussion, and it should be countered by the scholarly work that indicates it is wrong, instead of being deleted. At least that is my opinion as of now, and I am, as always, open to being swayed by convincing arguments. -- Avi (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Last try. Avi, Geza Vermes in his The Religion of Jesus the Jew, SCM Press 1993 p.18, discusses the Gospel of Matthew's evidence there that Jesus was a Torah-observant Jew. He, one of the premier authorities on the period and an expert on Qumran, gives for Jesus's insistance the Mosaic law be observed, Matthew 8:64.
Now if a wiki editor cites Vermes on this, and puts, (Matthew 8:64), are you saying that a reader like myself either (a)cannot intervene in changing the error to Matthew 8:1-4, until I find a secondary source of quality that corrects Vermes's error or are you saying that (b) I have to find scholarly sources that analyse the same passage and get the citation correct, and then write,

'According to Geza Vermes (n = The Religion of Jesus the Jew, SCM Press 1993 p.18), at Matthew 8:64 Jesus enjoined his followers to follow the ritual laws of the Torah. Other scholars, such as Anthony J.Saldarini, (n = Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community, The University of Chicago Press, 1994 p.177), say Jesus expressed his fidelity to biblical law at Matthew 8:1-4.'

i.e. pretending, doe-eyed, that the two disagree where this was said?
A reader like myself, a potential wiki editor, in sighting Matthew 8:64 in Vermes' text, will make a mental note, and a marginal annotation in his copy, while checking it against his copy of the Gospels, correcting this to 8:1-4, because obviously 64 is far too long a section for that Gospel's structuring, and the error is a clear error of transcription or misprint from the long-hand draft, where the 1 written by Vermes was read as a 6 by the printer or his printer's devil and the - between the two was too small to note.
I'm sure that commonsense dictates that, if one were to edit from Vermes, one would not cite the slip, but simply correct it, since all other academic works on Matthew will give 8:1-4, readily verifiable, as the proper text. If however, one is of the persuasion that an authority is sacred, and cannot be corrected unless his peers have noted the error in their reviews, the result would be the uselessly elaborate meandering I sketched above. And indeed, the attentive editor would be rapped over the knuckles by other editors who have the rules to heart, but perhaps not their heart in editing an article to snuff, for engaging in a violation of WP:NOR, (which noting errors is not).
Encyclopedias, my friend, just aren't written that way. WP:NOR was written to stop reckless or mischievous editors from stuffing their own opinions, informed or otherwise, into this global encyclopedia. It certainly was not written to allow editors to stop people using their commonsense to correct obvious lapses, slips of the pen, or slapdash pastiches of learning by non-specialists cited out of their particular area of learning. Wiki may not mention it, but all responsible editing requires both discretionary judgement, a sense of ethical responsibility towards guaranteeing our readers get the facts, and commonsense, if we are to avoid making paragraphs out of patent lapsus calami. (of course, Laqueur's mistake is more serious, because he isn't even, as Jay now notes on the Reliable Sources board, anything like an informed scholar on the Qur'an.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

it seems apparent that if laqueur isn't a Qur'anic expert, he shouldn't be used as a source for interpreting verses. if there are experts in the field that agree with those interpretations, they should be used as sources. if not, it should be removed altogether. untwirl(talk) 15:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

However, this article isn't really an article on the Qur'an, but rather an article on Islam and antisemitism. Thus expertise in antisemitism would also be relevant. Indeed, using your argument, one could insist that if someone is a Qur'anic expert, but not an expert on antisemitism, then he shouldn't be used for deciding if verses are antisemitic. Jayjg (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
you're comparing apples to oranges. interpreting the Qur'an requires vastly superior scholarship than simply calling a statement antisemitic. if the standard for inclusion in an article on antisemitism was expert testimony, we would have far fewer "(blank) and antisemitism" or "antisemitic incidents ..." articles sourced to one-off news reports.
considering the fact that no scholar of the Qur'an has been offered to support this interpretation, this is an exceptional claim. The statement being antisemitic is not what is in question here; if so, laquer would qualify as an expert in that field. what is in question is the Qur'anic interpretation. therefore, laquer isn't qualified to be used to support an exceptional claim in the field of Qur'anic interpretation. provide an expert to translate the text, and laquer can be used to comment on its antisemitism. untwirl(talk) 02:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If Lacquer's interpretation is not supported by a significant fraction of the expert community, then it should be omitted according to the policy on fringe theories. Zerotalk 11:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Untwhirl seems to agree that Laquer is an expert in antisemitism. ("The statement being antisemitic is not what is in question here; if so, laquer would qualify as an expert in that field.") Untwhirl argues that he is not a Qur'an scholar and therefore cannot claim Islam is antisemetic. Consider, if you will, this same argument applied to other religions: might we not also say that an antisemitism scholar is not qualified to claim Christianity is antisemetic, because he does not hold a divinity degree from a Christian seminary, or that he may not claim Zoroastrianism is antisemetic, because he does not hold a similarly specialized advanced degree that would make him an expert on Zoroastrianism? In fact, wouldn't this standard make it impossible for antisemitism scholars to make any statements about any religion? -moritheilTalk 12:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Antisemitic comments by Muslims section

This section, in its entirety, is based on primary sources, translations of speeches, and would be related to an article Antisemitic comments made by Muslims in the 21st century but I fail to see how any antisemitic comment made by a notable Muslim becomes related to Islam and antisemitism. Are there any reliable secondary sources that relate these quotes to the topic of this article? If there are not the entire section should be removed as it is developing our own argument to support a premise. nableezy - 03:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said. It'd be a bit like collecting anti-Muslim statements by Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz and other Jews from pro-Palestinian websites for an article called Judaism and Islamophobia.--G-Dett (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
All those statements were quoted in the 21 Century. Which were naturally fueled by the I/P conflict. I will add the "Quotefarm" for now. Imad marie (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
So, Nableezy, you wouldn't consider Neil J. Kressel. "The Urgent Need to Study Islamic Anti-Semitism", The Chronicle of Higher Education, "The Chronical Review", March 12, 2004, to be on the topic of Islam and antisemitism? Using it as a source would be "developing our own argument to support a premise"? Also, I think by saying "a notable Muslim" you are, no doubt unintentionally, not being entirely accurate about who is quoted there. The "notable Muslims" in question are, in fact, preachers, clerics, and other Islamic religious figures, often giving sermons. In addition, they are quoted in secondary sources; these are not handouts of their sermons they have posted on their website. You don't consider a source on antisemitic statements by Islamic religious figures to be on the topic of Islam and antisemitism? Jayjg (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Im sorry Jay, perhaps not every single quote is sourced to only a primary source. Almost all of them are though. Nearly every single quote in that section is sourced only to a MEMRI translation. That is a primary source is it not? Would you object to removing all of the quotes that have no secondary source? nableezy - 00:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
No. A primary source would be, for example, a Saudi textbook, or an Al Jazeera television program, or a link to the online copy of the al-Akhbar paper. A secondary source would be one that gathered and/or discussed specific selections from those materials. That secondary source could be a book, a paper, a newspaper article, or MEMRI. All secondary sources. Jayjg (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
So this MEMRI source used in the section is a secondary source? Because it is a translation of the original? Explain how that is please because I dont see how that could be true. nableezy - 00:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a bit gray. The primary source would be the actual video of the speech. A transcript of the speech provided by Al-Jazeera would also be a primary source. In this case Memri has provided a transcript of some of the parts of the speech. The selection is a kind of analysis, though not a particularly strong one. In addition, the source nowhere identifies the statements as antisemitic (or anti-Jewish) - an OR issue. So, on the whole, I would consider it to be close to a primary source, and in any event an inappropriate source, primarily because of the OR. Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
So the comments in the section based on sources like this, just MEMRI translations, should be removed or not? nableezy - 01:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
You'd have to examine each source. Material based on this specific source should be removed. Jayjg (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
According to the this RS noticeboard discussion, MEMRI is not a reliable source in BLP situations, its translations are suspect, and it is good to use really only for its own opinion. Tiamuttalk 01:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
You must be reading a different RS/N discussion than I am; I see no such consensus there. Jayjg (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The vast bulk of this material comes from a pro-Israel website's "special dispatches," which simply translate and quote inflammatory comments allegedly made by various clerics in the Arab world in the context of the I/P conflict. The website in question has a established record of mistranslation and source-doctoring (no doubt endearing them to the primary authors of this article), and the fact that so few of these alleged quotations are discussed by legitimate sources is unsurprising. Nor do the "special dispatches" actually discuss the subject of this article, Islam and antisemitism. They just reproduce alleged quotes. They are "secondary sources" only in name. It would be like relying on "special dispatches" from Electronic Intifada reproducing alleged quotes from obscure rabbis about Palestinians and Arabs for an article called Judaism and Islamophobia. Exactly like that, in fact, except that Electronic Intifada doesn't have a history of source-doctoring.--G-Dett (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Plus, the section is an obvious WP:UNDUE. The section is talking up too much space of the article considering it is presenting quotes from the past 20-30 years relatively to the 1400 years old Islam. Imad marie (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Examination of sources used

As Jayjg has said we need to examine each source I figured this is as good a place as any. The first instance in the section has been agreed should be removed. I also challenge the following which are the same type of sources, MEMRI translations: In a separate statement on Al-Jazeera on January 30, 2009, al-Qaradawi expressed support, In a speech delivered by Egyptian cleric Muhammad Hussein Yacoub, On a religious Television program which aired on Al-Rahma TV on January 17, 2009, Egyptian cleric Sheik Said Al-'Afani, In a sermon delivered by Qatari cleric Sheik Muhammad Al-Muraikhi, On July 21, 2006 Syrian Deputy Minister of Religious Endowment Dr. Muhammad 'Abd Al-Sattar, In a speech aired on Al-Jazeera TV on January 11, 2009, Saudi Cleric Khaled Al-Khlewi stated that, On May 7, 2002, in a Saudi state-controlled TV station talk show entitled (a MEMRI dead link is also used for this, and is this a RS or are we just using it for the opinion of Daniel Pipes?). Do you object to the removal of these Jayjg? Or should the also be removed for the same reasons you gave above? nableezy - 02:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

MEMRI is used as a source throughout Wikipedia. If you have any evidence that this was mistranslated or misrepresented, feel free to present it. Second, MEMRI does not analyse, offer comments, and make remarks regarding this quote. They simple provide a translation. While MEMRI is certainly selective about what articles they translate, their translations are considered accurate. More importantly, Qaradawi made this remark on a television show (i.e. a public forum) broadcast by Al-Jazerra, which is considered a relatively open and accurate media source in the Arab World. Finally, Qaradawi's comments are certainly hostile towards Jews - this, combined with the fact that he is one of the most promnient Muslim leaders in the world (i.e. he's notable).

I understand your concern about the dead link - I am adding another link to MEMRITV. Registration is required to view the video but you can see it in full at: http://3arabtv.com/3arabtv/islam/view/-BH5SCUg3r8/Sheikh_Yousef_Al-Qaradhawi.html. I've also added links about this statement to Newsmax, the Times, and the JTA.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

You didnt respond to the issue. You are cherry picking quotes from a primary source that no secondary source has connected with the topic of this article. Look above and you will see there is agreement that at least what you reinserted should be removed as original research based off a primary source. That is the case with each of the linked reports that are used as a source in this article as well. nableezy - 21:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
actually some of the sources you added can be used, but this one is garbage. The JTA and Times are fine to support that the statement is antisemitic, but is it related to this article just because a Muslim cleric made an antisemitic statement? nableezy - 21:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Qaradhawi is not some joe blow - he is one of the most regarded and well-known Islamic thinkers in the world - That's why it is notable. (btw, after looking more closely at the Newsmax article, I agree that doesn't belong here. I'll remove it immediately.) (Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC))
I'll admit I should have looked more closely at the talk page before reverting and I understand why you were annoyed. I've already removed the newsmax source (you were right, it is garbage). Anyways, when one of the most important and well-known Muslim leaders in the world makes this kind of statement against Jews on an internationally broadcast TV show, don't you think that qualifies as a link between Islam and Anti-Semitism?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC))
No I do not. If he were saying that such and such hadith or Quranic verse backs up the belief that such and such should or will happen to the Jews, then yes it would be related. Somebody giving their personal antisemitic hopes and beliefs, even if they are a cleric or whatever, is an example of a Muslim making an antisemitic comment and would fit in the article on that person. But no matter, one thing at a time. Above there is a list of sources that are the only basis for inclusion, they are all primary source translations of speeches or appearances. You need to find secondary sources connecting the topics. I wont delete anytime soon, but within a week or so I would hope everything in that list of quotes is supported by secondary sources. nableezy - 00:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
According to User:Jayjg, none of these sources or the material that relies on them should be used unless they make an explicit connection between "anti-semitism" and "Islam", as clarified here. Let us assume that he is probably right on this point. Block-quoting and highlighting chunks of text that seem to be offensive in respect of what they say about Jews and others, as translated by MEMRI et al, and inserting this into the article on the basis of an unstated assertion/assumption that it is anti-semitic is of course a clear case of WP:SYNTH, unless that interpretation is explicitly confirmed by a reliable, secondary source. However "obvious" it might seem to you, I or anyone else. And we haven't even got to WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK or WP:RS yet. Consistency in the application of the rules is important after all, unless we live in the world of double standards. --Nickhh (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

A statement by an Islamic person about Jews doesn't belong in an article about Islam unless that person has a claim to represent Islam. That means he has to be someone widely considered an authority on the subject, not just some random cleric with a loose mouth. I wonder if anyone here can honestly claim to have ever heard of most of these quotees before. Zerotalk 12:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry chaps

But if responsible study of secondary sources in order to ensure precise, unequivocal and accurate information in wiki's neutral voice gets onto the page means one must, once more, be hauled back into the rather obtusely bureaucratic gamespeopleplay world of wiki, where everybody appears to prefer cavilling over the elementary rules of composition instead of actually reading up on the topic of an article, then it's not for me. I've had to wear this sort of attrition on the Israel Shahak article, where the rules have been used for 5 years to stop the page being written. By nature I am neither a masochist, nor by profession, someone who wants to waste his time in small chat over casuistics. Disgraceful really. . A parting word. Jay, you're in a patent WP:COI in defending bad scholarship that just happens to make Islam look like its foundational text incites to genocide of the Jews, and it stands out like dog's balls. I think Arbcom sanctions here apply, and since no one on Arbcom will enforce them on you, there is no reason I should not simply read them as I have, until the recent review, i.e. that my right to edit these areas, even if borderline, has been withdrawn. It's none of my business if you can get away with nibbling at the border. Goodbye. Nishidani (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah, stay on and fix this mess Nishidani. Don't lose heart on account of wikilawyering. First of all, of your five sources your opponent implies don't address the topic of this article, the three I've managed to check online do in fact address it, explicitly. Remember, bluffing is often a big part of any good wikilawyer's playbook. Secondly, there's no reason a manifestly false and badly sourced sentence can't simply be removed; the fact that the threshold of inclusion is verifiability does not mean the threshold of exclusion is non-verifiability. We have to be selective in our use of sources and source-material; this article is already far too long and repetitive, and the Laqueur sentence in question is badly written, inaccurate, sloppily formulated, and cherry-picked for inclusion here by Wikipedians with an agenda that in this instance trumps their commitment to a serious encyclopedia.
Finally – and I'm sorry to lecture to you, because I have enormous respect for your vision of the encyclopedia – finally, I say, don't totally lose heart in the rules themselves. Yes, they can be gamed, but most of the time the gaming involves misrepresention of the rules, not over-observance of them. You've provided a very eloquent account of some of the problems with this travesty of an article, but if you ask yourself, "How did it get this way? What lines were crossed?" the rules provide a simple, powerful, and widely recognized (among the larger community of uninvolved editors) rubric of explanation. This article is
  • managed like a POV-fork (sources that describe mistreatment of Jews under Islam are "on topic," sources that describe tolerance or cordial relations are "off topic");
  • filled with cherry-picked and radically distorted source materials (NPOV);
  • chock-a-block with tendentious original research, especially in the quote-farm section, the use of the Pew poll, and so on.
If you go to the community and say there's a borderline POVFORK article that's been a nationalist BATTLEground for several years now, and it's non-POV in its use of source materials, as well as being larded with original research, can you help me fix it? you'll get more of a response than if you try to explain the weedy minutiae of the Laqueur problem, which after all is only symptomatic.
In short, the only true protection against rampant COI editing (whether nationalist COI or any other kind) is the periodic attention of the wider community, and the only way to make such problems legible and interesting to people who are right now thinking about elephant seals, sestinas, David Bowie and astrophysics is by reference to the core editing principles – aka "rules" – we all share and accept.--G-Dett (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


Nishidani, I have no "WP:COI" here (please read the linked article carefully), nor have I "defended bad scholarship". I've challenged your original research, and been met in turn by a barrage of words, literally thousands of them, on all sorts of topics. Challenging OR is not "defending bad scholarship"; in fact, it's generally the exact opposite. Jayjg (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Jayjg. You have been exhaustively answered, in comprehensive detail, on every single issue you raised. Your response, from go to woe, has been, more or less, to repeat your initial judgements verbatim. To have enormous confidence that one is infallible, to make a short series of obiter dicta judgements, and not only refuse to concede on any point raised by an interlocutor or a broader community, but sweep away, with the repetitive liturgy of one's stated beliefs, all attentive murmurs from the wings as an improper challenge to one's soi-disant authoritative voice as unworthy of consideration, comes over as Sir Oracle posturing (See Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice Act 1, Scene 1). That, Jay, is not how wikipedia works. To convince oneself is not particularly difficult. To ground one's beliefs in rational terms a larger community, with equal rights, authority and knowledge, can appreciate and accept, is often not easy, but to do so shows the spirit of bona fides in which wikipedia editing is formally anchored. Let us leave it at that, since, a third eye, watching on in utter detachment, would probably interbreed Yeat's 'Ego Dominus Tuus' and his 'The Second Coming' with Gloucester's words in Shakespeare's Lear, and mutter, 'Tis the time’s plague when the rhetorician would deceive his neighbours,the self-persuaded himself while leading the blind, and anarchy is loosed upon wikipedia.' Ending, (really this is more than enough?), on a light self-ironical note. Join me in withdrawing, and let the larger community decide. Nishidani (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment. I'm reading this long discussion a month later - why have there been no sources posted? If the "scholarly concensus" says X, great - let's see sources. All this talk of liturgy, and Yeats, and so on is very nice, but in the end, Wiki needs references. That goes for both sides, of course. This discussion is a headache to read because everyone substitutes paragraphs and paragraphs for links. -moritheilTalk 12:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How is this article different from Antisemitism in the Arab world?

How is this article different from Antisemitism in the Arab world (which used to have the faintly comical title Arabs and antisemitism)? Just wondering. Yeah, I know there are Muslims beyond the borders of "the Arab world." But it's not like this article's big into Indonesia or anything. Besides say, the two-sentence section on Iran, I don't see how these two articles' purviews aren't basically identical.--G-Dett (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So what is your suggestion exactly? JaakobouChalk Talk 16:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Combine them.--G-Dett (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


Don't combine them. This article deals with the religion Islam. There are many different peoples in the Arab world, not all are Muslim. There many Islamic countries and peoples who are not in the Arab world. Anti-semitism seems to be spreading in contemporary Islamic discourse. This modern fusion of Islam and anti-semitism is a VERY SPECIFIC phenomena and a major political flash point in the world. It's not some crackpot conspiracy theory, it's just an essential page that a modern online encyclopedia should have. Many books and news articles in top-tier publications have been published on the topic. Wikipedia needs an article on the topic, too. Clearlight418 (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Have you read the article? Nearly all of it is devoted to antisemitism in the Middle East. There is probably 10k worth of material about Islam itself and not about Muslims in the Middle East. nableezy - 05:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Couldn't this be fixed by editing the article in question to focus on what it should focus on? -moritheilTalk 12:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy - I have read through the articles. One covers Anti-semitism in geographical places (the Arab world). This article, mostly, covers anti-Semitism in Islamic texts and statements by religious leaders. They are as different topics, and both are fairly major in the current political situation. There is TONS of blazing propaganda on the Web and WP needs to have a fair, factual, cited, collaboratively-edited article on these major topics. If there is a quality or citation issue, please discuss and make improvements! But Wikipedia is no poorer for having a distinct article - as long as it is non-spam, non-commercial, guideline following - on a major world issue that people are highly interested in or on a distinct aspect of a major world issue. Lets focus on making good, new Wikipedia articles and improving them, rather than destroying them. I don't want to see people deleting stuff for political purposes and am very cautious about people wanting to delete and merge established page on major world phenomena... there has to be an urgent reason and absolutely zero chance that personal politics is involved in the rationale. Peace! Clearlight418 (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
A huge chunk of this article is devoted to the section Antisemitism in the Islamic Middle East. Change the "in the Arab world" article to "in the Middle East" and they are redundant. The issues dealing with Islam and antisemitism could then be merged to Islam and Judaism. nableezy - 04:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Peace to you too, but would you mind not modifying your comment after it has been responded to? And keep ideas that personal politics play a role in this unwritten, of the editors who have voiced the opinion that merging the relevant material to other locations most are not Muslim, Arab, or have any other personal stake in the issue. nableezy - 05:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I remain extremely cautious and skeptical when someone wants to merge or delete a well-established, non-spam article on a politically volatile - yet undeniably relevant and high-interest topic (like abortion, gun control, Israeli-Arab conflict, Gaza, gay rights, political scandal, etc.) Usually, what happens is Wikipedia users get shafted out of information they were looking for - and the site's information wealth becomes poorer, not richer. And information outside of Wikipedia is so biased and unchecked on these "hot" topics - much it is blatant emotional propaganda - the world is blessed to have a Wikipedia page on hot topics with collaborative edits, dissenting viewpoints, and required citations. Clearlight418 (talk) 05:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I remember when I once thought that Wikipedia was not full of "biased and unchecked ... blatant emotional propaganda". nableezy - 07:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
From what I can see, Clearlight wrote, "information outside of Wikipedia is so biased and unchecked . . . " not that Wikipedia itself is. -moritheilTalk 12:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam_and_antisemitism"