Template talk:Antisemitism sidebar

tnavbar

The template editing navigation bar is not required in Templates, and is clearly a bad idea here. The Anti-Semitism template is not one that is likely to need editing very often, but is one that is likely to attract vandals of a, well, anti-Semitic kind. I note that Ben Houston has stated he has the Template on his watchlist, and implied that he is prepared to guard the template from vandalism 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. However, as he is well aware, few people edit for those kinds of prolonged stretches; indeed, someone who does is likely to have Ben accuse them of being some sort of committee or team, and ask for them to be CheckUsered. In fact, user Ben Houston seems rather free with the accusations of "teams" doing various things, including reverting this template. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't care what you do with the template, but claiming you can 3RR people for "tag-team reverting" is stupid. Tag-team reverting, as you call it, is the functional manifestation of a significant disagreement with your change, and a sign you should discuss the idea first. --tjstrf 23:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

TNavbars encourage participation, and Wikipedia explicitly accepts that some vandalism will occur because of its open model but acknowledges and accepts that sacrifice as necessary and worth it. All related templates that I could find have tnavbars (see Template:Israel-Palestinian Conflict, Template:Arab-Israeli conflict, and Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar, etc) and even contentious subject templates such as Template:ScientologySeries and Template:Abortion have tnavbars. I strongly believe that it is because I made the addition that it is all of a sudden not allowed on this template. --Deodar 23:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As a reasonably objective viewer (I have, like, 3 edits to Israel-Palestine-Jew anything) I believe Houston's proposed change would do no harm. You can hardly even see the little links it adds to start with, few drive-by vandals would notice the little tiny 3pt letters. It wouldn't really help anything either, but just letting him add them is probably the simplest solution to this problem. --tjstrf 23:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There's essentially no history of vandalism on this template. I'm not understanding the motivation to reduce access through the removal of this useful tool when there is nada in terms of vandalism. The template doesn't even have 50 What links here? pages referencing it so it doesn't even qualify as a Wikipedia:High-risk template. (→Netscott) 21:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Template Vandalism

Looks like vandals don't need the edit macro to vandalize the template. It is clear that this is not a random or an anti-Semitic vandal (as per your fears) but rather someone moderately sophisticated who knows of the editors involved. The vandalism lasted 3 minutes btw. --Deodar 11:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's not a random vandal, but a stalker who was drawn here, intent on harassing because of the attention you have drawn to this. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

How interesting that Bhouston implies that "someone moderately sophisticated who knows of the editors involved" is ipso facto not an anti-Semitic vandal. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Could have been anti-Semitic, it seemed overly stereotypical, the edit summary was too referential and strangely that account was made weeks before it made that single edit -- it came across as more as how Jayjg described him/her than an anti-Semitic vandal, but you are right that motivates can be multiple. I suggest that someone with blocking powers block it. And yeah, its probably best from your position to make tangential insinuations than deal with the actual content of the dispute. --Deodar 19:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that our friend Jay here checkuser'd the account. If this assumption is correction, I would also bet that he shared results with our friend SlimVirgin here. Both users are familiar with me, and have their own opinions of me, as do many wiki-users. Sadly. those opinions are often based in ignorance. Suffice it to say that I am not an anti-semite, nor was I stalking anyone, although I have partaken in my share of trolling. I just happened to spot a trace of the revert war when perusing recent changes (which is how I prefer to read and edit wikis), and thought it would be lol to come and vandalize it. I am quite familiar with both Slim and Jay, and although I feel I've resolved my personal conflicts with them, I am also aware of their coordinated attempts to control content relevent to their interests. Whether this is PoV pushing or not, I have yet to evaluate. (It appears not to be,to be truthful, but still rather suspicious, and disruptive in its own right). Anyway, that's all I'll say on this subject for the moment. --Collateral Damage 01:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

My guess — and I can only guess, your allegations notwithstanding — is that he has not check-usered you, because you're almost certainly a banned editor or a deceptive sock, so if he'd done a check user, you'd likely be blocked by now. My speculation, of course. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do suppose that it is possible that he did not. I thought that someone had just neglected to block me, as I kinda took it as a given that the account would be easily identified as a sleeper account of either a vandal or a troll. (Your presumption that I am a sock of a banned editor is, fyi, right on the dot, and to be frank, I'm surprised this account is not already blocked). --Collateral Damage 01:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I admire your honesty. Care to say which banned editor? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You couldn't tell? On another note, I'm actually quite pleasantly surprised at how cordial this discussion has been, despite the other overtones. Quite a different experience than I recall. Anyway, I must be going now. Work and all that. --Collateral Damage 02:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a minor edit and I'll leave it now, since pushing it further would risk WP:POINT. But still, I didn't cause the conflict by myself, you and SlimVirgin insisted on repeatedly reverting my minor and harmless change based on my continued exclusion from a set of articles that appear to have been chosen arbitrarily by SlimVirgin. Like most of the changes I have pushed for in the NAS article, I expect this template to incorporate my minor but simply logically suggestion eventually anyhow. --Deodar 19:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

On the overall subject of vandalism of this template, I'd say I have to agree with Collateral D. This edit war is the most unusual and pointless I've ever seen and deserves to be targeted regardless of WP:POINT. Though this edit war is not particularly damaging to anyone, the unique nature of this argument over ways to prevent vandalism before any has occered deserves to be highlighted somehow. I'd like to encourage the tnavbar revert war to stop immediately. M i c 22:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I tend to support removing the edit template here. Unlike articles, templates tend to be pretty static, there really doesn't need to be an edit template here - if someone needs to add or delete from the template they'll know how to do it without a special link at the bottom. GabrielF 23:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There is some important context here that I should share. I strongly believe that SlimVirgin and Jayjg revert my edits on a set of articles whether or not my article edits are legitimate. I have complained about it before here on AN/I [1]. I collaborated recently on the creation of the Template:Israel-Palestinian Conflict, which went very well. During that collaboration I discovered the tnavbar macro and applied it to 4 templates that were missing it at the same time. One of those templates was Template:Anti-Semitism. Only that addition was reverted repeatedly for what I believe were unique and invalid arguments -- it just further proves to me that I am targeted to be treated unfairly by these two. --Deodar 23:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Gabriel, I agree. This isn't an article, and edits to it will be few and far between. Any editor wanting to make a legitimate edit will know how to do it. No need to make it easy for the vandals. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ben, must you add this untrue and irrelevant "context" every time you meet up with some new editor? Here's yet another example! You are abusing the Talk: pages to pursue a personal vendetta; please use the Talk: pages to discuss article content, and please stop slandering other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I find that the context linked above to be quite true -- you and SlimVirgin's behavior towards my contributions is quite frustrating I must admit. --Deodar 23:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"But it's all true" is the typical (and typically weak) response many give upon being reminded of the WP:NPA policy. Even if it were true — and it's not — it's still not a defense. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I find you and SlimVirgin's collective behavior towards me to result in my marginalization from a set of articles, a marginalization that I believe to be unfair and prejudicial. --Deodar 23:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"Collective behavior"? That's conspiracy talk, the kind of thing that leads people to request CheckUsers because people edit too much for your liking, or to claim that 3RR applies to "teams". I have my behavior, others have their own behavior. Edit with common sense and an eye to policy and we won't have any problems. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I won't wade into your dispute but I'd remind you Bhouston that prior arguments over other editors behavior really isn't a justification for reverting something. I am happy to discuss things on the talk page but I wish you had responded to me by arguing the merits of my opinion. GabrielF 00:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I can deal with you GabrielF and if you think it should stay that's okay, let's leave it. My original reasoning was that they are useful and that most templates have them. Near the top of this page in response to Jayjg I wrote: "TNavbars encourage participation, and Wikipedia explicitly accepts that some vandalism will occur because of its open model but acknowledges and accepts that sacrifice as necessary and worth it. All related templates that I could find have tnavbars (see Template:Israel-Palestinian Conflict, Template:Arab-Israeli conflict, and Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar, etc) and even contentious subject templates such as Template:ScientologySeries and Template:Abortion have tnavbars." --Deodar 00:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In case the irony is missed, Bhouston has just admitted that he was reverting based on the names of the editors, which he was accusing others of doing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that and that wasn't what I was doing, although you are free to make any accusations towards me that you would desire. I note that you never made an argument for keeping the macro in on this page nor have you or Jayjg responded to tjstrf claim above that leaving it is in harmless and the right course. But I will take Musaabdulrashid's advice. --Deodar 00:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

nice improvements

I think the template has been significantly improved over the last day. The organization and the visual look is great. Good job. --Deodar 01:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I also think it is appropriate to remove the Self-hating Jew link -- classifying that as anti-Semitism seemed to be excessively POV. --Deodar 01:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Alot of things in the template is pretty PoV - for example insinuating that holocoast denial is grounded in antisemitism while it may or may not be. 212.10.217.122 18:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a very strong correlation between the Holocaust denial and antisemitism. Of course some deniers deny that. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you personally say with full confidence that every single case of holocoast denial out there are grounded in antisemitism? 212.10.217.122 20:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not what "very strong correlation" means. This is my last response to you because you are engaging in trolling and strawman argument. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Writers

That section probably has its origins in New antisemitism. IMHO it needs rebalancing. I've added Leon Poliakov who wrote volumes on the subject of AS. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Rework

I reworked the history section and added a few items there. Should we call it Accusations or False accusations? Not sure where to stick Wilhelm Marr - I don't think he was anything special, other than coining the misnomer. Also, I would remove the writers section - I don't think it does justice to many (some more notable than some in the list) who covered the phenomenon. If it stays, it should start with Josephus (see his Against Apion). Thoughts? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Last call to remove Writers section. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a sensible move Humus considering the list can't be exhaustive, maybe provide a link to an article or list covering the writers found there? (→Netscott) 05:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Humus, doesn't it make sense to include a few of the most prominent scholars of antisemitism? I'm not wedded to any particular list of names, but I thought it'd be a good idea to include a section with a few of the best known/most influential ones. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternatives:

1. Leave as is.
2. Move to talk and work it out here.
3. Create smth. like List of writers on antisemitism and/or Category:Writers on antisemitism - need a better title and have a link to it in the TL.
4. Other?

I vote for #3 - preferably a list - it could include a couple of lines describing the contributions & relevant works on the subject, but let's think of a better title. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

#3 sounds good to me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I created Antisemitism (resources). Let's populate it with useful resources. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Lunacy

I'm not going to remove it, but to include Norman Finkelstein in the Anti-Semitism template is pure lunacy.

He is a Jew, a son of holocaust survivors. He isn't a holocaust denier. He doesn't hate, or spread hatred, against Jews.

He writes primarily about the state of Israel's conduct in terms of aggression against Palestinians and neighbouring states, and how those who question or oppose such conduct are, more often than not, branded as anti-Semites and the like.

Ironically, this is the very reason why he is, like Chomsky, often ignorantly branded an anti-Semite.

I'll keep my eye on this page to the best of my abilities. I would like there to be a discussion on this subject, as I really feel he has absolutely no place on this page.

Ventolin 06:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein wasn't included because he's an antisemite (which he isn't), but because he writes about antisemitism, which is why all the others are included too. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Link removed, due to lack of discussion. I've replaced it with Gerald Fredrick Töben

Ventolin 14:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Links to remove

I propose removing the following links from the "Allegations" section:

1. Ritual murder — essentially a repetition of Blood libel.
2. Usury — the link points to the general article on usury, which says nothing of usury as an antisemitic allegation. The link may be restored when we start something like Usury (antisemitism).
3. Dreyfus Affair — an important affair, but just one out of many.

Beit Or 10:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll give you the ritual murder. As you probably know, Usury is relevant because it was a pretext for many persecutions - perhaps it should be expanded. I also feel that Dreyfus deserves to be there because it is probably the most notable case of racial AS. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I second Beit Or on removal of Usury. The term itself is too broad to have any significant relevence to anti-Semitism.74.12.11.145 03:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Usury is a too broad a term to be in an Anti-semitic template. 81.79.255.0 (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: Please see the village pump policy discussion regarding the "allegations" section of this template

here. Thanks. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kirbytime (talk • contribs) 20:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

persecutions ?

I don't think "Holocaust denial" is a form of persecution. Also I don't think Negationists are always antisemit. But I won't touch this banner or some people will scream "Antisemitism!!"

I was going to say the exact same thing: that Holocaust denial isn't really persecution. Christopher Connor 20:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

location of image

The image should be under the link to Antisemitism, because it is more consistent with just about every other template on wikipedia to have it like that. Second, it just looks better that way.--Sefringle 23:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Not {{Jerusalem}}, {{Tribes of Israel}}, {{cuisine}} and I am sure many more. "Looks better that way" is an unbeatable argument. I disagree but won't change the order without a consensus. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

it seems to work on those templates, but it just looked funny to me when you did it here. Besides, there are plenty of templates that have the title above the picture for example {{Communism sidebar}}, {{marxism}}, {{Jews and Judaism sidebar}}, {{Islam}}, and {{Christianity}}--Sefringle 00:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Must include "Organizations Encouraging AS"

If you include "Organizations Fighting AS" in this template, you also must include "Organizations Encouraging AS".

Otherwise, it is clearly slanted and activist. DumpButter 20:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

They are here. Didn't you see nazism and neo-nazism on the template? Or is there a different one that you suggest we add?--Sefringle^Talk 05:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Titles of the Protocols

I think the Warrant for Genocide "Publication" needs to be listed in its variations. Ludvikus 00:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

---

On the Jews and their Lies

Why include this, but not the Protocols actual titles? Ludvikus 00:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Culture of Critique series

Why include this, but not the Protocols actual titles? Ludvikus 00:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply

As I explained in a message at User talk:Ludvikus, I don't think that this template needs to include the name of every edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Title includes links to The Jewish Peril, The Protocols and World Revolution, and Praemonitus Praemunitus, and it mentions the fact that the book has two Russian titles. That, I think, is the appropriate place to include the links to the alternate titles and various editions.

I think it's better for a template to include fewer links to very important articles, rather than many links to articles that — while they're all important — aren't all appropriate for a reader who wants a quick lesson in antisemitism. It's not possible, nor is desirable, for a template to include links to every article about antisemitism. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Culture of Critique series

I've never heard of these texts, or its author, until I found it on the template today. But that my be my fault due to my isolation. At any rate, this author and his writings are relatively new - the last 2 decades or so?

Also, my first impression may be that the stuff might constitute mistaken philosemitism. I wonder if it belongs on the Template under "Publications"? I'm in the process of assertaining id the ADL has anything on this material - finding it Antisemitic. It may simply be racist, or controversial. Or it may be simply mistaken. I don't know. Any other views on this? --Ludvikus 00:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just read the Wiki article above. These 4 books were published as follows: 1994, 1998, 1998, 2004. And they appear antisemitic in a much more complex and subtle way than usual. But also, it appears the author has not published in peer-review journals. I again think it's not necessary to promote this material by listing it as a Publication" in the Template herein. Why promote this material? I question its Notability! Ludvikus 01:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the CoC series from the list of antisemitic publications. One may not agree with Dr. MacDonald's findings, but he is not an antisemite. His books are scholarly publications with plenty of citations, contrasted to 'The Protocols' and 'Mein Kampf' which are publications of political propaganda. The CoC series would be more appropriately listed under a category that deals with the discussion of antisemitism. To call him antisemitic is an unfounded value statement and removes credibility. 71.158.166.120 (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that removing it removes credibility. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The books

This list is getting too long for inclusion in this template. We should only include the biggest ones, and the others should be made into a new template like {{Antisemitic literature}}. At a bare minimum, we should remove the years to keep the template from getting too wide. Sefringle^Talk 03:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

---

OK. One must compromise. But the Protocols of Zion is the most import antisemitic text. However, it comes in many different editions, imprints, and with different titles. I've selected the most important. Now if anything must go, it should be that last title, since it is relatively un-notable. And the next should be Martin Luther's text - the argument being that Antisemitism is a Modern phenomena incorporating Racism and Blood. In Medieval times one could Convert. And Antisemitism itself is a late 19th century notion. So if we must be brief, it's Luther's title that should go. On the other hand, all variations on the Warrant for Genocide should remain - in my opinion. Ludvikus 03:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

fine. Protocols stays. Consider the texts you mentioned gone. Yahel Guhan 04:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need for the template to include 6 variations of the Protocols when there are links to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which has The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Title and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#First printing and Nilus editions, and The Protocols of Zion (imprints). Between the two articles, there are multiple links to every edition previously crowding the template. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There should only be one link. Yahel Guhan 06:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Protocols

There's no Antisemitic "book" that's more important, as such, than the above. Yet it comes in so many different variations, editions, compilations, and even titles! Wikipedia's function is to educate, and the matter above is much more complex than people are aware. For example, there's no such thing as the Protocoles. That's why it's so important to list the different variations - which, by the way, are produced by anonymous editors. I think we should include as complete a list of these titles on the template. Besides violence, Antisemitism is the expression of views (like Conspiracy theories). And no other "work" embodies "better" theses views than what Norman Cohn called a Warrant for Genocide. So let's give our readers, at a flash an opportunity to examine this multiplicity. I'm for keeping all the titles - that's exactly what Antisemitism is: a spread, and recycling of a complex multiplicity as a single book. Best. --Ludvikus 06:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a very important book — perhaps the most important book — with respect to antisemitism. But please read what I wrote on your talk page and what I wrote above. The purpose of a template such as this is not to list every article about antisemitism; that's impossible. The template can only highlight the most important articles. It already has two links to Protocols, each of which links to every one of your editions. There is no need for the template to also include direct links to each edition. If you think that every edition is so vitally important, create a new Template:Protocols of the Elders of Zion or Template:Antisemitic literature. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 07:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

First, it's not a SINGLE book, as I keep saying.

But you have a very good idea. Can you help me create such a Template? I've never created one from scrtch. I'll do the rest if you just create a Biler Plate Template? And if you won't or can't do that, can you point where I can learn it?

Best regards, --Ludvikus 07:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Template for which one? Protocols or Antisemitic literature? Which title do you prefer? Yahel Guhan 08:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent question!!! I'd like to see the Latter but with the Former imbedded within it. A picture is worth a 1000 words, so here's what I've got so far: Template:Antisemitica (publications). --Ludvikus 13:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, can we switch the Talk from here to there: [[Talk:Template:Antisemitica (publications)]]. --Ludvikus 13:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Mein Kampf

I don't think we need that title on the template. Hitler's will was far more important than this text of his. Yeh, it was used in marriage ceremonies, swearing in occasions. But if we must exercise restraint, it seems more appropriate to suppress it than one of the Warrants for Genocide. As Encyclopedists, Wikipedians exercise poetic license. And this title's significance is due more to the infamy of its author, I think. And he, of course was the "greatest" antisemite. Yet still that does not mean his book need be included. However, I cannot at the moment think of a more "important" modern antisemitic text after The Protocols than this "Nazi Bible." --Ludvikus 04:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to compromise. I did not remove Mein Kampf. Someone else did. Also, L. Fry's title is currently on the Web. It is an "important" Antisemitic title. On the other hand, Martin Luther's title was also removed - not by me, and I think that was good.

I ask that there be discussions here, before any more reversions. --Ludvikus 06:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm hardly an expert, but I started a rough draft of a template at [deleted]. Feel free to edit it even though it's in my "user space".

I added two pictures, so you can see what a couple of different pictures look like. In the end, the template will probably include only one. Important note: You can't use a copyright photo (such as Image:Protocols of the Elders of Zion 1992 Russia.jpg) in a template. It must be public domain or some other free use image.

I'm sure that somebody else can make the template look a lot nicer, but it's a start. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 08:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

PS - Please leave any comments here so that other editors can join the discussion. Thanks.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik Shabazz (talk • contribs) 08:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Good job, User:Malik Shabazz on the new Template stub. Much appreciated! Now to study it, and its format.... Thanks alot!!! --Ludvikus 12:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Any way to simplify the top section?

SlimVirgin's recent edit, which alpha-sorted the first section, also expanded the names of all the articles. While I think alphabetical order is a great idea, the full names of the articles have made an already-long template even longer.

Is there any way to simplify the titles of the articles, especially when they are nearly all of the form "XXX and antisemitism" or "YYY antisemitism":

• Anti-globalization and antisemitism
• Antisemitism around the world
• Arabs and antisemitism
• Christianity and antisemitism
• Islam and antisemitism
• Nation of Islam and antisemitism
• New antisemitism
• Racial antisemitism
• Religious antisemitism
• Secondary antisemitism
• Universities and antisemitism

The older version used the abbreviation "New AS" for "new antisemitism", but I don't think "AS" is an obvious abbreviation for "antisemitism".

Any thoughts or suggestions? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Manifestations

I agree with censei that it's a better word than "forms," but not by much, as it still implies the same thing. The problem is that some of the categories under that heading are actual controversies -- there are significant voices who doubt that there is a "new antisemitism" or that the "antiglobalization movement" is antisemitic, for example. That's why I used the word "controversies" but I think we could find something better. Any suggestions? csloat (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Forms" is the best. "Manifestations" is acceptable. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We've already been through those two and I explained above why they were not ideal. I was asking for other suggestions, but thanks. csloat (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You've claimed they weren't "ideal", not "explained". Most significant topics on Wikipedia have "controversy" of one sort or another associated with them. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Malcolm

Please don't disruptively edit just because you don't like an editor. I explained the problem with the inaccuracy above and you have not responded. Your edit summary in your revert war is extremely uncivil - basically mocking my edit summary rather than actually explaining the issues. I explained above the problem with "manifestations"; your edit war puts inaccurate titles on the headings. The categories are not "Arab antisemitism", for example, but "Arabs and antisemitism." Or "Antiglobalization related antisemitism" (whatever the hell that is supposed to be) but rather "antiglobalization and antisemitism." Please restore the more accurate version of the template, or please explain why you value brevity over accuracy. Thanks. csloat (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

csloat, a template is not the place to write an essay or to editorialize. It just gives a list of topics in a category -- in this case Antisemitism -- and links to the articles. If there is not an article, it is not in the template. Anyone who wants information should get it from reading the article not the template. I do not see that other templates are done differently, for instance Template:Christianity. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly - a template is decidedly not the place to editorialize. You are revert warring to protect a version of the template that is exactly that - an editorial commentary that prejudges the content described by using leading terms. The best way to keep the template neutral is to keep our judgmental interpretations completely out of it. By changing the words to words with subtly different meanings, you are using the template to editorialize. If you agree the template should simply be a list of topics in the category then let's just do that - list the topics as they appear on the linked wikipedia pages. If you agree that editorializing should be kept out of the template, please revert your most recent edits. csloat (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that we disagree about the template. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you think brevity is better than accuracy here? Or do you disagree with my statement that the most accurate (and non-editorializing) representation of the pages linked is the actual title of the pages?? I understand that we disagree, but perhaps you could have the courtesy to explain your position like I have explained mine? Thank you. csloat (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I did explain above. I do not understand why you are worried about this because it is not the articles that are shortened but just the links to the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't understand the above, you need to check your reading comprehension skills, Malcolm. You are the one who said that the template must not be used to editorialize, and you are using the template to editorialize. Either explain yourself or please revert your last edit. csloat (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your revert war and discuss your changes in a civil fashion. If the reverts continue I'm going to ask for page protection. Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 00:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if you felt I was uncivil; I have struck my comment above. The problem is that Malcolm is refusing to give a response to my point, yet he seems to agree that the template is a poor place for editorializing. I have shown why changes to the titles of pages are a way of using the template to support a POV. I don't feel this is really that controversial a point, but if someone disagrees with me, can they not explain why? csloat (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You've made that claim, but not provided any evidence or rationale. The terms were used for brevity, nothing more. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that they were used for brevity, however that brevity has presented a POV problem that I explained quite clearly above. You cannot assert that I have provided no rationale when in fact it is explicitly spelled out above. I can't believe a simple request that links actually be identical with the pages they link to would be met with such resistance. The problem, for example, is "arab antisemitism" is a different topic (perhaps a subset) of "arabs and antisemitism". csloat (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

edit warring

I have moved this from my talk page (where it does not belong) to the template talk page.

We've been asked by a third party to stop revert warring. I've asked you directly to explain why you are revert warring on the talk page and you have refused. Now you are edit warring without even a comment on the talk page. Please engage the discussion or do not edit the page so aggressively. And please stop using the template page as a soapboxing platform. csloat (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have explained. I assume that you have read what I wrote, as I have read what you wrote. The problem, it seems, is lack of agreement, not lack of discussion. But it is grulli to accuse me of edit warring, while not accusing yourself for doing the same. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I said "we've" been asked to stop edit warring, not "you've been asked." But you are not engaging the discussion at all. Simply saying you "disagree" without responding to the argument is not adequate. If you disagree but are unable to think of a reasonable argument then you need to concede (or, at least, you need to quit edit warring). csloat (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have explained. I do not see much else to write about it. I think the revised, somewhat simplified template, is good and serves its function well. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You have not explained your answer to the editorializing issue, which you yourself brought up. The problem is that you are changing the words of the titles of pages in a way that creates a significant POV problem. It is not enough to say that you disagree -- if you cannot answer this argument, you must stop reverting the content. csloat (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not changed anything. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This was the edit I referred to, as you well know. You changed the titles of the links in the first section, as explained multiple times above. If you are unwilling or unable to defend your edit, please revert it. Thanks. csloat (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That change was made by Jayjg. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No; this change was made by Malcolm Schosha, who appears to be you. If you made the change by accident can I trust you to revert your change in good faith? csloat (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any change. I have made no changes to the template. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, we'll chalk it up to an honest error and I will revert your accidental edit. Please don't revert again then. csloat (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop reverting to the old template without agreement. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to explain your position Malcolm -- you claim you did not make the last revert even though the evidence suggests otherwise. Now you seem to be indicating you are defending that revert. Yet you refuse to engage the arguments here. What gives? csloat (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to stop playing word games, csloat. The current form of the descriptions has existed for months, yet you keep trying to change them. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What"word games" am I playing?? How can a suggestion that we make a link to a page actually have the same words as the title of the page be considered a "word game"?? Jay, what happened was I made some simple changes for accuracy's sake that I explained carefully. I had no idea these changes would be controversial as they were based on a simple application of policies clearly spelled out in such places as WP:NPOV. Yet the change was vehemently opposed by Malcolm who edit warred over it and then pretended he wasn't making any changes to the page. When you revert an edit, you are changing the page. You are aware of that, as is Malcolm. All I'm asking is that Malcolm have the courtesy to respond to the well-thought out arguments that I presented. If nobody agrees with me, fine, but if you can't explain why you don't agree with me and you ignore arguments about very serious violations of policy, it begins to appear that there are POV-pushing agendas afoot. csloat (talk) 05:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

csloat wrote: All I'm asking is that Malcolm have the courtesy to respond to the well-thought out arguments that I presented.

csloat, many people think it better to wait for others to declare their words "well-thought out".....but, I suppose, it is nice that you such an exalted level of self-esteem. My problem is that I can not remember anything you wrote here that I would call that. Perhaps you could indicate which edits you mean. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not about my self esteem. It's about the simple fact that I presented an argument that has not been responded to. If you don't remember, let me restate again: it is preferable to accurately identify the pages linked without pushing a particular point of view in the naming of pages. "Christian antisemitism" is a very different thing than "Christianity and antisemitism" -- the latter, for example, might include such things as stances taken against antisemitism by Christian groups and authorities, debates about whether antisemitism is in any way in accordance with the teachings of Christ, whether "Jews for Jesus" and other attempts at conversion may be considered antisemitic, etc. Clearly "Christian antisemitism" is part of that topic, but it is not the entire topic. (Imagine if we had a link to this page with the title "Jewish Communism" -- sure, that would be something covered on the page, but I imagine folks here would balk at such a link in a template). Anyway it's clear nobody here agrees with me and I'm done arguing about it, I just don't understand why there is so much resistance to a simple request for accuracy, nor do I understand why editors are unwilling to even explain their preference for a more accurate and NPOV list of links. I understand there is a preference for brevity, and it is one I would normally share, but I don't think brevity is more important than getting things right on a template (especially when the difference in brevity is pretty miniscule). csloat (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Your objection has been replied to by me [2], by Jayjg [3], and by SoWhy [4] [5]. I understand that you do not agree, but you objection has gotten attention and replies. (And, by the way, there is an article about Jewish Communism.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody actually addressed the argument -- I do realize you guys have said I am wrong several times, but not once has anyone actually explained why brevity is more important than accuracy here (or why my accuracy argument is inaccurate). Your comment about the Jewish Communism article only further confirms the point that "Judaism and Communism" is a separate category from "Jewish Communism." Similarly, "Christianity and Anti-semitism" is a different category from "Christian Anti-Semitism." Get it? Don't bother to answer - I understand that I am getting nowhere with this, but that doesn't mean anyone has actually addressed the point. Good day. csloat (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You were answered. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC on this page

The dispute is over whether the template is an appropriate forum for editorializing. Malcolm Shosha is defending this version of the template whereas Commodore Sloat is arguing that this version is better as it avoids editorializing by simply using the title of each article in the link. Sloats argument is that Schosha's version is inserting subtle POV in the article through changes in the names of links -- "Arab antisemitism" is not the same as "Arabs and antisemitism", for example). Shosha's argument, as you can see in his comments on the discussion page, is simply the false claim that he did not make the change (although a quick glance at the revision history shows that in the edit summary he claims that his is the "better version," but I still am unclear on what his explanation is there). csloat (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the shorter version, as advocated by Malcolm Shosha, is the better one. It is clear from the template title that all those links lead to articles about different manifestations of antisemitism. If there are concerns that "Arab" for example will look like something that is not meant by it, this specific link can be named "Arabs and" or even "Arabs and antisemitism". Where such problem cannot occur, like with "New" or "Christian", we can call the links that way. SoWhy 17:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That's support for the version advocated by Sloat then. You see, the concerns are precisely with the terms that I changed -- "Arab" should be "Arabs and antisemitism"; "New" should be "New antisemitism", "Christian" should be "Christianity and antisemitism," etc. The problem is that the shorter names actually prejudge the content of disputed material. There is a big debate over what "new antisemitism" is and whether it is "new" or whether it is "antisemitism." There is a dispute about whether Christians are by nature "antisemitic." Having such prejudicial labels in a template is entirely inappropriate as the template becomes a forum for editorializing. This problem could be mitigated by choosing a different term than "Manifestations" or "Forms" to label the list of links at the top, as there is legitimate dispute over whether most of these are actually manifestations or forms of antisemitism. The template makes it seem as if those disputes are already settled. csloat (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

First off: No. Second: Do not participate in an RfC you yourself are involved in. Just don't.

Then: I do not believe your concerns are valid. If the article is called "New antisetism", the link can be "new" and still be neutral. Same with "Christian antisemitism". It does not imply that all Christians are by nature antisemitic but that there is a form of antisemitism specifically advocated by Christians. It's the same as claiming "Italian fascism" means all Italians are fascists. It doesn't. SoWhy 10:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How can I not participate in an RfC I am involved in? Is this a new rule? I've been involved in a number of RfCs and have never been asked (or, in this case, ordered) not to participate in the discussion. The whole point of the RfC is to enhance the discussion, not to eliminate key participants. If I am misunderstanding the process, please point me to the proper documents - I see nothing about this here. Second, your claim that "there is a form of antisemitism specifically advocated by Christians" is not an objective fact; it is a matter of dispute. Same with the claim that there is a form of antisemitism that is specifically "Arab" or "new." That was what I meant when I said your comment supported the version I had advocated - I apologize if the comment seemed insensitive. But I laid out specific concerns with the terms I had changed. I object to using the template to subtly push a particular POV or to make it seem as if a matter that is under debate has actually been settled, and these terms do that. Finally, what does "antiglobalization-related" even mean? For me, accuracy trumps brevity -- Wikipedia is not paper, and we are not talking about a very large difference between the number of words used in the two versions. As much as I appreciate simplicity, I prefer accuracy. csloat (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea; when someone responds to an RFC, why not treat them with respect, rather than telling them they said the exact opposite of what they actually said? In addition, the fact that these types of antisemitism are disputed by the practitioners is pretty much irrelevant; just about all antisemitism is claimed by the practitioners not to be antisemitism. Finally, material is included in templates based on whether or not it is relevant, not whether or not it is disputed; thus "Israel and the apartheid analogy", a ludicrously silly bit of political posturing, is included in Template:Segregation by type. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I meant no disrespect. I explained my position above and it was pretty clearly consistent with what he had said. Your comment about "practitioners" not acknowledging their antisemitism is truly insulting -- we're not talking about practitioners disputing it; we are talking about recognized scholars and journalists who comment publicly on it in the mainstream media, not about racists. Also your comment about why material is included in the template is totally irrelevant; I'm not asking for it to be excluded, I am simply asking for accuracy with respect to the titles and topics of the articles linked. I don't understand the vehement resistance to this. I also don't know why Israel and the apartheid analogy is relevant here at all. Again, we're not talking about excluding anything from the template. csloat (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As Malcolm says below, RfCs are to get the input from other users. I doubt you have anything new to say to it so it will just reflect poorly on you when you try and interpret what people say. Let someone neutral judge consensus after the RfC has run its course, because currently the possibility is very high that people will oppose your viewpoint just because you try and discuss the comments of others. It will only hurt yourself thus. We already know what you think and we know what jayjg's preferred version is. As you note yourself, RfC is for expanding discussion - so let it expand further and do not try to interfere. If you do interfere it will reflect poorly on your point of view, effectively making the RfC useless. Regards SoWhy 07:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• csloat, you requested comments on the editing dispute concerning this template. But as soon as a user commented, you decided to argue over the comment, and tried to tell the editor he did nor actually mean what he had written. So far the RfC contains mostly what you have written yourself. Either give some other users the space to comment without needing to have a verbal fight with you, or remove the RfC.

• What csloat calls my version of the template is actually Jayjg's, as can be seen here [6]. I would not have known how to make such changes to the template. csloat reverted Jayjg's change, and I restored it. But I have no idea of how to edit a template to change its contents or structure. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - "your version" "my version" is shorthand for the versions you and I were reverting to. The fact is, nobody "owns" a version. But you are responsible for the changes you make, which is why you should not make changes you do not believe in or are not willing to defend. It is a little absurd to say you would not know how to change a template when in fact you were changing it. And I'm not trying to fight with anyone; just making the position clear -- an RfC is an attempt to expand the discussion, not shut it down. csloat (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg's version is more concise, preserves all the information, and is more likely to be useful to the reader. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

for me this version is clearer, which makes it (for me) a more useful navigational tool. in addition to that, i agree with the view that - maybe in some areas more than others - brevity shouldn't be a higher priority than clarity and/or judicious wording.

the "Manifestations" header bothers me in both versions - but maybe that's fodder for another RfC. 8) Sssoul (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the RfC tag, because the consensus is clearly to keep the present version. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism, self-hating Jew

Responses

Jayjg reverted twice. Before this gets out of hand, I'm referring this issue to WP:AN3#Template:Antisemitism and User:Jayjg. -Stevertigo 19:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not really a good fit for this template. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, can you explain why you think the link is a good fit for this template, and why it is significant enough an "Antisemitism" topic to be included in the template? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I did. Look up a few paragraphs. -Stevertigo 01:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but can you translate it into something understandable? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. First tell me what language or pidgin you would like it in, and I will accommodate you. -Stevertigo 16:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I find the language of WP:V to be the most compelling; please provide sources indicating that it is a mainstream view that "Self-hating Jew" and "Antisemitism" are related, and that "Self-hating Jew" is a significant topic of Antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

jayjg - in the article itself, footnotes 2, 4, 6, 9, 10 and 11 link the concepts of self hating jew and antisemitism. untwirl(talk) 15:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is true or not, but if it is I'll just let Jayjg respond to it. -Stevertigo 18:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what footnotes you mean, but as I previously asked, "please provide sources indicating that it is a mainstream view that "Self-hating Jew" and "Antisemitism" are related, and that "Self-hating Jew" is a significant topic of Antisemitism." I've highlighted the most important bits. See also Slrubenstein's comment below. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, the burden is not on We Wikipedians, but on you. If you want to include it, you have to justify it. Your argument so far is unpersuasive. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, you haven't actually given any argument at all other than to state, paraphrasing, "I don't like it," and "your argument is unpersuasive." How is it unpersuasive? What part of the argument are you referring to? (There are at least three). Hencesuch, at this point, the issue of "burden" is on you to actually say something intelligent. Such that an average human being such as myself can know what you're talking about and thus might have something to respond to. -Stevertigo 18:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Has Stevertigo provided any notable sources to support the assertion that it is a mainstream view that anti-semitism and self-hating jews are related topics? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I checked the usual sources. But Jewish Encyclopedia and Heeb magazine make no such connection. Chomsky does though. I'll have to figure out what page of whatever book it's on, but its there. In any case, its interesting enough to include here, even if its a bit extra-dimensional. -Stevertigo 18:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"interesting enough to include here, even if its a bit extra-dimensional"? Err, no. This is a Template of critical topics in antisemitism, not stuff you find interesting. Real-estate is scarce in Templates, we can't include every topic that might, possibly, peripherally relate to it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose addition of self-hating Jew link: I don't think this belongs in the template. as I understand it 'antisemitism' is reserved for a pathological hatred of the Jewish people, specifically and collectively (this is why the hatred of Arabs is not considered antisemitism, even though Arabs are also semitic). calling someone a 'self-hating Jew' is not a condemnation of Jews or Judaism as a whole (the way other antisemitic terms clearly are), but rather a disparagement of an individual Jew (similar to calling someone a heretic in the Christian faith). --Ludwigs2 06:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I just read this. I don't agree that self-hating Jew is akin to the use of heretic. Although the term is open to abuse, it is a real phenomenon and part of the whole experience of antisemitism. I think it should be in the template. If it is similar to anything it might be uncle tom.

Telaviv1 (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support Judging from the current article, the term arose as a response to 19th century antisemitism, and is a noteworthy part of the phenomenon of anti-Semitism. It should be included on that basis. Ray^Talk 14:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Image

I've removed the yellow star: antisemitism can't be reduced to the yellow star. And many article mentionned in the tamplate are not related to. An image of the yellow badge in articles such as Dreyfus affair or Spanish Inquisition is quite anachronical. 84.103.163.253 (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There has to be some image, and the yellow star illustrates perhaps the worst antisemitism in history. If you would prefer a different image you feel is more representative, please suggest one. Until there is consensus for a change, though, please do not remove this one. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Gaz chambers are also awful image about antisemitism, but it would be absolutly absurd to make this image appear in articles related to medieval antisemitism. Is it really necessary to insert an image? 84.103.163.253 (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Templates usually have one. The yellow badge isn't as horrific as the gas chambers. It's not "absolutely absurd" for a general template on antisemitism to have a specific image relating to one major antisemitic era. The yellow star is particularly appropriate, because yellow badges for Jews and related sumptuary laws date back to medieval times, and were cross-cultural. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg. The yellow star or badge is an emblem of antisemitism with a long history that spans continents. In fact, just a few years ago, there were rumors that Jews in Iran would be required to wear yellow on their clothes. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 00:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I was reading the Dreyfus affair article when I saw a huge yellow star on the right and I was intrigued by this amalgamation: of course many of Dreyfus' opponents were anti-Semitic. But no one of them proposed in any case the wearing of the yellow star.

By imposing the presence of this enormous yellow star, you make a confusion between the Holocaust and the different forms of antisemitism in history (economic antisemitic in socialist or right-wing circles in the XIX century, political in Arab countries, religious in catholic and protestant churches, etc.)

Of course everyone may understand that antisemitism led to the Holocaust. But there is no need to impose an huge Holocaust symbol in various article that each have their own particularity in history. 84.103.163.6 (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It's one thing to say it's fine to use the yellow badge because use of it goes back to the ninth century; but in practice the template image used is clearly linked to the Nazi era (through the word "Jude"). IMO it would be preferable, for the template spanning all antisemitism, to use a more generic yellow star, if a suitable image can be found or made. Rd232 ^talk 22:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Which antisemitic image spans all antisemitism? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

well, I doubt you want (or are going to find) a consistent symbol of anti-semitism. you'd probably do best to find a consistent symbol of Judaism, and GIMP it so that it's behind bars, or framed by one of those crossed-out red circles, or something like that. If you can find me the image and tell me the concept, I can do the technical work. --Ludwigs2 01:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Create our own representation of antisemitism, when there are iconic images of actual antisemitism? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

do what works; I'm just offering options. the problem (from the limited extent I've read this debate) seems to be that no one can decide what a properly universal representation is; if that's a valid argument (and I don't know whether or not it is) then creating an image would not be a bad way to go. could be a new image, could be a composite of several images, could be something impressionistic rather than strictly representational, you know... --Ludwigs2 01:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we need something to make antisemitism to look a little nicer. Something like Ford doing a little freshening up of its logo by giving it a more cheerful and modern look. We could give antisemitism a more cheerful and modern look too. But do we really want to do that? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

are you really resorting to sarcasm here? dude, I was just offering an option. you don't like the idea, fine, but don't get snotty about it. as far as I'm concerned, anti-semitism is a bad thing, mixed right in there with all the other bad things that groups of people habitually do to other groups of people. I don't minimize it and I don't aggrandize it, and I don't take kindly to this kind of idiotic insinuation. I'm taking this page off my watchlist now. If you want some photoshop work done, leave a note on my talk page; if not... buhbye! --Ludwigs2 17:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, haven't you spent enough time at WP:WQA? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 17:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Malik, I have not been there, as the target of an accusation, often. If you would like to initiate a complaint, that is in your power and not my concern.

Ludwigs, I did not accuse you of antisemitism, or of any ill will. Just my habitual sarcasm. Sorry about trampling on your feelings with my hobnail work boots. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha, no one is willing "to make antisemitism to look a little nicer". The matter is that we need to distinguish between what is related to the nazi era and what is not.

What about these ones ? 84.103.163.109 (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• 
  Quite explicit
• 
  A jew wearing a jewish hat
• 
  A caricature which sums up antisemitic speeches: "the jew dominates the world"

As was explained above by Jayjg: "yellow badges for Jews and related sumptuary laws date back to medieval times, and were cross-cultural"

The image that is on the template now is far better than any alternative that has been suggested. We do not need to change it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

antisemitic incidents during the 2008-9 gaza conflict

user:malcolm schosha added this to the template. a page which barely survived deletion, and is limited in scope to a one month period, does not belong on the template. untwirl(talk) 15:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is included in the antisemitism template, and rightly so. How do you justify removing the template from the article? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

well, i said, "a page which barely survived deletion, and is limited in scope to a one month period, does not belong on the template." as other users have said, real estate here is limited. why do "incidents" during a one month period belong there any more than incidents in 2006? or 2002? or 1965 etc. untwirl(talk) 15:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like a strong Keep [7]. As far as I know the article had the antisemitism template on it from almost the beginning, and logically so since the article is about nothing but antisemitism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

and the first afd was delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Antisemitic_incidents_alleged_to_be_related_to_the_2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict. but that doesnt address the other issue. untwirl(talk) 16:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The article appears to be about a significant modern issue in antisemitism. It also appears, at a glance, to be copiously referenced and fairly neutral. Why would you remove it? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

proposed addition

I propose that Antisemitic canard be added to the template--204.78.0.199 (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)