Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 25 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34

Forms of antisemitism

In the "Forms" section, the text cites four forms of antisemitism identified by the "Roman Catholic historian Edward Flannery"

Louis Harap provides a similar but slightly more detailed list:

Anti-Semitism can be

  • religious (Jew as Christ-killer),
  • economic (Jew as banker, usurer, money-obsessed),
  • social (Jew as social inferior, "pushy," vulgar, therefore excluded from personal contact),
  • racist (Jews as an inferior "race"),
  • ideological (Jews regarded as subversive or revolutionary),
  • cultural (Jews regarded as undermining the moral and structural fiber of civilization).

Harap's list can be found in Creative awakening: the Jewish presence in twentieth-century American literature, 1900-1940s.

I propose replacing Flannery's list with Harap's list and then adding a note which comments that Flannery proposed a similar list. Thoughts?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism

A proper news source for the closure:

What the Yale college journal (written by undergraduates) has to say:

Examples of opinion from the rightward-leaning end of the political spectrum:

Opinion from the leftward-leaning end of the political spectrum about the closure and the activities of the Initative:

    ←   ZScarpia   23:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're proposing, but as far as I can tell only the second and third are published in mainstream media, and meet the minimum requirements of WP:RS - most, in fact, are WP:SPS. Jayjg (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'd be of the view that Lerman's piece meets the minimum standard for inclusion, given that he's an expert in the study of anti-Semitism. CJCurrie (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
We should not report on blogs - if it is important rs will report on his blog and then we can mention it. TFD (talk) 02:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that self-published works by experts are considered fair game (or, at least, are considered to meet the minimum standard for inclusion). CJCurrie (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: This is the current wording on WP:RS: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Lerman certainly qualifies as an expert in this field. CJCurrie (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
It says "may be". However we already have rs that the Initiative is closing, the issue is what weight to assign an opinion posted to a blog. Better to use a news article written about the reaction to the closing. TFD (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Lerman (who is about as qualified an expert on antisemitism as one can imagine) provides counterbalance to the views presented by Lipstadt and Marcus. Feel free to suggest a news article that quotes an expert to the same effect, if you're dissatisfied with the current wording. CJCurrie (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Why not limit it to the reaction reported in the press, e.g., this article in MSNBC which is a source for the article. BTW Lipstadt is not mentioned in this article, although it is provided as a source for her comments. Donald Green's comments should be adequate to balance Marcus' views. TFD (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The footnotes are mixed up. Here are Lipstadt's twitter comments. We could leave them out too. How important is this topic to the overall article? TFD (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a tiny footnote in a major article. It shouldn't be POV-ified. Just stick to recognizable reliable sources. Lerman's piece doesn't belong and nor does Lipstadt's Twitter comments. Let's move on... Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I basically agree with Plot Spoiler. The YIISA has its own article and the closing can be discussed at length there; here, all we need to do is note that it closed. Readers can go to the article for various opinions on the closing; it doesn't need to be in the main overview article on antisemitism. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 05:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Roscelese. This seems to be a case of recentism and undue weight. I'm not convinced that YIISA should even be mentioned in this article, let alone given the inordinate amount of space that it currently occupies. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be worth giving The Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism a mention in the article?     ←   ZScarpia   22:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Why? How many institutes are there in the world that are devoted to antisemitism? (That's not a rhetorical question. I honestly want to know the answer.) If there are more than 20, then there's not much value in focusing on the inauguration or the closure of one of them. If there are fewer than 10, then the inauguration or closure of a single institute might be considered worthy of mention in this article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
ZScarpia, you're subtle POV-pushing is transparent, predictable and becoming increasingly boring. Please stop your little time-wasting games. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Plot Spoiler. POV-pushing? In what way? And what view am I pushing?     ←   ZScarpia   14:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The update has been loaded at the requested page, and is now available for discussion.

Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about your user page? Jayjg (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


I will put it in here again, it must have been removed by the bot. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is bloated

To be clear it is the main article on Antisemitism which is bloated to the point of absurd. For example the paragraph on Antisemitism in Yale University appears to be twice the length of the paragraph on the entire Holocaust. Who is standing up to defend that? There are huge sections which should be left to their main article. If we run an article on Economic AS then the section here needs to be collapsed. --BozMo talk 19:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Economic antisemitism

(NB: Much of the text below is copied from a discussion over at User talk:Jayjg.)

I would appreciate it if interested editors would take a look at a draft article that I'm working on. If this looks familiar, it is because I started by taking Noleander's Jews and money article and hacking at it, throwing out a lot of irrelevant and even dubious material but keeping stuff that was relevant to the topic. (see the edit summaries to get a sense for what I mean). The more I work with Noleander's Jews and money text, the more I stumble over problematic passages.

The thing is... the Antisemitism article doesn't really take on the issues head-on and give them adequate treatment. My proposed article will do that but I need some feedback as to how to improve it before moving it into article mainspace.

I am particularly concerned about the section titled "Historical development" which I suspect may be too long and too detailed. Still, I didn't want to throw it all out without getting some input from other editors.

IMO, there was a lot of good information in Noleander's original Jews and money article but it was unfortunately mixed in with a lot of really dubious stuff. The decision to delete Jews and money was based on the conclusion that it was better to just start all over. I didn't agree completely at the time but, after working with the text for several weeks, I can see that there is validity in that view.

I think the first lesson I learned is that there is something encyclopedic to say about "Jews and money" and/or "Jews and banking" but it's really hard to do right and so I've put that effort on the backburner.

Instead, I've been peeling off little chunks of useful stuff, reading it several times and adding my own writing. Results of this effort have been the creation of History of investment banking in the United States, Jewish views of poverty, wealth and charity, Jewish stereotypes in literature and Port Jew. In addition, I have expanded Jewish stereotypes and Dearborn Independent.

I have also added/expanded the "Forms" section of this article to list various forms of antisemitism, including "Economic antisemitism". It is my plan to make my proposed article the {{main}} article for the "Economic antisemitism" section of this article.

Any help you can give me would be much appreciated.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Since there has been no comment in the past week, I am planning to move User:Pseudo-Richard/Economic antisemitism into mainspace under the title Economic antisemitism. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure a lack of comment should be interpreted as support for the article. I was one of those individuals who found Noleander's original article to be blatantly antisemitic. I'm unconvinced your version is much better (but it is better), so I would suggest a lot more openness in reviewing it before moving it to the mainspace, unless you want another battle. In fact, I saw no comments or edits but yours and one anonymous IP, who made a good suggestion. These are my opinions. You really need a bunch more from others. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I do not want "another battle" which is why I've been asking for comment both from individual editors and at various forums. I definitely welcome comments and my comment immediately above about moving the article into mainspace was an attempt to get some feedback after a week of silence. I would like to point out that the sources make it clear that "economic antisemitism" is one of the harshest forms of antisemitism (short of pogroms and the Holocaust) and yet we have an article on Religious antisemitism and no article on Economic antisemitism. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's a thought... what would you think if I issued an RFC on the draft article (i.e. while it is still in my userspace)? It seems a bit unorthodox but it might get more eyes on the article (which is my goal at this time). --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I would feel more positive on the idea if we can move some content out of this article which is bloated and undermined by relative trivia in amongst the rather heavy weight content. However I am marginally in favour. --BozMo talk 18:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I mean aside the silly duplication of article material listed elsewhere (should we limit the summaries under "main article at" to five lines?) I think attitude surveys of cohorts of US students on their attitude to Jews might belong in the article on the History of AS in the USA but not in this one. Meanwhile as far as I can see coverage of the holocaust is limited to five lines without even its own section heading. Hmm. --BozMo talk 18:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  1. Could you be more specific about the parts of the article that you think are "bloated"?
  2. I might take issue with the phrase "silly duplication" but it would help if you could be more specific in pointing out particular problem sections. (Please continue this discussion at the Talk Page of the draft article.
  3. Yeh, I agree about the attitude surveys of U.S. students although I think the ADL surveys of adults in Europe should stay.
  4. I did remove a bunch of text about the distribution of Jews in various occupations because I thought the point was inadequately made and that we really needed to go back to the sources rather than just throw out data without providing the interpretation intended by the sources.
  5. About the holocaust, well, the problem is that economic antisemitism is part of the antisemitism in Nazi Germany but that antisemitism is generally described in the sources as having been a mix of all the forms of antisemitism mentioned in the "Forms" section of this article (i.e. Antisemitism). The sources trace the resurgence of economic antisemitism in 19th century Europe that supplanted religioius antisemitism after the emancipation of the Jews and how this combined with the racial antisemitism that developed in the late 19th century to form the truly virulent antisemitism of the early 20th century. I have tried to describe in the article the antisemitic economic legislation that restricted German Jews from government jobs, certain occupations and from owning businesses. In the end, however, the "Final Solution" was far worse than any economic antisemitism that preceded it in that the Nazis actually killed Jews whereas economic antisemitism simply restricts their ability to earn a living. If you can propose ways to improve the section on "Nazi Germany", I would certainly welcome it.
Thanks for your comments. I welcome constructive criticism. I do think this discussion would be more appropriately conducted at the Talk Page of the draft article.
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted to use the comments above to improve my draft article. At this point, I think it is ready for "prime time" so I have moved it to article mainspace under the title Economic antisemitism. Further comments and suggestions for improvement are welcomed at Talk:Economic antisemitism. Or, just be bold and edit yourself. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Trimming the "History", Christianity and antisemitism" and "Islam and antisemitism" sections

This article is too long. Given the existence of History of antisemitism, the "History" section should be cut back.


In addition, given the existence of Religious antisemitism, Christianity and antisemitism and Islam and antisemitism, the "Christianity and antisemitism" and "Islam and antisemitism" sections of this article should be condensed significantly with most of the content of those sections merged to the above-mentioned articles.


I am going to be WP:BOLD and start working on the above tasks.


--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

(sound of loud cheering from the gallery) --BozMo talk 14:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

EUMC/FRA "Working definition"

Dalai lama ding dong (talk · contribs) has made a series of edits to the article which had a number of issues with them, and have been subsequently removed several times. The issues are as follows:

  • They insert into the "working definition" the words "Working definition". Dalai lama ding dong, I know you really want to downplay the significance of this definition, but nevertheless, "Working definition" is not part of the actual definition of antisemitism.
  • It added lengthy direct quotes to material that had been paraphrased. When you include such lengthy quotations, you run the risk of violating WP:COPYVIO - therefore it is best to leave in the paraphrasing.
  • The definition is a "definition", not a "document" - please stop changing that word.

Also, the insertion concluded with

This “working definition” of anti-Semitism has always been in draft, and has never been formally adopted. The FRA publication on the topic – its Working Paper Anti-Semitism: Summary overview of the situation in the European Union 2001-2009 (April 2010) does not mention the “working definition”. [1]

As should be obvious, the first sentence is pure WP:NOR - there is no source for the claim. The second sentence is also WP:NOR - the fact that a document doesn't mention the working definition pretty much proves that it's not relevant to it. And finally, this section of the article provides definitions, not arguments about their relative worth or importance. Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg's version. The other version phrases the subject in such a way that one doubts anti-Semitism is a real ropic. TFD (talk) 04:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

With reference to edits above. There are several issues with what you have written. Firstly the EUMC document clearly shows that the Working definition is not the whole document. The text that starts Working definition: is in bold and italics. This whole paragraph should be restored as it is in the orginal. It should not be altered in any way. The rest of the document is supplementary material, and it should be referred to as the document, not as the definition. The rest of the document starts with the phrase In addition, such manifestations….. It then includes examples of how anti semitism could manifest itself. If you want to refer to these as part of the Working definition: then please provide some evidence to show that that is how the document should be read. Otherwise the layout should accurately reflect the original layout, via the use of Working definition: then bold italics.

With reference to this claim. *They insert into the "working definition" the words "Working definition". Dalai lama ding dong, I know you really want to downplay the significance of this definition, but nevertheless, "Working definition" is not part of the actual definition of antisemitism. This claim is not substantiated by the EUMC document. Please look at it again. I have not inserted the words Working Definition: They are there in the original. Your claim that I am trying to downplay the significance of this document is not correct. Please explain why you are unhappy that the actual wording as used in the EUMC document is used here. Why should the text that begins, Working definition: and then continues in bold and italics not be included here as such? To do otherwise is to downplay what the Working definition: actually says.

I am happy to remove this sentence This “working definition” of anti-Semitism has always been in draft, and has never been formally adopted. Until I can provide references for this. The fact that the successor organization to the EUMC no longer uses this draft Working definition: should be included here. Not to do so would give a false impression of the significance of this draft document.

“The other version phrases the subject in such a way that one doubts anti-Semitism is a real ropic.’ I do not agree with this, and I do not understand this comment. This article should show the actual Working definition: in bold and italics, as per the original draft working document.

Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

  1. The EUMC's definition of antisemitism does not include "Working definition". Antisemitism is not a "working definition", and the article already describe the EUMC's working definition as a "working definition". The EUMC's original document explains what its "Working definition" of antisemitism is, but "Working definition" is not part of the "Working definition". To repeat, Antisemitism is not defined as a "working definition" - rather, it as hatred of Jews/Judaism, as manifested in various ways.
  2. My claim that you are trying to downplay the significance of this document is completely correct. That is pretty much all you have done on Wikipedia for the past month. It is imperative that, during our discussions here, you make honest statements. Please respect this process and the other editors here.
  3. As explained, we cannot copy huge swathes of text verbatim; rather, we must paraphrase wherever possible, per WP:COPYVIO. Please do not replace paraphrases with verbatim text.
Jayjg (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I also agree with Jayjg's analysis of this. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The EUMC's Working definition: should clearly stated in this article. It starts with the text Working definition: and it then continues in bold italicised text. You only have to look at the document to see that. Putting the correct Working definition: on here is in no way downplaying its significance. You have not provided any evidence that any other part of the document is other than examples, and explanatory text. You have not provided any example that it forms part of the Working definition: Please be honest. Please do not remove the Working definition: when I restore it. It will be restored word for word as it is in the original. That is the correct thing to do. I need to know why you would object to the correct text AS IT IS IN THE ORIGINAL document being place here. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As explained above, the article already clearly states it is a "working definition". However, you've put in rather bizarre formatting, that
  1. splits a sentence in the middle, putting the second half two lines below;
  2. bolds an entire sentence; and
  3. splits a quotation in two, placing the second half of the quotation two lines below the first half.
None of this complies with the Manual of style. Again, the words "Working definition" are not part of the EUMC's working definition of Antisemitism, but a description of its definition. Antisemitism isn't "working definition", it's various perceptions of manifestations of hatred of Jews. Your edits are starting to become disruptive - please read and think carefully about what other editors are saying to you here. Jayjg (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

With reference to the claim that the word document is not correct and should be replaced by the word definition.

  • The definition is a "definition", not a "document" - please stop changing that word.
Again, I would ask you to consult the original. It starts with the words, "The purpose of this document" Therefore it is perfectly permissable to refer to it as the'document.' Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The document includes a definition, but a document and a definition are not the same thing. We are concerned with the definition here, not the document in which it is found. Jayjg (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes we are concerned with the definition here, not the document. The definition is clearly differentiated from the rest of the document, by bold italic text, in the original document. Examples of how anti semitism could be manifested are part of the document, they are not part of the definition. If you wish to show them as part of the definition, then you should provide some evidence for that view. In the absence of such evidence, the layout should be as close to the original as possible. Otherwise the disparity between the two layouts is jarring to the reader. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The document contains the definition, and most of the document is devoted to it. The definition does not consist solely of the bolded material. If you want to claim that the non-bolded material is not part of the definition, then it is you who must provide some evidence for that view. If the rest is not part of the definition, then what do you imagine it to be? Jayjg (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
You have provided no evidence for your personal reading of the document. It is you who must explain whey the bolded italicised Working definition: is separated from the rest of the document, which consists of examples of what COULD constitute anti semitism. My preferred layout will clearly allow the reader to check for themselves. My layout is a neutral point of view, which is to be preferred to a leading point of view. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
You have provided no evidence for your personal reading of the document. I don't need to explain anything about the format, since it is you who has a theory regarding it, not me. Also, please don't make any more purely argumentative assertions such as "My layout is a neutral point of view, which is to be preferred to a leading point of view", when it's obvious most everyone else here disagrees with you about what is "neutral point of view" and "leading point of view". And finally, please attach your signature to your comments, so it doesn't end up dangling randomly all of the page. Jayjg (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The Manual of Style states that "Some text styling should be altered. Of course the typeface will be automatically standardized; but generally preserve bold and italics (see Italics, above). Again, the text that follows the words Working definition: is in bold and italics, and it is clearly separated from the rest of the document in the original. It should be clearly separated from the supplementary examples in this page. We will need to agree a layout, but the current layout is misleading, as it merges the supplementary material with the actual text which is clearly in bold and in italics.

This (from the original EUMC document)

Working definition: Bold textItalic textAntisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities'''Bold text'''Italic text

has been changed to this

"Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for 'why things go wrong'."

This is a poor layout, and it is misleading. There is no reason why the format of the original should not be preserved. We need to agree how that can be done.

I would accept a format change that puts the italicised bold text into a block quote, or separate paragraph, (and is preceded by the words Working definition:) and has the next paragraph, which is presently currently incorrectly shown as part of the previous paragraph, (it starts with the words, 'In addition') into a separate paragraph below.

I can see no reason why this change should not be made. We should preserve the original layout, and not impose a different layout on it. Please make a suggestion as to how this can be agreed. Anyone who looks at the original EUMC document will surely accept that the layout there, and that given here are not the same. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that what comes after the bolded text in the original is not part of the definition? We're certainly not going to bold two sentences of that section in the article simply because they are in bold in the original document. Jayjg (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying that what comes after the bolded text is part of the definition? If you are saying that, then please provide some evidence for that view. In the absence of such, I would accept that the Working definition: is put into a separate paragraph, and followed by a statement such as 'The document then provides examples, or then continues, ..... the text that follows the Working definition: can then be included. At present, anyone who consults the original document can see a clear disparity between that document, and its portrayal on this page. All I am asking is that the layout and format of the original draft working definition should be preserved here as far as possible, so that we do not impose our own assumptions on the document. I think that that can be easily done. At present the layout is in danger of infringing the NPOV by mixing definition and example, and giving undue prominence to examples pertaining to the State of Israel, rather then other manifestations of anti semitism. If you do not want to bold and italicise two sentences, then why not just put them into a separate paragraph below the words Working definition:? These sentences should not be mixed in with the supplementary text when they are so clearly differentiated in the original. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying that what comes after the bolded text is not part of the definition? If you are saying that, then please provide some evidence for that view. Is it your claim that only the bolded part is definition, while the rest consists of "examples"? Jayjg (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Reference criticism of me for the following.

'It added lengthy direct quotes to material that had been paraphrased. When you include such lengthy quotations, you run the risk of violating WP:COPYVIO - therefore it is best to leave in the paraphrasing.'

Again, I must point to the original EUMC document. In the original EUMC document after the Working definition: section (which is in bold and italics) there are two bullet pointed lists. The first list contains 'contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere." In the present wikipedia page this bulleted list has been paraphrased. (I have suggested that it should be included in full). In the original EUMC document, the second bulleted list starts with the preamble, Examples of the way in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel...... In the present wikipedia page all of these five bullet points are listed in full, with no paraphrasing of the text. However, in the first bullet point the word 'their' in the original has been changed to the word 'the' in the wikipedia page. Also, the original has a full stop at the end of each bullet point in the original, whereas the wikipeda version has used a ; .

It seems strange to criticise me for replacing the paraphrased version with the original text, when this is then followed by what is virtually a copy of the original. At present, the wikipedia version gives undue prevalence to the second set of bullet points which are about Israel, and downplays the first set of bullet points which are about contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life. These two sections need to be rebalanced. Either both sets of bullet points should included, (as I have suggested) or both sections should be paraphrased, and either both , or neither should be formatted as a bulleted list, when both are formatted exactly the same in the original. Which method is preferred? I am looking for suggestions, and agreement, before I make a further change. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with paraphrasing the second set of bullet points too. Also, could you please format your comments here in a way that is readable and compatible with Wikipedia conventions? You keep creating odd sections with random "equal" signs at the top. Jayjg (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Why not guide me to the page that includes this guidance? 'Assuming good faith means that we assume that other people's intentions are to improve the project, even if their editing style is unusual, doesn't fit in with all the rules, or doesn't fit in with one's own views'. We are encouraged to be bold, and I am trying to do just that, in order to improve this important article. Thank you. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Dude, you want to know how to "create new section?" How hard is it just to copy what every other user at Wikipedia does? If this is too complicated for you, how about reading the instructions as provided on every talk page Slrubenstein | Talk 18:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
And in fact, he doesn't need a new section for every comment. It's very simple, Dalai lama ding dong, just copy what other people here are doing. Or look at what they do to fix the formatting of your comments after you make them. Jayjg (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Dude, check my talk page, as you will see others have pointed out that you are incorrect, and there is nothing wrong with my layout.

Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Look at your comment above! Did you notice your signature is dangling in at the beginning of the line, not attached to your statement (or anything else)? I'm tired of fixing it for you. Attach your signature directly to your comments, stop leaving them dangling at the beginning of the next line. Jayjg (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing

As it's a working definition it is not a reliable source. Even if it was adopted by some random organisation it's still only their own views. // Liftarn (talk)

This is a non sequitor. Working definitions are important precisely because they work (just as working cars are more useful than non-working cars). That it is a working definition say something about the definition, but it reveals nothing about the source. Obviously the source is a reliable source. I have no doubt, too, that it is a view - all definitions are views. The question is, is it a significant view, and I would say that a working definition of an EU organ is a very significant view. "only" their view? What does this mean? Have you read our WP:NPOV policy? I suggest you do - Wikipedia has an obligation to provide all significant views. Yeah, it is their view - that is precisely why we include it in the argument. What is your point? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
There is a difference between "working" as in "this stuff works" and "working" as in "this si something we jotted down on a napkin and it needs some work". // Liftarn (talk)
Right. And the EUMC working definition is clearly not "something we jotted down on a napkin". Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that? // Liftarn (talk)
Please review Slrubenstein's comment of 19:08, 14 July 2011. Jayjg (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
You say that Slrubenstein is a reliable source? // Liftarn (talk)
Please review WP:TALK. Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Anyting special? "If in doubt, make the extra effort so that other people understand you" "The talk page is the ideal place for issues relating to verification, such as asking for help finding sources, discussing conflicts or inconsistencies among sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference supporting a statement is often better than arguing against it." // Liftarn (talk)
Liftarn, I think what Jayjg is trying to help you understand is that talk page comments don't require references, which is what you seem to be asking for. If, however, there's something in the article that you think is insufficiently referenced, please feel free to point it out. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I think he knows perfectly well that what is discussed is one of the sources used for claims in the final paragraph of Antisemitism#Definition and as far as I know claims in articles really do need to have reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk)
And the paragraph clearly has one, or did you miss the footnote at the end of that graf? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
It has a source, yes. But is it reliable since it's still a draft? If it is used, should that be mentioned? // Liftarn (talk)
I'm really confused. Liftarn, are you really saying that the EUMC WD is not notable and that the definition itself is not a reliable source for its existence? The definition is used pretty widely, e.g. Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the Council of Europe's European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) and the UK's All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, and the National Union of Students in the UK.BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't doubt that is exists, but is it reliable enough to be used without saying that it is adraft from that organisation? // Liftarn (talk)
I have no objection to it being described as a draft, but that seems a bit redundant when it is already entitled a "working definition". And also its status is now very clear if you follow the link to the FRA wikipedia article where it is set out quite clearly, avoiding getting into a debate about what a "working definition" is.BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. This section is just a summary of different definitions, and "working definition" already covers its status. The main article on it can and does go into more detail. Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
As the referenced evidence that the EUMC definition is a draft has been removed, without I note any discussion, then I will need to add in the word draft or discussion document or work in pregress before the word Working definition:. At the moment this EUMC draft definition is given undue weight. It is a discussion document, and no more. I have provided clear evidence that this is a draft document that is for discussion, so either the word draft or the word discussion document or work in progress needs to be restored. This needs to be done here, as well as the FRA page, and it needs to be added to the anti semitism page. I cannot see why anyone would object to this being added since it is clearly an accurate description, and will take up little extra space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalai lama ding dong (talkcontribs) 10:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Your insertion regarding the EUMC definition being a "draft" was added without discussion, so it was removed in the same way - see WP:BRD. "Working definition" more than covers all the points you are trying to make, and this article merely has a summary of the definition, not a lengthy description of all the details and discussions regarding it, or every other document that might mention it. It is not merely a "discussion document", but apparently a definition that is being used by some agencies.
In this article you have focused on the EUMC definition to the exclusion of all others; you have not questioned in any way the authoritativeness or reliability of the definitions provided by Fein, Bering, Lewis, or the U.S. Department of State. There is no reason to think the EUMC definition is any less valid than any of those others, and you have not attempted to provide any other definitions which you feel are reliable or authoritative. The EUMC definition is summarized here in one paragraph, which is reasonable, given its length and detail. It is described as what it describes itself, a "working definition". It is linked here to a longer description, which gives much more detail. There are no changes that need to be made in this article. Jayjg (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Some people are throwing around the word "draft" pretty freely - and utterly unhelpfully. The definition of draft: "Any of various stages in the development of a plan, document, or picture: a preliminary draft of a report; the final draft of a paper." Those of you who use the word "draft" are being vague. Are you saying it is a preliminary draft, or the final draft? And, what is your source for determining whether it is the preliminary draft, or the final draft? Based on my general experience, preliminary drafts are not published; preliminary drafts may be circulated within an organization or between an organization and its clients or stakeholders for comments prior to preparing the final draft. I have only ever seen final drafts made public via websites, so this appears to be a final draft. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The reference that I provided clearly shows that the EUMC document is regarded by the FRA as work in progress. This is important, and it needs to be added into this article. The fact that the WD: is used by some agencies is totally irrelevant. The document is a discussion document, a draft that is work in progress, and the article needs to state that clearly. Personal points of view should not be imposed on the WD:. Unless you can provide references that the WD: is regarded by the FRA as an authorative definition that is to be used for data collection then I must add in the phrase work in progress, with the reference that proves this to be the case. This section was very poor when I arrived here, and I have already cleaned it up a great deal but this final change does need to be made. References to downgrading the importance of this WD: are simply personal points of view. The section should reflect what the EUMC document says, and what the EUMC and FRA say about it. This is clearly what I am doing. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Pretty much everything is a "work in progress", and "working definition" covers everything you've raised. We don't have to "provide references that the WD: is regarded by the FRA as an authorative definition that is to be used for data collection"; we've never made that claim to begin with, and certainly don't have anything like that requirement for any other definition listed. We've moved on from the bare assertions such as "This is important, and it needs to be added into this article", and our role as editors is not to attempt to debunk reliably sourced information with which we happen to personally disagree. The paragraph is the work of many editors, and is fine now having reached a consensus state, with only you still (and continually) objecting. Do not edit it further; work instead on finding other valuable definitions to add to the section. Jayjg (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
(ec) I have no reason to believe that the FRA plans on developing an "authoritative" definition of anything. It is a bureaucratic organization and like all bureaucratic organization periodically reviews and revises its terms of operation. We might as well ignore the UK constitution because it is a work-in-progress (certainly, no one would say that the current UK constitution is the final version.)
Now, the question is, what do YOU mean by "authoritative?" An authority in what sense? For whom? Frankly, I think you are missing the point entirely. The same report to which you refer states the following: "In order to facilitate the data collection work of NFPs the EUMC developed, together with the OSCE/ODIHR and Jewish organisations, and on the basis of consultation with experts, a guide to data collection on anti-Semitic incidents." This is reason enough for us to give a prominent place to the definition, because this is the definition that the EU member states uses when collecting data on anti-Semitic incidents.
If Wikipedia is to provide ANY statistics provided by EU member states or the EU on anti-Semitic incidents, we must provide our readers with the working definition. Otherwise, how can anyone understand what these statistics actually mean? If we include in any article any data on anti-Semitic incidents in the EU we have to let readers know what "incidents" might refer to. That is what the definition does. The fact that this is a work in progress does not mean we should ignore it, it only means that as soon as the EU updates it, we have to update our quote as well. That is all that "work in progress" means for our purposes. But it certainly is "authoritative" in the sense that, until it is revised, this is the definition that the EU uses when collecting data on anti-Semitic incidents. As long as this is the definition that they are using, we need to provide it. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Just to add I completely concur with Slrubenstein and Jajyg. No need to expand further here than "working def" and allow people to follow link to relevant article for further info.BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
With reference to this claim, 'This is reason enough for us to give a prominent place to the definition, because this is the definition that the EU member states uses when collecting data on anti-Semitic incidents. If Wikipedia is to provide ANY statistics provided by EU member states or the EU on anti-Semitic incidents, we must provide our readers with the working definition.' This claim is not correct. See this site http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/research/publications/publications_per_year/2011/pub-antisemitism-update-2011_en.htm where you find the FRA's document 'Anti-Semitism Summary overview of the situation in the European Union 2001-2010.' It includes this quote, 'The Agency's data collection work over recent years shows that few European Union (EU) Member States have official data and statistics on anti-Semitic incidents. Even where data exist, they are not comparable, since they are collected using different definitions and methodologies.' The EUMC Working Definition is not being used by EU states as a basis for data collection. Even the FRA have abandoned this Working Definition. This is the whole point of what I have been pointing out. I have a letter dated 28 Nov 2005, from Beate Winkler who at the time was Director of the EUMC stating that the 'draft guidelines and working definition' are 'work in progress' and were to be reviewed again and redrafted in 2006. I will place a link to this letter in the article, and that will show the status of the WD according to the organsiation that published it. This link will also be placed on the FRA page. It does not require further text to add this in, so there can be no objection.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The document you have provided says nothing whatsoever about the EUMC definition, so any conclusion you have drawn from it regarding the EUMC definition or its use are entirely speculative. So, too is your claim that the FRA has "abandoned" it. As for a letter from 2005, it's both unnecessary and irrelevant; this article contains a one-paragraph summary of the EUMC defintion, not a lengthy dissertation regarding everything every written about it, and sources should only be cited if material from that source is used in the article. You do not appear to have read my comment above, so I'll repeat it: We've moved on from bare assertions such as "the FRA have abandoned this Working Definition", and our role as editors is not to attempt to debunk reliably sourced information with which we happen to personally disagree. The paragraph is the work of many editors, and is fine now having reached a consensus state, with only you still (and continually) objecting. Do not edit it further; work instead on finding other valuable definitions to add to the section. Jayjg (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
DLDD, let's be clear about this. The document you link to does not say that the FRA has abandoned the working definition. If you claim that it does (I'm not certain whether you do), then you're willfully misrepresenting a source. If you do that persistently it will soon lead other editors to the conclusion that nothing you say about a source can be taken on trust. My friendly advice is that you be more careful about making claims about the contents of sources. If you want the article to say that the FRA has abandoned the working definition, you must first, at a minimum, find a reliable source that says so. This is a simple concept. I'm sure you'll have no trouble abiding by it if your intention is to do so. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Friendly advice is always welcome. Thank you. I did not say that the FRA document that I linked to showed that the FRA has abandoned the WD. An earlier document that I referred to showed that the FRA no longer uses the WD. However, the FRA document that I linked to here does show that the claim that this definition is used by EU member states is not correct. Therefore there is no wilful misrepresentation by me. Abandoned means no longer used by, and that is something that I have already shown. I did not state that I was going to add in this link to the article, so I can not be accused of failing to provide correct references, as they are not required in discussion. I certainly have not noticed any concensus on here as to the present state of the paragraph, though I admit it is recently much improved. The document that I linked to does refer to the EUMC definition when it states that 'Even where data exist, they are not comparable, since they are collected using different definitions and methodologies.' i.e. the EUMC definition is not used by all these agencies, or EU states. I absolutely agree that our job as editors is not to 'debunk reliably sourced information with which we happen to personally disagree.' Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


Undue weight?

I haven't been following the ins and outs of the debate over the EUMC/FRA "working definition". However, I would like to comment that the "Definition" section is 8 paragraphs long, 5 of which are devoted to discussion of the EUMC/FRA Working definition. By comparison, the U.S. Department of State's definition gets one short paragraph; Fein and Bering get one paragraph and Bernard Lewis gets another paragraph. I wonder if we aren't spending too much text in the article discussing the EUMC/FRA working definition. If it could be reduced to one or two paragraphs, that would be plenty.

On a related point, is it felt that Fein, Bering and Lewis provide an adequate overview of the different definitions of antisemitism? How were these three sources chosen to represent the consensus of academic scholarship (if such exists) as to the definition of antisemitism? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The EUMC/FRA definition is the most detailed, so it takes more space. How would you shorten it? Lewis was included because his definition generally excluded Muslims from historically being antisemitic, and a Muslim editor really liked that. I don't know why the others were included. Jayjg (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
You wrote "How would you shorten it?" ... if I had known how to shorten it, I would have been BOLD and done it. What you and Bobfrombrockley did improved it. Thanx. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Further reading/Bernard Lazare

I have tried to tidy further reading a little, but it is pretty messy, and its content and that of external links need a fair amount of redistribution. One further reading suggestion is Antisemitism: Its History and Causes by Bernard Lazare. I changed the link from a neo-Nazi website to Fordham College's Jewish History Sourcebook[1], but expect it to be reverted by the anonymous editor who pushes the neo-Nazi website. Anyone with knowledge of or interest in this please see Bernard Lazare talkpage. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Ref this section, 'On January 1, 2006, Britain's chief rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, warned that what he called a "tsunami of antisemitism" was spreading globally. In an interview with BBC Radio 4, Sacks said: "A number of my rabbinical colleagues throughout Europe have been assaulted and attacked on the streets. We've had synagogues desecrated. We've had Jewish schools burnt to the ground – not here but in France. People are attempting to silence and even ban Jewish societies on campuses on the grounds that Jews must support the state of Israel, therefore they should be banned, which is quite extraordinary because ... British Jews see themselves as British citizens. So it's that kind of feeling that you don't know what's going to happen next that's making ... some European Jewish communities uncomfortable.' has no relevance to the UK. Lord Sacks is referring to events in Europe he makes no reference to any events in the UK. Therefore I intend to remove this long quote, which might be relocated elsewhere but is irrelevant in this section.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Figure out a place to put it then, but don't just remove it. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Section moved to Europe.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Jews as the "historical driving force" behind socialism and Communism

Hi, I would like to ask Steven J. Anderson for his reasoning behind making this revert to Antisemitism. The anon IP editor inserted this sentence: "The notion that Jews have been the historical driving force behind revolutionary Communism and Socialism, is representative of political antisemitism.

Now, IMO, the sentence as it stands is not wrong and not, on its face, POV although some of the wording might be tweaked (e.g. "historical driving force"). I can see various issues that could improve on it and I would like to improve on it but I wanted to understand what the thinking behind the revert was so that we don't wind up butting heads on this needlessly. The first problem, of course, is that the sentence is unsourced. However, I think we could find a source that expresses this basic idea (once again, maybe not the exact words "historical driving force" but linking the concept and political antisemitism seems like it would be an easy point to source.) AFAICT, the alleged linkage between Jews and socialism/communism was a major tenet of political antisemitism. It is perhaps an oversimplification but one might characterize economic antisemitism as the canard that Jews are money-grubbing capitalists (e.g. Jewish bankers) that control international finance while political antisemitism is the canard that Jews are socialists/communists that want to dominate the world politically. While antisemitism is a "messy" phenomenon that doesn't follow clear-cut lines, one might say that left-wing antisemites see the Jews as anti-proletarian money-grubbing capitalists and the right-wing anti-semites see them as socialist/communist revolutionaries who want to overthrow the capitalist democracies.

The major problem I have with "historical driving force" is that it perhaps overstates the point, although (IMO) not by much. This antisemitic canard is at the core of much modern antisemitism including the allegations made by Hitler based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

My inclination would be to restore the sentence, expand it into a full paragraph and make sure the paragraph is well-sourced.

However, since this text is potentially controversial, I figured it's better for us to hash it out here on the Talk Page rather than via edits to the live article.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It is notable. See for example the article Jewish Bolshevism. However sources should be used. TFD (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I would like to see some sources first, 'historical driving source' is a bit overblown. How about pointing out that whilst it may not be anti semitic to point out that some individuals who were Jewish have been involved in socialist/communist ideas, it would be anti semitic to state that somehow this meant that these theories were 'Jewish' theories? Of course, some might see socialism/communism as positive ideas, (note I am not saying that they were positive in their execution,) so we need to be careful here. The fact that some Jews were involved in some of the most important ideas to be discussed in history can be portrayed as positive, or negative, depending on POV. E.g. the Russian Revolution may have had a different outcome, and could be regarded as a positive overthrown of a tyranny by some, despite what happened next. Peace and bread would have seemed very good at the time.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
My answer for Pseudo-Richard is that I reverted that edit because it was uncited. Looking back, I may have made infelicitous use of an automated process to do so, resulting in an inadequate edit summary, but I don't think it requires much perspicacity to see what my reason was. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeh, I'm just asking if you think the point would be reasonable to make if sourced and presented in an NPOV way. I think the problem is that the sentence needs to be expanded upon. An entire paragraph would explain the point better than just the one sentence. I will work on drafting such a paragraph. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Misnomer?

I find it somewhat hilarious that there is such a huge page on "anti-semitism" with not a single mention, that I could see, of the popular criticism that "anti-semitism" is actually a complete misnomer and represents a completely abstract idea. This is not opinion so much as it is fact, reinforced simply by looking up the definition of a "semite" right here on Wikipedia. Over a dozen sub-races of Asiatic peoples are semites, and so to be an anti-semite one would actually need to openly oppose every semitic group; one does not identify as "anti-motor-vehicle" because they dislike Hondas. 216.185.250.92 (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably being very generous by not reverting this frivolous addition to the talk page, but on the off chance you're not just trying to be disruptive and you really haven't seen it, I refer you to Antisemitism#Etymology_and_usage, the very first section in this article, which explains that the term was deliberately coined to mean hatred of Jews. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 06:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Europe

I have some concerns about this:

"Much of the new European antisemitic violence can actually be seen as a spill over from the long running Arab-Israeli conflict since the majority of the perpetrators are from the large Muslim immigrant communities in European cities. However, compared to France, the United Kingdom and much of the rest of Europe, in Germany Arab and pro-Palestinian groups are involved in only a small percentage of antisemitic incidents.[80][82] According to The Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism, most of the more extreme attacks on Jewish sites and physical attacks on Jews in Europe come from militant Islamic and Muslim groups, and most Jews tend to be assaulted in countries where groups of young Muslim immigrants reside.[83]"

There are only two sources. One is an opinion ("...can actually be seen as...") by Susanne Urban, who seems non-notable. Therefore, her opinion is not worth mention merely because it is hers. Even an opinion from a notable person should not be stated as a fact by Wikipedia. I couldn't find support for the the statements attribute to Roth, and it seems contradictory. We are told "Arab and pro-Palestinian groups are involved in only a small percentage of antisemitic incidents" followed by "most of the more extreme attacks on Jewish sites and physical attacks on Jews in Europe come from militant Islamic and Muslim groups, and most Jews tend to be assaulted in countries where groups of young Muslim immigrants reside". Maybe there's a logical reconciliation of those two statements, but if so we should clarify that for the reader. Noloop (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It is contradictory. The Roth Institute said that most assaults on Jews come from politically unaffiliated Muslim immigrants while most of the serious attacks come from the far right. Needs to be re-written. TFD (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Causes

The causes section is very short; expansion would help this article a great deal. There is a lot about the history, etymology and so forth, but very little about the perceived reasons for anti-semitism. Totorotroll (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It's also rather odd that there is little debate about the topic, as presented by this article. For example, the ADL considers it anti-Semitic to think that American Jews are more loyal to Israel than America. Maybe they are, maybe not. Who knows? Who cares? Why would it be inherently anti-Semitic to think that? Where's the debate in this article? Noloop (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there is any debate on the fact that believing that American Jews' first loyalty is to Israel and not their own country is anti-Semitic (except perhaps among anti-Semites). But let's stick to the constructive comment Totorotroll made - there is of course literature on the causes of anti-Semitism. This is certainly far more interesting - I mean, it cannot simply be because they are stupid. So I would indeed imagine that there is some debate over this. I think that somewhere, in the course of reviewing different explanations for the Nazis, Yehuda Bauer gives a general overview of different approaches to anti-Semitism. Perhaps Totorotroll you could start by looking at some of his books, see what he covers in his introductory chapters. I am also surprised that there is no discussion at all of Sartre's explanation. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The idea that there is no encyclopedic debate over the term "anti-Semitic" is absurd. Loyalty to Israel was just an example. Another example is the assumption that believing Jews have too much power is anti-Semitic. Ditto for thinking Jews are responsible for the death of Christ. None of those views is inherently anti-Semitic. Regarding loyalty, there does appear to be some debate, e.g.
"Over the past few days, ThinkProgress attended the AIPAC conference here in Washington, D.C. We interviewed a number of attendees and asked them what they thought about Netanyahu so publicly rebuking the United States and what they think about progressive Jewish advocates who are more critical of the Israeli government...Attendees told us that they think it’s best for all Jews to simply back Netanyahu no matter what his policies do to Palestinians or to the state of Israel, that if Israel gave up land it would face genocide like the Native Americans, and some even compared progressive, anti-occupation, pro-Israel Jewish activists to traitors." [2]
"Such a call by an ambassador to a group of citizens, demanding they will first and foremost show their loyalty to his country is, to say the least, very problematic, and to be less polite, unadulterated chutzpah."[3]
There's more stuff like this on google. Noloop (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

History section

This can just be removed: "Many authors see the roots of economic antisemitism in both pagan antiquity and early Christianity. Jerome Chanes identifies six stages in the historical development of antisemitism:

  • Pre-Christian anti-Judaism in ancient Greece and Rome which was primarily ethnic in nature
  • Christian anti-semitism in antiquity and the Middle Ages which was religious in nature and has extended into modern times
  • Traditional Muslim antisemitism which was - at least in its classical form - nuanced in that Jews were a protected class
  • Political, social and economic antisemitism of Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment Europe which laid the groundwork for racial antisemitism
  • Racial antisemitism that arose in the 19th century and culminated in Nazism
  • Contemporary antisemitism which has been labeled by some as the New Antisemitism

Chanes suggests that these six stages could be merged into three categories: "ancient antisemitism, which was primarily ethnic in nature; Christian antisemitism, which was religious; and the racial antisemitism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries."[70]

The "many" claim is completely unsupported. The entire thing is based on the view of one person, who is not notable. The six stages should be developed if they are going to listed, but the rest of the section is not based on these stages. They are presented, then dropped. Certain editors are warring to keep an author out of the Islamaphobiaarticle because the author is redlinked and non-notable; that principle should be applied even-handedly. Noloop (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I am the one who inserted the text in question and I don't agree with Noloop that it should be deleted although I do acknowledge that some of the issues raised are valid and should be addressed.

The assertion "Many authors see the roots of economic antisemitism in both pagan antiquity and early Christianity." is perhaps a bit dicey and needs expansion. I'll try to research it and come up with a more accurate assertion. I think the truth is that antisemitism is more clearly a phenomenon of the second millenium but some scholars see the roots of medieval and modern antisemitism in pagan antiquity and early Christianity. Whether antisemitism in pagan antiquity and early Christianity is truly related to medieval and modern antisemitism is open to debate. The undecided nature of this question should be more clearly stated in the lead to this section.

The assertion that Jerome Chanes is "non-notable" is debatable. Here's his bio from "Spiritual Politics - a blog on religion and American political culture":
Jerome Chanes has taught American Jewish sociology, Jewish public policy issues, and biblical Hebrew at Barnard College, Stern College, Harvard University, Brandeis and Yeshiva University. He is the co-editor most recently of A Portrait of the American Jewish Community (1998), and is the author of A Dark Side of History: Antisemitism through the Ages (2000) and of the widely-used monograph A Primer on the American Jewish Community (1999), as well as an author and editor of the second edition of theEncyclopedia Judaica.
I put the Chanes formulation in the article because I thought it neatly summarized the forms of antisemitism and put them in historical context. I agree that the rest of the section does not adequately expand on this formulation but I would argue that it is the rest of the section that needs to be rewritten to match the lead of the section rather than simply eviscerating the lead by deleting the text in question.
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


I should also comment that the Chanes formulation contributes to the understanding of "Causes" that Totorotroll was arguing needed further exposition in the section above. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
My understanding of notability is that 1) it mainly applies to articles; an article has to be on a notable subject, 2) if we devote much space to the view of a single person in an article, it should be because that person is notable, and so his view is of interest merely because it is his view. For example, we might quote the Queen of England on antisemitism, merely because of who she is. Chanes isn't notable in that way, and its hard to justify devoting a complete paragraph to the view of one, non-notable figure. There are probably hundreds of individual humanities profs who published something on antisemitism. Why are we singling out Chanes's view for emphasis? Seems like a due weight issue. Noloop (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Would you consider Chanes' notability regarding antisemitism similar to, say, that of Harry R:son Svensson?[4][5][6] Jayjg (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, probably, although it is harder to research Rson since he seems to have no English-language presence. However, Chanes gets a lot more weight here than Rson does in that article. Noloop (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps that's because Chanes actually says very explicit and specific things about antisemitism, rather than vague and unclear generalities. Of course, the fact that Chanes has published 3 books on the topic of antisemitism, including a reference handbook on the topic, might indicate why he's seen as more notable on the subject, and therefore given more weight. Jayjg (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I liked what Chanes wrote so I added it to the article. It seemed to provide a neat overview of the history of anitsemitism. If anyone can provide a reliable source that provides a different perspective, then they should add it as well. I have read people who argue that there is not really a link between pagan antiquity and early Christianity on one side and medieval/modern antisemitism on the other side. I don't remember where I read this off the top of my head so it may take some time for me to find it again. I'm not sure which is the predominant view. Let's worry less about how notable Chanes is and more about whether there are other dissenting views that should be represented here.--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust denial sentence and weasel words?

Under the "Conspiracy theories" section, the opening sentence stated:

"Holocaust denial and Jewish conspiracy theories are also considered a form of antisemitism."

User:Vexorg changed the sentence to read:

"Holocaust denial and Jewish conspiracy theories are also considered a form of antisemitism by some. I have bolded the additional words.

An edit war over this seems to be brewing:

  • User:MSJapan reverted the change on the basis that the words were weasel words which did not clarify the sentence: [7]
  • Vexorg re-added the words on the basis that some people do not consider holocaust denial to be antisemetism, and therefore the words are not weasel words: [8]
  • I reverted the words on the basis that the reliable sources all call it a form of antisemitism, and we shouldn't be giving equal weight to fringe POVs: [9]
  • User:Noloop re-added the words with no reasons indicated in the edit summary: [10]

I have reverted the article back to the status quo as per WP:BRD so that a discussion can take place here.

It seems to me that the reliable sources both here and at Holocaust denial all indicate that there Holocaust denial is a form of antisemitism. It is a fringe theory otherwise, and we don't need to give undue weight to such viewes, especially without sources. Singularity42 (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

venting
Reliable sources are for factual claims, not interpretations. Reliable sources say Beethoven's 9th is beautiful. Nonetheless, Wikipedia should not say Beethoven's 9th is beautiful. An encyclopedia doesn't interpret things. In this case, the difference between adding "by some" or not is that without "by some" Wikipedia is stating as a fact that all Holocaust demnal is anti-Semitic, whereas if you add the "by some" we are making it clear that this is an interpretatation. Neither is very good. The proper way to present the idea is with some information about the prevalence of the interpretation as anti-Semitic. I doubt anybody has bothered to research it, so I doubt there is anything encyclopedic that can be said about it. This is really just a small case of the usual Wikipedia bullshit of people using the encyclopedia to promote their worldview. Whether it's an article on Jesus or Middle East politics, this community is full of hate-mongering ideologues who would rather shove their self-glorifying ideologies down the throat of the world than produce a fair and balanced enyclopedia that has has integrity. There is a reason that study of the reliability of Wikipedia that everybody likes to cite only looked at science articles. Noloop (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Please comment on the contribution, not the contributer. I have tried to start an objective discussion. You seem to be suggesting ulterior motives to me and other editors who diagree with the addition of these words. I fail to see what I have done to warrant such an attack. Singularity42 (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I can't tell the dancer from the dance. Noloop (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Was that supposed to be an apology? In any event, if you are unable to "tell the dancer from the dance" (as you wrote above) then I suggest you carefully read through WP:No personal attacks and WP:Assume good faith before commenting further on controversial subjects. Singularity42 (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't assume anything, good faith or otherwise, when there is a long and proven track record. Why don't you assume good faith about vandals, hm? Because that would be naive. <Personal attack redacted> Hate begets hate. Sometimes I ignore it, sometimes I get fed up with it. The sentence in question states an opinion as fact, and that is against the rules. An accusation of anti-Semitism is an accusation about motive. If you beat up a Jewish guy because you want his money, that isn't anti-Semitic; if you beat him up because he is Jewish, that is anti-Semitic. If you deny the Holocaust because you are un- or mis-informed, that is not anti-Semtitic. If you deny it because you want to validate the Nazis, that is anti-Semitic. There is no absolute fact about it, but the ideologues can't stand the idea that their POV isn't absolute truth, and so they try to get their POV into an encyclopedia, stated as fact. It's pathetic and it's racist, and Wikipedia is utterly inept at coping with it. Noloop (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
No, you got something wrong here. Saying that black people are generally stupid or inferior is racism, no matter where you got that piece of information from. It might be you're just repeating what you heard your neighbor say or that you yourself are completely convinced of it. Same with Holocaust denial. If you're "misinformed" then you're repeating anti-semitic propaganda. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Believing members of a certain race are generally inferior is virtually the definition of racism. Believing a certain historical event did or did not happen is not the definition of racism.
It is perfectly possible to believe that the Holocaust did not happen without being anti-semitic. Lots of people are spectacularly ignorant about history and will believe whatever they are told that sounds plausible. However, this is beside the point. As an organised and persistent viwpoint aHolocaust denial is motivated overwhelmingly by anti-semitism, or pro-Nazism, which amounts to the same thing. That what created it and keeps it going. Paul B (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you're contradicting me. I see agreement. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
That may be true, but 1) that is not what the sentence in question says, and 2) any such statement needs to be explicitly attributed in the text, since it is an interpretation. Noloop (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
So, what, you want to insert all the references from [11] here into the text? Seems redundant, at best. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Noloop, just to humor us, what do the sources say, in your view? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
They say Holocaust denial is anti-Semitic. I don't think you understand the basis of the objection. Noloop (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The objection seems to be that the WP:FRINGE idea that Holocaust denial is something other than antisemitic is not being given its due. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
No that is not the objection. Nor is that comment a serious attempt to understand the objection. Fringe theories don't apply to interpretations of a belief about whether an historical event really happened. There is no scientific consensus that all Holocaust denial is anti-Semitic. As others have said, it can be merely uninformed. Noloop (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Noloop, you've been asked repeatedly to tell us what changes you would like to make to the article based upon what reliable sources. All of the reliable sources agree that Holocaust denial is antisemitic. Your personal opinions don't count. Your continued refusal to make any coherent suggestions about how to edit the article is only causing other editors to become more convinced that you're only here to troll this talk page. Now, what would you like the article to say? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. And if your (Noloop's) next reply becomes another un-sourced and/or general rant, I'm gonna collapse this section again. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I've been perfectly clear that the principle involved has to do with subjective opinion, not with unreliable sources. Is it a fringe theory that Beethoven's 9th isn't beautiful? The question is inappropriate. The beauty of Beethoven's 9th is a consensus subjective opinion, but that's irrelevant because it is still an opinion and we don't state opinion as fact. No real encyclopedia says "Beethoven's 9th is beautiful," even though that's a consensus view. Ditto, we should not say "Holocaust denial is anti-Semitic." What we would do if this community weren't plagued with bias is provide factual information about Holocaust denial and factual information about definitions of anti-Semitism, and let the reader decide what's anti-Semitic, without rhetorical pressure or weasel words. Of course Holocaust denial is considered anti-Semitic. So what? A better approach is something like Paul Barlow's: "As an organised and persistent viewpoint Holocaust denial is motivated overwhelmingly by anti-semitism, or pro-Nazism, which amounts to the same thing. That what created it and keeps it going." with good sources.
This is all perfectly damn obvious and well-known. A consensus subjective opinion is still a subjective opinion, and we don't try to pass it off as fact. Yet admins start threatening bans over it and calling people trolls (in the name of preventing disruption....how brilliant) when it is applied to patrolled political articles. This article contains a couple of scattered sentences on criticism of the concept of anti-Semitism. Islamophobia has an entire section, which immediately follows the definition, titled "Criticism of the Concept" that is 8 paragraphs long. You will never, ever get an 8-paragraphs criticising the concept of anti-Semitism into the second section of this article and we all know it. This encyclopedia is racist. The racism alienates Muslim editors, it alienates Indonesians and Arabs, but nothing can be done because non-English-speaking interests can't gain consensus here.
I have no problem "ranting" about racism and admins like Jayjg. If it means being banned from a racist community, why should anybody care? Noloop (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I edited Islamophobia to reduce the blatant Isalmophobia in it. Duh. Let's see how long that lasts. Noloop (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The description of a consensus view as "by some" is a incorrect. I notice that Noloop is back, and hope that he does not engage in endless conversations with other editors about how various fringe views have been wrongly cast as anti-semitism. TFD (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

jews in middle age europe were opium dealers

It should be pointed out in this article that jewish doctors got their gentile patients addicted to opium and that this is actually the source of anti-semitism during the middle ages. Gentiles eventually got angry enough about their family memebers being addicted to opium and the royal and noble families using tax money to buy opium for their own addictions that they killed and kicked jews out of their country. http://ariel.academia.edu/AbrahamOfirShemesh/Papers/380765/_The_Powerful_Drug_Opium_and_its_Derivatives_in_Medieval_and_Modern_Medicine_in_the_Light_of_Jewish_Literature_in_Jewish_Medical_Ethics_JME_VII_1_pp._61-70 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.147.243 (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Your source merely says that opium was part of Jewish medicine in the Middle Ages. Where are you getting the rest of your theory? TFD (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
According to the article linked, "it seems that these sources merely reflect the general knowledge embedded in contemporary Arabic and European medical literature" and "Jewish writings preserve warnings against improper use of opium." Which I guess just shows trhat Sartre was right all along, antisemites interpret everything as the fault of the Jews. Apparently they also make lousy WP editors. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I admire you two for actually responding seriously to this person. I would have reverted the comment on sight. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 18:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Normally, I too would revert on sight. But when someone provides a link to what looks like a reliable source it is worth our looking at it - and I also think, important that any reader know that the source does not say what this anon IP claims. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Causes of

So do we just all concede the impossibility of an NPOV section on "causes of" AS? Just to complicated and contraversial to tackle? --BozMo talk 08:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Do you have any sources on which to base such a section? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
There are a lot of sources (mainly sections in published books on Jewish History, but most of [12] ) but I do not know of a good review of the issue. I think consensus would be hard to find but a survey of opinions might work if we are bold enough to try? It will attract a certain kind of editor though so I don't know. --BozMo talk 08:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's have people interested in such a section draft it on the talk page first. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 17:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of long standing sentence

Ref [13] please could someone else read the reference carefully. I think that the question of what is an extreme definition of AS is completely different to what is an extreme form of AS and so the reference is mis-used. Something being an extreme form of AS is a definite and unambiguous case of AS, an extreme definition of AS is something which is marginally or arguably AS. These are completely different concepts to the extent that the misuse of a reference looks serious. --BozMo talk 23:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph on Marx

I'll put it this way. The current paragraph on Marx in the article unequivocally states x = y as if it's a fact on the same level as the Holocaust. The article on Marx's work does not. No sensible article would. Both times I have tried to balance it with material from the other article it was soon reverted. I know there are people that constantly hover over this article with a partisan agenda, as one of the revert comments reveals, and as would be expected due to the nature of the subject. So we're left with a paragraph that cites a source with ridiculous-on-its-face things like "Hitler simply copied Marx's own anti-Semitism." This is a fundamental flaw of Wikipedia. I guess John S. Conservative can write "Marx was a transsexual" and it gets cited on Wikipedia. On the other hand, I've had to bang my head against the wall to get the article on the maliciously antisemitic work The Culture of Critique series to basically note in the lead that everyone in the world (who isn't a neo-nazi) considers it antisemitic. I've been here a little over a month and it's not shocking that Wikipedia has a reputation for shoddy information. If anything I'm a believer now. Nolan135 (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Your statement included many statements irrelevant to article content, such as the phrase "I know there are people that constantly hover over this article with a partisan agenda, as one of the revert comments reveals". Article talk page are for discussing article content, and WP:NPA and WP:TPYES state quite clearly "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Please state what specific changes you think should be made to this article's content, stating the reasons why, and the sources you propose to use, restricting your comments solely to the article's content. Thanks! Jayjg (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The section on Marx begins with a statement sourced to Edward Flannery's Father Flannery's 1965 book published by the Catholic church (p. 168),[14] and does not even accurately reflect what he wrote. I do not think that this would be a good choice for a source because so much has been written since and Flannery's views may no longer be considered notable. We need to establish current views on Marx and anti-Semitism and whether it forms a significant part of the study. TFD (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. What is your specific proposal? Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
the removal of text on the grounds of OR is not justified. The references check out, and their plenty more that give the opinion that Marx was not anti Semitic. There needs to be discussion, not automatic removal.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Please review WP:BRD--Shrike (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
"Because Karl Marx was Jewish, anti-Semites referred to his ideology as "Jewish Marxism" or "Jewish radcalism". However neither Marx's influences nor his followers were Jewish, he was not a practising Jew and has been called anti-Semitic." I notice that there is no mention in the article that anti-Semites identified socialism as a Jewish conspiracy. TFD (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Anti-semites are almost consistently illogical. Nazis and many of their followers associated global capitalism and Bolshevism with Jews. Be that as it may, the paragraph on Marx violates NPOV. The claim that "Karl Marx regarded Jews as the embodiment of capitalism and the creators of its evils" is one interpretation of Marx, and it must be presented as a view, not as a fact. The paragraph properly attributes the view that Marx was embarassed by his Jewish ancestry, but we ought to include McLellan's view that he sympathized with German Jews because of his ancestry. But one thing that I think everyone except some anti-Semites agree on is that Marx was not Jewish. He did not consider himself a Jew and he was not Jewish by Jewish law. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with almost everything in your comment, but regarding whether or not he was Jewish, his parents were both Jews who converted to Lutheranism before Marx was born. Jayjg (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
TFD, this is what Flannery wrote: "Marx himself, of Jewish parentage but baptized as an infant, was a particularly caustic antisemite who considered Jews worshipers of mammon, the very soul of the corrupt capitalism he fought." His book "The Anguish of the Jews" is according to Google scholar cited 186 times, much more than sources that Slrubenstein used to refute views about Marx's antisemitism ("Marx before Marxism" has 90 cites, "Rights and Identity in Late Modernity" 13, "Karl Marx and the Radical Critique of Anti-Semitism" 3, "From theology to sociology" 2).
Also, it seems to me that by quoting extensively Slrubenstein gave to much weight to view that Marx was not antisemite. -- Vision Thing -- 14:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
You might want to include the sentence in its proper context. "Thus when Karl Marx gave Socialism a new radical framework, antisemites were well prepared to label his movement "Jewish Marxism" or "Jewish radicalism" despite the fact that Marx's inspirers were all gentiles. Marx himself, of Jewish parentage but baptized as an infant, was a particularly caustic antisemite who considered Jews worshipers of mammon, the very soul of the corrupt capitalism he fought." Flannery's book is indeed cited many times, because it is one of the earlier works on anti-Semitism. The extent of acceptance of his views on Marx and anti-Semtism is however something that needs to be established through looking at some of the subsequent writing. In any case the article lacks neutrality if it says nothing about antisemitic claims that socialism was part of the Jewish conspiracy. Also, pretty much the same types of claims can be made against other prominent people before WWII - Luther and Shakespeare for example. How many of them should the article mention, or should it just mention that anti-Semitism was a mainstream view?TFD (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
That first sentence talks about attitudes of others towards Marx, not Marx's views on Jews. In my opinion Luther's views should also be discussed in the article. As for others be bold and add them, or start a new discussion. -- Vision Thing -- 11:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Carlos Latuff Cartoon

Why is it present in the article? It's not even a good example of anti-semitism, seeing as it isn't anti-semitic. Nolan135 (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't rule out its being an example - in spite of the fact that it's clearly about Israel, some discussions of Israel and Zionism do invoke antisemitic tropes - but we should have reliable sources backing its inclusion and/or choose something that is less contested. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I removed it on WP:BLP grounds. // Liftarn (talk)
It should be noted that Liftarn is a Swede who is a big fan of the highly anti-Semitic Carlos Latuff. I suggest that his blatant censorship be reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.171.37.161 (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
So because Liftarn is Swedish he's an anti-semite? Carlos Latuff is not anti-semitic, and this is not censorship. The cartoon is inappropriate for the article. See WP:BLP. Nolan135 (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure that the majority of Swedes are not antisemitic, and that the majority of Brazilian cartoonists are not either. Jayjg (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed material

I expect from past experience that anything I edit in here will be reverted, so I will add the relevant material here, for easy access. I expect those who revert it will argue here why it is 'Undue' or whatever. Thanks

and has become an 'umbrella term for negative stereotypes about Jews,' [2]

According to Sonja Weinberg, anti-semitism, as distinct from traditional anti-Judaism, which was economic and religious, has four distinct characteristics: (1) it employed new concepts, (2) used science to defend itself, (3)performed different functions, and (4) was organised differently. In concrete terms, it was anti-liberal, racialist, nationalist; it promoted a theory that Jews engaged in a conspiracy to 'judaise' the world; it served as an integrative factor, complementing nationalism, for social identity; it channeled dissatisfactions among victims of the capitalist system; and was used as a conservative cultural code to fight emancipation and liberalism.[3]

  • (1) it is an umbrella term, requiring close definition, which is what the article is about. I have added Sonja Weinberg for attribution, but it is not controversial.
  • (2) Its definition, as distinct from anti-Judaism, was lacking, though this is one of the most discussed elements in the literature on anti-semitism. So I added Weinberg. In an edit summary one can summarily cite any policy one likes, but since as often as not, the policy cited has nothing to do with the reason for removing RS material, those who wish to challenge an edit that has introduced an academic source should argue it on the talk page. Otherwise, it is just removal of RS, and unwarranted. Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
It is hardly encyclopaedic to regurgitate sizeable amounts of information of a single source, and not summarise its salient features.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I did not regurgitate, which meaning vomiting back, sizeable amounts of (undigested) information. I summarized Weinberg's summary of a scholarly position, which caught my attention because (a) it says what I often read in scholarly works (b) what I read in scholarly works on antisemitism is not on this page, and therefore a lacuna was to be filled. I summarized its salient features, but the prose I used could certainly be tightened. If you look at the paragraph analytically, we have three authors in that paragraph.
  • Helen Fein gets 59 words
  • Dietz Bering gets 71
  • Sonja Weinberg gets 84

In other words, one could say that since Bering's views get 71 words, I should try to use that as a limit to my presentation of Weinberg's views. If you have a substantive objection, I'll be happy to look at it. But for the moment, I will trim Weinberg's views, to get them under the 71 limit, which, hitherto, no one objects to.Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

My concern here is that Weinberg's study appears to be addressing a very specific time period. On page 13 she writes "This study... is intended as a contribution to the debate about the nature, continuity, and discontinuity of anti-semitism in late nineteen-century Germany." Given that the source is addressing a very specific period of time, why do you feel it's appropriate to use her analysis of late-nineteenth-century German anti-semitism as part of a definition of anti-semitism in general? GabrielF (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I've seen this argument before, as a prelude to challenging an edit, but it is never made clear what policy is being invoked. One can feel a concern about a lot of things on wikipedia, but judgements on the appropriateness of edits should be grounded in evidence that the material violates policy. So, I would like to have it explained to me why Weinberg's summary (see the scholarship alluded to in her footnotes) of modern anti-semitism's characteristics creates concern because her book is about German and Russian press coverage of anti-semitic incidents. Just out of curiosity I checked the first130 notes, and found 59 use sources which are not specifically concerned with anti-semitism. Whatever rule is invoked against Weinberg will be, I imagine, used to challenge those footnotes?Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The first quote from Weinberg is fine, although you have to state that these aren't her words - she's quoting Blaschke. The second quote is the problem. The issue is that you aren't qualifying her definition in the way that Weinberg does. Here's your sentence: "For Sonja Weinberg, as distinct from economic and religious anti-Judaism, antisemitism shows conceptual innovation, a resort to 'science' to defend itself, new functional forms and organisational differences." But here's what Weinberg writes: "The development of modern antisemitism from the 1870s differed from pre-modern anti-Judaism in various respects." Since this article deals with the persecution of Jews over many historical periods, it would be inappropriate to use Weinberg's definition without explicitly stating that she's referring to antisemitism as it emerged in the 1870s in Europe. GabrielF (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Have reattributed to Blaschke. Thanks for that. I disagree on your second point. As you know, there is a huge literature disputing whether antisemitism, as it developed and was conceptualized after Marr's coinage, can be retrospectively applied to the pre-modern period. Many scholars use it, just as they use pogrom, retroactively for the pre-modern period, as synonymous with anti-Judaism, applying it to the pogrom of Alexandria in 38 CE of which Philo wrote (which, I admit, looks uncannily like the modern form), or the anti-Jewish/Christian 'pogrom' of Nero in 64 CE, or medieval episodes. The problem is, a good many specialists are not happy with this reduction of specialised terminology so that everything becomes 'synonymous', and the distinct historical nuances of words are abolished. The problem here is not in my edit, but in the technical literature (See for example John Klier's Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-1882, Cambridge University Press, 2011 ch.2:‘What was a pogrom' pp.58-90 for the controversies that arise when a specific word is generalised to be applied beyond its original technical sense).
It is already highly contentious to write as if there were no controversy on whether or not 'antisemitism' is an ontological reality stable over millenia and myriad cultures. You'll find many RS that describe anti-Jewish riots in antiquity or medieval or early modern times as 'antisemitic' and WP:RS is satisfied, but at the expense of ignoring the easily verifiable fact that a good many specialist historians are unhappy with the resultant conceptual porridge or fuzziness. I had the usual clash with Jayjg on this on one of many articles about antisemitism and Christianity. You have sources saying every NT gospel has 'antisemitic' elements. You have numerous scholars complaining that since paleo-Christians before even being minim were predominantly Jews, to speak of 'antisemitism' is to dislocate history, (unless you wish to retroject 'Jewish self-hatred' into the argument, which I haven't seen in any source, fortunately so far).
It is therefore 'inappropriate' technically to write of antisemitism, unqualified by the scholarship that draws a strict distinction between antisemitism as a modern phenomenon and anti-Judaism as a reality reaching back into antiquity, as though it were the same thing throughout the ages. Weinberg's point is one of two positions: it reflects the strong academic belief, though perhaps without consensus, that something fundamental occurred around 1870-1890 which radically transformed peasant and clerical anti-Judaic hostilities into a doctrinal ontology, based on race theories, of a demonic presence, intent on destroying the Christian world, and requiring genocidal measures to 'save civilisation'. Genocides of this kind occurred in the past, as with the Cathars and Albigenses, (see Norman Cohn), not Jews, who suffered many violent pogroms, but no comprehensive theology of extinction of the kind characteristic of modern antisemites.
I've made some adjustments, however. Tell me if they are adequate. The article deserves a better job than we have, and I hope my occasional presence here can be reacted to collaboratively, rather than with the usual suspicions many of my edits in these areas receive. Regards. Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I shall repeat myself and risk your usual gush of invective and contumely. I still do not understand why this material is not better placed in the Evolution of usage section, as you readily and volubly pontificate as to the mutable nature of Antisemitism exemplified in the source.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 20:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Weinberg is not talking about the 'evolution of usage' but of the conceptualisation in modern scholarship of 'anti-semitism'. Definitions of words, by clarifying usage, define concepts. As a matter of serendipity, I was reading Douglas Stuart's, Old Testament Exegesis, (2009) yesterday, and he clarifies what you fail to understand. I'll copy out his cogent advice for you, which is true of reading generally: 'remember that the concept is the ultimate goal, and the word or wording functions not in itself alone but always in the role of pointing to a concept' (Westminster John Knox Press, 4th ed.2009 p.115)
'Invective', 'contumely', 'volubly pontificate' are, I assume, exercises from the Thesaurus, ('jauntily' pleases me since it was an word beloved of James Joyce) but you should really refrain from WP:NPA violations.
It would help this and many other articles touching Judaism and related topics if, rather than reading snippets of wiki text only when an edit by the likes of myself appears, almost invariably then to contest it in lockstep, as is repeatedly done, editors actually took the trouble to read books on the subject. My longueurs are due to the unfortunate perception that people who keep challenging and reverting me automatically over various pages appear, as often as not, to have no other knowledge of the subject than what they get either reading a wiki page, or googling for a few minutes.Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
You previously state that Weinberg's point reflects "the strong academic belief... that something fundamental occurred around 1870-1890 which radically transformed peasant and clerical anti-Judaic hostilities into a doctrinal ontology", yet you vehemently contend that "Weinberg is not talking about the 'evolution of usage'". Your "pointing to a concept" is somewhat disjointed with the issuance of contradictory proclamations.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 21:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't 'vehemently contend'. You are trying to transform, by the injurious terms you pile on to describe my explanations, a reasonable attempt to contribute to an article into appearance that I have a polemical obsession.
As to your point. Please read the page, and please read, to begin with Weinberg, who is summarising a large amount of literature (see the note after the Blaschke ref.) on the concept of antisemitism, a word which happened to gain circulation precisely in the period her book concentrates on, and in Germany and Russia. Since many scholars say anti-Judaism is one thing, even if it leads to pogroms, and the anti-Semitism, which led to the Holocaust another thing (a primary cancer metastasizing into something chillingly strange not see in the earlier clerical enmity and violence), Weinberg is not talking about the 'evolution of usage'. She is defining, in one academic POV, what the latter (anti-semitism) is, as opposed to 'anti-Judaism' which, preceding the coinage of the term antisemitism, can refer to a conceptually distinct, if related, phenomenon. The fact that the article doesn't trouble with this issue doesn't mean that academic specialists haven't thoroughly engaged with it.
That clear? Why all this piddling fuss? My presence on these pages engenders contrarian pettifogging at every edit. If I am such a shockingly poor editor, why is it that on virtually no other topic do I find anything but a collaborative atmosphere? Are these pages owned by one part of the wikipedia community? Am I blacklisted as one of the usual suspects? :) No read to reply, just a joke about my ostensible paranoia. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
As a matter of serendipity, I was recently watching the marvelous The Usual Suspects, where Verbal famously utters: "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
In addition, it does not concentrate on the definition of the concept but rather focuses on the usage of anti-Semitism which "served to consolidate social identity; it channeled dissatisfactions among victims of the capitalist system; and it was used as a conservative cultural code to fight emancipation and liberalism". Her views, if cited, should be limited to her definition.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 21:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Please read the source, which does 'concentrate on the definition of the concept' of modern antisemitism.Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
It would help also if one reread whole chapters, rather than snippets. The excellent Falk here for example is cited for 2 of several scholarly views, (trimming an important distinction Fein makes) while what he says of Langmuir (Christian antiJudaism from Christian antisemitism); Ritchie Robinson (the polymorphous nature of antisemitism); Friedman and his own approach to antisemitism as a psychological complex is ignored. This was once an FA text, but like Charles Dickens, has suffered terribly. I have an extensive library on this pathology, and fail to understand why, whenever I edit on subjects like this, 'concerns' are raised and, invariably, what I add is gradually sifted out, while the general mess remains there, ignored. Where's consistency in format? where's attention to the best sources? Nothing's being done to remedy the article's defects, and much fuss today over a perfectly innocuous addition.Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I hesitate to jump in here because I haven't had time to look at the sources and won't have time for a while. I did want to make a couple of quick comments in the hope that they might help.
  1. If Weinberg is quoting Blaschke, then Blaschke should be mentioned in the article text.
  2. If Weinberg is talking about late-19th century Germany, then that should be made clear. If no source can be found that says, "Weinberg's assessment of late-19th century Germany aptly describes 20th century anti-semitism", then making this logical leap is a form of original research.
  3. I haven't read Weinberg but, if she says something extraordinary happened between 1870-1890, I think she is overstating the case. Other sources that I've read ascribe the rise of modern anti-semitism to the emancipation of the Jews. In essence, the hypothesis is that once Jews were no longer official targets of the church and the law, they began to emerge from the ghettos and assimilate into European society. As they did so, ancient negative stereotypes of them were reignited and reinforced. In order to replace the religious anti-semitism of the pre-emancipation era, new models of political, economic and social anti-semitism emerged. Indications of this evolution are evident as early as the late 18th century so claiming that there is a magical transformation that occurs between 1870-1890 seems a bit too narrowly focused. I concede that I haven't read Weinberg and that what I know of her is from what I've read above. However, if her perspective has been accurately presented here, I would hesitate to rely on her work too heavily. I do believe that late 19th-century German anti-semitism did set the stage for the "apocalyptic" anti-semitism of the Nazi era. However, it's over-reaching to assert that the transition from pre-modern antisemitism to modern antisemitism began in 1870 Germany. Modern antisemitism had been developing for decades if not over a century by that time. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
This article was never of the quality that would pass FA Review today. Definitions which focus on late 19th century Germany will be limited in scope and application. Which part of Falk are you proposing to use? Jayjg (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Pseudo-Richard.If Weinberg . . .'. This has been repeated so often. . Weinberg is providing a definition of antisemitism. The fact that her own work deals in the seminal events of modern antisemitism is beside the point, as is the fact that several dozen sources used here deal not with antisemitism tout court, but the Holocaust of the years 1941-1945. Secondly, she is not talking about Germany, but about Russia (understood as Eastern Europe at the time) and Germany, where modern antisemitism took on the specific form we observe throughout modern times. Fourthly, as you can see from her footnotes, her definition is a summary of the scholarship. I have no used her work too 'heavily'. It is one of three sources, denser interpretatively, but on a par in terms of volume with the other two, to whom no one has objected.Nishidani (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Definitions which focus on late 19th century Germany and Russia will be limited in scope and application. Which part of Falk are you proposing to use? Jayjg (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The implicit objection does not stand because the slightest acquaintance with specific and distinguished scholarship on the definition of antisemitism, like Gavin Langmuir's Toward a Definition of Antisemitism, UCal Press 1996, would tell us that the term selectively generalized by the citation of poor sources in the lead is in fact 'semiotically ambiguous' having been 'used to denote a remarkably diverse variety of phenomena over millenia of history' (p.16) The POV in the lead stands precisely here, in the selective use of a poor and vague generalization whose appropriateness is under scholarly challenge, and the refusal so far to allow that the term itself, being controversial for many historical periods, is disputed as to its meaning(s)Nishidani (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

missing references

The refs section contains the following

^ Penslar, p 5
^ Foxman, p 84
^ Foxman, p 89
^ Foxman, p 93
^ Foxman, p 98
^ Foxman, p 102
^ Foxman, p 105
^ Krefetz, p 45
^ Krefetz, p 6-7
^ Krefetz, p 47
^ Penslar, p 12

but unless I'm missing something, there is no actual work by Penslar, Foxman, or Krefetz named anywhere. 71.234.129.203 (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 May 2012

Add to section on Political Antisemitism for which expansion is requested:

The "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" [entry already exists] describes the supposed conspiracy for Jewish political world-domination. The 19th-century novel "Biarritz" by Hermann Goedsche contains a chapter "In the Jewish Cemetery in Prague" in which the "Jewish world-domination" conspiracy is described. This may have been a source for the "Protocols". The speeches of the representatives of Jewry meeting in the cemetery were later consolidated so as to appear to be the statement of a single Jew and published as "The Rabbi's Speech" ca. 1881. Source: Norman Cohn, "Warrant for Genocide", Eyre & Spottiswoode, UK (1967) and reprints

60.234.104.1 (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Not sutible passage for a wikipedia article Mdann52 (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is the only picture on racial anti-semitism a picture of a Soviet POW, shouldn't the Holocaust be important to be included?

I mean come on, really, the only picture for racial antisemitism being a Soviet POW of a Jew from a Nazi concentration camp? What about a picture of the bloody gas chambers from the Nazi camps that such Jews were rescued from? It is true that there has been a strong current of anti-Semitism in Russian society for centuries and Stalin was anti-Semitic, but Stalin did so out of a general xenophobia - I see no evidence that Stalin had an organized and consistent racially-based anti-Semitism - I mean Stalin's self-proclaimed mentor Karl Marx was a Jew. And prior to Stalin and after Stalin there were Jews who were members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The Nazis on the other hand did have an organized racial anti-Semitism, and a picture of the malnourished concentration camp survivors or a picture of Auschwitz would be more relevent. If it is deemed important to add an key example of racial anti-Semitism from Russia the best choice would be a picture of the infamous forgery known as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a fake Zionist pamphlet first known to be published in 1903 in the newspaper of the violently anti-Semitic Black Hundreds movement, that was designed to exploit anti-Semitism in Russia to discredit communism (that was rising in support) by claiming that Zionism was connected to communism and that Zionism and communism were part of an international conspiracy of Jews to take over the world.--R-41 (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point. The image is not supposed to illustrate Stalin's antisemitism, or "Russian" antisemitism. Stalin's not the one who put the yellow star on the guy. It was the Nazis. An image of the protocols might be useful, but it's not an example of racial antisemitism. As for pictures of the holocaust, they are in one of the sub-sections below in the 'history' section. if anything there are too many images of Nazi antisemitism. It might be desirable to have images of non-Nazi racial antisemitism if such can be found. Paul B (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Accusing Israel of using the term anti-Semitism just to avoid criticism is not correct and definitely does not represent a fact!

The paragraph "New antisemitism" should be erased: - It is not based on facts, but on subjective and radical opinions! - Its' claim is ironically anti-semitic. - It is not accurate nor correct. - The last sentence is very not professional and harm Wikipedia's reputation as an objective site:

"Critics of the concept view it as trivializing the meaning of antisemitism, and as exploiting antisemitism in order to silence debate and deflect attention from legitimate criticism of the State of Israel, and, by associating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, misused to taint anyone opposed to Israeli actions and policies" — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottyNolan (talkcontribs) 16:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what you see as problems with the sources? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 16:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Its not about sources it doesn't belong on a page about anti-semitism make another page for that. How is a group of people misusing a word even in someone of importance's opinion with sources, relevant, even if true? If you want to include every weird nuance of antisemitism include the contribution the effects of antsemitism had on the evolution of human rights I can find sources for that. such as many black leaders, women leaders saying they were influenced by the struggle against anti-semitism, or the fights with the Dutch West Indie Trading Company for trading rights which actually was the first religious struggle that takes place in the new world and forever (due to the fact that the Jewish protests won) deeply influenced the nature of the colonies that was due to the antisemitism of Peter Stuyvesant and earlier antisemitic Dutchmen and Swedes in their new world colonies which eventually was won by the Jews.. Or the nuance that Jews in England were a religous minority that won the right to return in a proclamation which set a precedent for rights in Britain. Or the nuance that many German rulers made declarations aftyer antisemitism got out of hand which set precedents for human rights and a ton more..... Also the term is used far more often in the reverse accusation that the Jews are playing the victim if you lived in the real world you would see the truth of what i had just written they can twist anything against the Jews then it gets out of hand and Jews die. This type of reverse trick "oh anytime I criticize you, you think you can call me an antisemite" trick so that you can abbuse the jews without being accused of the truth.Maryester (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It is about sources. According to the sources, this is a notable opinion. We don't say that it's true. Feel free to add the historical material you mention, if you can source is properly and write it coherently. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
We should balance it by saying that anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli rhetoric is often used by anti-Semites, although opposition to Zionist or Israeli policies is not in itself anti-Semitism. TFD (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
We already do - we have an entire article (or perhaps several) on it, which is summarized here - New antisemitism. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 05:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually oposition to Zionism in itself is antisemitic. Oposition to Israeli policies is not antisemitic. By claiming that you are anti-Zionist you are claiming one of two things 1) You oppose the existance of Israel and/or 2) You oppose the Jews right to have a homeland. Claiming that Israel should be destroyed or not exist is clearly a form of anti-Israeli sentiment. Because you are claiming that Jews don't have a right to live in that land. Claiming the Jews don't have a right to a homeland is even worse. However I am 100% opposed to most of Israel's policies. This does not make me antisemitic or antizionsit this means that I believe Israel is doing the wrong thing and should be changed to increase equal rights for non-Jewish groups. If I say I believe America dosn't have a right to exist or England dosn't that would be considered racist because I am attacking an entire national group. If I say however that America or England could do alot more to change their country I'm not being racist.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

First Paragraph

To increase the 'bang for your buck' so to speak, can you put the attack mentioned by Philo in which thousands of Jews in one part of Alexandria were killed just following Cleopatra's reign (or during it I'm not sure). In case someone only has time to read the first paragraph. They should know that anti-semitism or then anti-Hebrewism actually begins with the Septuagint not Christianity. Or at least show its oldness or ancientness so people get its true essence as not something that began recently at all. In fact if you read the charges in remnants from the Alexandrian library they make claims relating to race conspiracies which is similar till today. Because many people read only the first paragraph and informs people what they are truly being brainwashed to be involved with when they hate Jews ref ^ Barclay, John M G, 1999. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE), University of California. John M. G. Barclay of the University of Durham ^ Philo of Alexandria, FlaccusMaryester (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Be bold! You seem to know about the subject here, more than me anway, so go ahead and make the edit, why not?--Activism1234 22:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Antisemitism#Ancient_world

Following on the above mention of Philo (and yes, I was struck by the lede mentioning only European events since 1000), may I observe that almost everything mentioned in section Antisemitism#Ancient_world is repeated at least twice? Is someone aiming for inflated word count? Are the other sections as bad? Shenme (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Good observation. I removed one clear example of nearly word-for-word redundancy. If there are other examples, feel free to mention them here for review.
Also note it's possible that these edits developed out of drafts and it wasn't realized that the two sentences were left, and it could've been intended to move one sentence to the other side.--Activism1234 21:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I've seen several instances where the term anti-semitism has been used in modern times to describe actions against Jews in ancient times. Wikipedia does this alot. I find it to be an improper usage, simply because we can not say the true cause of ancient actions. According to the Old Testament, the Jews committed many atrocities toward their neighbors, so perhaps much of the actions against the Jews in ancient times could have been merely retaliation rather than prejudice. Jason532012 (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Causes

Having read the ANI discussion, it seems clearly justified that Jason was blocked for disruption. However, at the risk of my own wikihealth, I would venture to bring up the truism "where there's smoke, there's fire". I think it would be interesting to know what scholars say about why and how anti-semites manage to make so much smoke from relatively little fire. As was stated above, there were likely also Christian and Muslim usurers, so why did the Jews get tagged with this canard? There were undoubtedly more rich Christians and plenty of rich Muslims compared to the number of wealthy Jews, so why do Jews get maligned for being wealthy?

Some of these topics are discussed tangentially in the article Economic antisemitism and could probably be elabored in more detail if reliable sources could be found. I invite any interested editor to take a look and provide their input at Talk:Economic antisemitism. I think there are a number of areas where this article could use improvement. Any suggestions and/or assistance would be appreciated.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A number of reasons.
Easier to scapegoat, also stems from previous religious-based discrimination from before Islam emerged in the 600's, although as I mentioned above, Muslims were also targeted, for example in Spain during the Inquisition (it was the Reconquista and expulsion of Muslims in Spain that led to the expulsion of Jews as well actually).
Then there's stuff like the Bubonic Plague. Jews in Europe lived in seperate communities (either forced to, or don't tend to live amongst anti-Semites!), and Jewish law requires washing the hands before meals. This resulted in lower number of deaths in Jewish communities from the Bubonic Plague (although there were deaths). Non-Jews in Europe saw this, and some of them, not knowing modern-day science, connected the two and said that Jews were poisoning the wells and causing the plague. --Activism1234 02:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm... re the Muslims, perhaps what's going on is that there was a clearer delineation between Muslim territory and Christian territory. Muslims were more or less evicted from all Christian territories with the major exception being the Balkans, I guess. The Jews, on the other hand, were never completely evicted from Europe which left them in the vulnerable position of being a minority that could become a scapegoat. Now, at this point, this is just my personal speculation (i.e. it's OR). Are there any reliable sources that posit this line of reasoning?
re- the Bubonic Plague, I don't think it's the washing of hands since, after all, the vectors for Bubonic Plague are rodents and fleas. The bit about poisoning the wells are mentioned briefly in the article but the Plague is surely not the most significant cause of antisemitic scapegoating of the Jews. I'd be interested to know which sources discuss this in greater depth.
In general, the "Causes" subsection is in dire need of expansion. First of all, it doesn't belong in the "Current situation" section. I rather think it deserves to be a major section unto itself. Second, it deserves to be more than three sentences. Frankly, I suspect we could ultimately write an entire article called Causes of antisemitism. However, let's crawl before we walk and then run. Any help in expanding the "Causes" section would be much appreciated.
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, the Muslim empire during the 1400's when the Reconquista happened stretched from the Middle East to North Africa and included part of Spain. During the Reconquista, King Ferdinand of Aragon (a part of Spain) and Queen Isabella of Castille (another part of Spain) engaged in a campaign to reunite all of Spain, and kick out the Muslims who controlled those other parts of Spain, as they were devout Christians (not saying a devout Christian would do this today, but you know what I mean, keep the time period in mind). Jews, on the other hand, never controlled territory in Europe, and were simply scattered throughout European communities. Thus, it's easier to blame them and scapegoat them, as they were small and few in number, and couldn't really provide any resistance. Same goes for Nazi Germany - Germany was facing a major recession at the time (inflation was so high that people had to bring in carts full of $ just to purchase bread), and it was easy to blame Jews and focus German attention on them, while kindling German nationalism and targeting non-Aryans as well. A lot of Germans were upset over the economy and were upset that they had to sign The Treaty of Versailles despite no clear Allied victory. Hitler famously proclaimed that they were "stabbed in the back," by both Communists and Jews, since Hitler (a fascist) hated Communists, and was obviously anti-Semitic and this was an easy way to blame Jews.
I mentioned the Plague because it was another item which some people blamed on Jews, and led to many Jewish communities being burned. The plague resulted in many other consequences and theories - for example, there were people who beat their backs with horsestraw until they bled. Here's an interesting source that may be useful:

23.The Jews were often accused of causing the plague to destroy Christiansf, even though Jews and Muslims were as likely to be infected as Christians.c

24.After being tortured, some Jews confessed that they were poisoning wells and other water sources, creating the plague [comment: we know today it wasn't caused by poison, rather spread through rats/fleas]. As a result, Jews were expelled or killed by the thousands.i

25.As a result of forced confessions, the entire Jewish population of Strassburg, Germany, was given the choice to convert to Christianity or be burned on rows of stakes on a platform in the city’s burial ground. About 2,000 were killed.
Also here's a source which lists a number of reasons to account for fewer deaths on the part of the Jews, which does include the washing of the hands, but also burial laws, family purity, cleaning, and dietary laws.
The thing about a "causes" section or article is that it makes it seem like anti-Semitism is legitimate, that there are causes that bring it about and hence is legitimate. I'd be more supportive of adding more info to the appropriate sections, whether it's a section (on this article or another) dealing with the Black Plague and blaming on Jews, etc. I think that this article, Persecution of Jews, deals with the topic and causes (for example, religion-based discrimination and what they believed, Black Death...) very nicely, and additional information can be discussed and added if needed. --Activism1234 04:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The article Economic antisemitism has a very long section on "Motivations." --Activism1234 04:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way Richard, you're venturing into a very vague and tough topic, simply because it's really tough to define "causes" for irrational hatred. As Lloyd George said in 1923, "“Of all the extreme fanaticism which plays havoc in man’s nature, there is not one as irrational as anti-Semitism. … If the Jews are rich [these fanatics] are victims of theft. If they are poor, they are victims of ridicule. If they take sides in a war, it is because they wish to take advantage from the spilling of non-Jewish blood. If they espouse peace, it is because they are scared by their natures or traitors. If the Jew dwells in a foreign land he is persecuted and expelled. If he wishes to return to his own land, he is prevented from doing so.” "

That being said, I will do my best to contribute to your article and add what I can to the talk page first. --Activism1234 04:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are some info that I found. I posted those dealing with economic anti-Semitism to that article you linked to.

Not all of these references may be applicable to a Wikipedia article... However, they are informative and help other editors here understand it better (Richard requested that anyone with additional info/references provide them), and the facts there can alwasy be searched for elsewhere.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/the_scapegoating_of_jews.html - why do people scapegoat? http://www.annefrankguide.net/en-us/bronnenbank.asp?oid=15956

Hitler and his Nazi party made use of anti-Jewish feelings that had existed for centuries in the German population. According to the NSDAP, Germany had lost the First World War because of the Jews, and democracy was a Jewish invention. According to the Nazis, the Jews were engaged in a conspiracy for world domination. Behind the scenes it was them who controlled society and made Germans suffer.

Another important myth that had dominated feelings about Jews for centuries was that it was the Jews who had killed Christ. Many German Catholics would hear this in Church and read about it in school books. So many people were already suspicious of Jews before the Nazis came to power.

http://www18.georgetown.edu/data/people/mmh/publication-7909.pdf - Russian anti-Semitism (didn't read all of it, title looks relevant)

http://books.google.com/books?id=BPnLm-08czMC&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=why+were+jews+scapegoats&source=bl&ots=gnGR3Z2zyT&sig=j7VQr7levsr172u-gFS9Jb6uQ9M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ulcbUOLyLIrJ6wHGuIG4Aw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=why%20were%20jews%20scapegoats&f=false - conspiracies during Black Death combined with religious anti-Semitism

http://books.google.com/books?id=meKyjL-u-nsC&pg=PT41&dq=why+were+jews+scapegoats&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ulcbUOLyLIrJ6wHGuIG4Aw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=why%20were%20jews%20scapegoats&f=false - also some more info, religious anti-Semitism, etc

I posted an interesting one about economic factors not having caused anti-Semitism to your article's talk page. --Activism1234 04:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

== Discussion ==

What exactly is going on up above? I get banned, in part for, making so-called unconstructive posts, and yet the editors above enter into a fullfleged discussion with no mention of editing the original article. What gives here guys? This site is so convoluted at times, there's no way to explain what's going on. Jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.111.18 (talkcontribs)

I haven't looked at each of the edits that contributed to your banning but the discussion on WP:ANI indicates a pattern of disruptive editing. I think the bottom line is that unsourced speculation about some Jews being the cause of the persecution of all Jews is likely to be considered unacceptably antisemitic. If you can find a reliable source (that is not itself antisemitic) that makes this argument, we can consider including that POV in the articles on antisemitism. Read over Economic antisemitism. It discusses many of the topics that you wanted to include in this article but without the presumption that "some Jews behaved badly thus bringing on opprobrium and persecution upon Jews as a whole". Yes, it's true that the alleged bad behavior of some Jews was used by antisemites as a reason for persecuting Jews as a group but this sort of attempt to assign collective guilt is considered as hate-mongering rather than as actual fact. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Jason, if you want to understand why you've been banned, take a look at WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND. This is not a debating society and it's not a schoolyard. It's an encyclopedia. The rest of us are here to help build one. You clearly aren't. No one gives a fuck about the big, important hotshots like Bart Ehrman and Frank Turek that you claim to have debated. Sorry, but you tipped your hand about why you're here when you said you "enjoy this hobby, because it grinds you so." Now, do us all a favor and fuck off. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Jason, Richard did not make allegations about a small group of "Jewish apologists" safeguarding Wikipedia articles about Judaism. He didn't make anti-Semitic conspiracy theories either. He had a very nice, polite discussion in order to gain more information. --Activism1234 02:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC
Make all the excuses you want for the anti Jewish sentiment that has expanded across the entire globe, and survived for several hundreds of years, but at the end of the day, the fact is the Jews brought this antisemitism on all by themselves. Over 100 nations are simply not wrong, and you'll never convince any sane person that they were. Again, bearing in mind that, one of those nations was the USA. Under no other circumstances, and about no other topic or people, would such the ridiculous suggestion, that so many people have been considered wrong for coming to the same conclusion about the same group of people. It defies all rational thought. I don't care who likes me here, and I don't care what names you call me. Anyone that suffers from whatever it is that causes common sense to completely escape all rational thought, is not a person or persons who I consider having any merit whatsoever. Deep down, way down, past that fear of acceptance, and the fear of segregation, the fear of retribution, and the fear of that gruesome nastiness that these kind of people provoke, you each know that I'm right. This much I know, without a sliver of doubt. Sometimes, when you're all alone, you ask yourselves, how can this be? You tell yourselves, this makes no sense. Why have so many, for so long, hated this same group of people so? Why? You ask others, very quietly, and very carefully, and yet no one seems to know the answer to the mystery that seems to have stumped the entire world. That has caused two world wars. Or do they? Do we all know? Is it just as simple as the truth. Have they bilked millions and millions of hard working folks out of their hard earned money with filthy banker's math? Is this why Jesus kicked their tables over in the Temple twice? Did he know? These are the questions you must ask yourself tonight when your head hits that pillow. Good night. Jason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.111.18 (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Cool story man. Just to check... These 100 countries are the same ones that believed the Earth was flat for hundreds of years, right? OK just checking. Cause they can't be wrong, so I guess the Earth is flat. I mean, who ever heard of ignorance? Or irrational hatred? Or religious-based hatred? No one. I assume you'll be blocked shortly. Editors can't use IP addresses to block bans. See WP:Sockpuppetry. --Activism1234 05:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


No I've never heard of a group of people getting banned from over a hundred nations for religious- based hatred. One of the flaws with your whole religious persecution theory is the fact that many Jews were, and are, non-religious. As a matter of fact, historically, in those times where religion was the underlying issue with groups of citizens, conversion or death was generally the two options, and, of course, the practice of usury was never one of the complaints mentioned in those edicts. See, we don't really need to guess why those nations disliked the Jews, because more than not, the nations were pretty clear on why. And yes, the number one reason was, and remains financial practices. And of course there's still that little thing with Japan and China, both of whom agree: the earth is round, religion not grounds for deportation, and their countries are much better off without Jews, religious or otherwise. As for banning, that's really of little concern to me. Jason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.111.18 (talk) 06:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Usury & Anti-Semitism

I would like to add a section on Jewish Usury & Brokering, looking at the effect these practices have had on anti-semitic edicts, and expulsions throughout the history of the Jewish people. Ursury in particular, has been one of the the chief complaints registered against the Jews, probably dating back to The Code of Hammurabi. At any rate, this article should mention the practice and the effect it has had, and continues to have, on anti-semitism. Considering the amount of readily available sources on this topic, I think that, aside from an addition to this article, the topic may merit a seperate article of its own. Perhaps: "Anti-semitism and Jewish Usury, a story of Interest for Gentiles" Jason532012 (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You want to add a section on anti-Semitism in which you make anti-Semitic claims and allegations about usury??? --Activism1234 05:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm intrigued to learn that the Code of Hammurabi complains about usurous "Jews", even though it was written centuries before Moses. Where did he find these Jews? Paul B (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


No, I simply want to state facts about edicts like The Statute of the Jewry issued by Edward I of England in 1275 and their connection to anti-semitic sentiments. This particular edict placed a number of restrictions on Jews of England, most notably outlawing the practice of "usury". Since the time of the Norman Conquest, Jews had been filling a small but vital role in the English economy. Usury by Christians was banned by the church at the time, but Jews were permitted to act as moneylenders and bankers. That position enabled some Jews to amass tremendous wealth, but also earned them the enmity of the English populace, which added to the increasing "antisemitic" sentiments of the time, due to widespread indebtedness and financial ruin among the gentile population.
So you see, I'm not making any anti-semitic claims about anyone. I'm simply stating the historical facts, which in this case come to us from a Wikipedia page. So my sources should definitely qualify, don't you think? I happy to be able to offer a little deeper analysis of the anti-semitic actions of different nations throughout history. I believe it is important to give the reader some perspective here. Without this perspective the reader could very easily misinterpret the actions of these nations, and come to believe these edicts were simply biased and without any merit at all. I'm happy to be able to set your mind at ease here. You can rest assured that I will only be posting the facts. Jason532012 (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Paul, please note the "probably" in regard to the Code of Hammurabi. It was meant as a reference to a time period, not the actual code itself. Please stay on point, and refrain from nitpicking. BTW, there are some who compare the Hammurabi code to the Mosaic laws and believe one was borrowed from the other. Jason532012 (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
There's no 'probably' whatsoever here. I second PaulB. The Code of Hammurabi has nothing to do with the Jews, except for the impact such codes on the severe laws against the practice in Jewish customary law, and people whom confuse them are obvious under the influence of rather poor tendentious POV sources. I'd advise the prompter to look at Michael Hudson et al.(eds.) Debt and Economic Renewak in the Ancient Near East', (2002) for an introduction to the subject. Usury as associated with the Jews was the direct consequence of anti-Judaic economic restrictions imposed by Christians.Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I've explained the reference to the Hammurabi code, and I'm moving on from that. It is not relative to my position. As for your assumption that the Jew's usury can be blamed on the Christian restrictions, this is also irrelevant, and absolutely ridiculous. I intend to post only the facts, most of which will be found here on Wiki, just as the reference in my post above. Good night gentlemen. Jason532012 (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It's one thing if you're going to be discussing issues like The Statute of the Jewry. But your original question made it sound like you took as fact anti-Semitic canards that Jews are usurers, and this would be a serious violation of NPOV. And yeah, I'm not sure what that Hamurrabi code was about either, but you said you were moving on from that. And I don't really see the point of this section, it's already in this article Antisemitic_canard#Accusations_of_usury_and_profiteering. --Activism1234 13:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't like the look of the way 'antisemitic' was put into inverted commas, which signals doubts about the phenomenon.Nishidani (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you're a bit sensitive of the term, which I understand. I put anti-semitic in inverted commas so that everyone would notice that the article was in fact on point. I also highlighted usury in the same way, for the same reason. I do not doubt that anti-semitism exists, however, I also believe that the term has been abused to hide legitimate issues with a small number of Jews. I think it is important, especially in the interest of fairness, that these Jews take responsibilty for those actions that have provoked nations to install edicts in order to control detrimental behavior. You would want the same justice for any other body of people. I don't subscribe to the notion that the Jews are entirely faultless. I also don't believe that Jewish usury has been properly addressed in light of the facts. If the Jewish people wish to confront anti-semitism, they can not continue to hide behind it. I understand that this is certainly not a popular position, but we can no longer simply ignore this as if it doesn't exist. Jason532012 (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

to hide legitimate issues with a small number of Jews.

Look son, you're just digging a deeper hole with statements like that. Your original ref to Edward came copied and pasted off a wikipage that is not particularly well-written, which you didn't notice. I'd suggest you stay off this article for your own wikihealth, until you've read several standard histories on the subject.Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
It is not the role of Wikipedia to correct misconceptions, merely to report what experts say. You need to show that expert opinion supports your views in order for us to take notice of them. However, the ideas that you have expressed in this and other articles have no support and therefore your continued espousal of them is disruptive to developing these articles. TFD (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Without commenting on rebutting your personal beliefs, Wikipedia isn't the place for personal opinions or what you believe should happen, and it doesn't warrant including this information in order to push an agenda based on what you believe and feel. --Activism1234 21:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

My name is Jason. Don't call me son. I have not expressed my personal opinions here, I have only posted what others have said. Just because you do not agree with the sentiment of my posts, does not give you the right to blast me. The historical record is very clear that the Jews have been banned from nearly every single country on this planet for their illconcieved practices of usury, brokering, and banking in general, including parts of the United States by General Grant. These are the well documented facts, regardless of how you feel about them. I'm not concerned about my Wiki-health and your threats are very childish and do not concern me. If you have valid sources to dispute these facts, and/or a legitimate argument against the Wiki page in question, then I suggest you get busy and post them, and stop acting like an immature fourth grader. You've broken nearly every single rule of etiquette in your little rant, and completely failed to make any coherent point. Nice job! Jason532012 (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't take an expert to see that it's not Nishidani whose ranting, but rather you. Let's look at one of your examples - Grant. Are you really taking an example that was revoked quickly by Lincoln, whose purpose was because of a black market in southern cotton which was blamed on Jews, which didn't mention the word usury at all, written by a man who had signed previous discriminatory order, and which has been described as the "worst official anti-Semitic act in American history??" The proper place is on a seperate Wikipedia article (another article just for Grant's order exists), just like the article on on "Anti-Semitic canards" contains a subsection on allegations of usury. --Activism1234 22:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You'll notice my original post covers usury and brokering. Brokering is exactly what the Jews were doing in the Grant case. It's perfectly clear that everything you've pointed out about Grant's General Order #11, is merely an attempt to whitewash a potentially devastating blow to the American Jewry. Besides, this is merely one example of well over one hundred Jewish expulsions from other countries:

250——————————-Carthage
415——————————–Alexandria
554——————————–Diocese of Clement (France)
561——————————–Diocese of Uzzes (France)
612——————————–Visigoth Spain
642——————————- Visigoth Empire
855——————————- Italy
876——————————- Sens
1012—————————— Mainz
1182—————————— France
1182—————————— Germany
1276—————————— Upper Bavaria
1290—————————— England
1306—————————— France
1322—————————— France (again)
1348—————————— Switzerland
1349—————————— Hielbronn (Germany)
1349—————————— Saxony
1349—————————— Hungary
1360—————————— Hungary
1370—————————— Belgium
1380—————————— Slovakia
1388—————————— Strasbourg
1394—————————— Germany
1394—————————— France
1420 —————————– Lyons
1421 —————————– Austria
1424—————————– Fribourg
1424—————————– Zurich
1424—————————– Cologne
1432—————————– Savoy
1438—————————– Mainz
1439—————————– Augsburg
1442—————————– Netherlands
1444—————————– Netherlands (again)
1446—————————– Bavaria
1453—————————– France
1453—————————– Breslau
1454—————————– Wurzburg
1462—————————– Mainz
1483—————————– Mainz
1484—————————– Warsaw
1485—————————– Vincenza (Italy)
1492—————————– Spain
1492—————————– Italy
1495—————————– Lithuania
1496—————————– Naples
1496—————————– Portugal
1498—————————– Nuremberg
1498—————————– Navarre
1510—————————– Brandenberg
1510—————————– Prussia
1514—————————– Strasbourg
1515—————————– Genoa
1519—————————– Regensburg
1533—————————– Naples
1541—————————– Naples
1542—————————– Prague & Bohemia
1550—————————– Genoa
1551—————————— Bavaria
1555—————————— Pesaro
1557—————————– Prague
1559 —————————– Austria
1561—————————— Prague
1567—————————— Wurzburg
1569—————————— Papal States
1571—————————— Brandenburg
1582—————————— Netherlands
1582—————————— Hungary
1593—————————— Brandenburg, Austria
1597—————————– Cremona, Pavia & Lodi
1614 ——————————Frankfort
1615 —————————– Worms
1619——————————-Kiev
1648 ——————————Ukraine
1648——————————-Poland
1649——————————-Hamburg
1654——————————-Little Russia (Beylorus)
1656——————————-Lithuania
1669——————————-Oran (North Africa)
1669——————————-Vienna
1670——————————-Vienna
1712——————————-Sandomir
1727——————————-Russia
1738——————————-Wurtemburg
1740——————————-Little Russia (Beylorus)
1744——————————-Prague, Bohemia
1744——————————-Slovakia
1744——————————-Livonia
1745——————————-Moravia
1753——————————-Kovad (Lithuania)
1761——————————-Bordeaux
1772——————————-Deported to the Pale of Settlement (Poland/Russia)
1775——————————-Warsaw
1789——————————-Alsace
1804——————————-Villages in Russia
1808——————————-Villages & Countrysides (Russia)
1815——————————–L Beck & Bremen
1815——————————–Franconia, Swabia & Bavaria
1820——————————- Bremen
1843——————————–Russian Border Austria & Prussia
1862——————————- Areas in the U.S. under General Grant’s Jurisdiction
1866——————————- Galatz, Romania
1880s——————————Russia
1891——————————–Moscow
1919——————————–Bavaria (foreign born Jews)
1938-45—————————German Occupied Areas

Jason532012 (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As Nishidani said above, usury has been associated with Jews due to anti-Judaic economic restrictions imposed by Christians in the past. Of course, denying that some have been usurers is silly. Just like it'd be silly to say there weren't/aren't Christian usurers, Muslim usurers, atheist usurers, etc... But that doesn't mean all of them do it either, and the fact that it's been used as anti-Semitic canards and generalizations has already been discussed in a previous article, and there's really no reason here.
Now, just like The Code of Hammurabi, you're completely twisting history upside down, shaking it for 5 minutes, and making it spin in a centrifuge at a speed of 4000 RPM. Why were Jews expelled from so many countries? You're really going to pin this in one thing, and even say that it's true??? Well, along with these countries' belief that Jews kill children and bake their blood in matzah and other blood libels, that Jews poisoned wells and created the Bubonic Plague, that Jews control the world, that Jews are similar to mushrooms, etc. Europe wasn't exactly the most tolerant place for non-Christians in the past (yes, not just Jews - in fact, the Reconquisition in Spain and expulsion of Jews was a result of expelling Muslims due to intolerance and hate, and thus it wouldn't make sense to keep Jews. Was this also because of usury, as a fact???) Are you going to say, "Now of course, most Jews don't control the world, but a few do, and this has lead to edicts and expulsions by countries in order to avoid this detrimental behavior, and we need to recognize this. The only reason you oppose mentioning this is merely an attempt to whitewash Jeeeeews by covering up their terrible, malicious, and cunning crimes." Or "Now of course, most Jews don't kill children and bake their blood in matzah, but a few do, and this has lead to edicts and expulsions by countries in order to avoid this detrimental behavior, and we need to recognize this. The only reason you oppose mentioning this is merely an attempt to whitewash Jeeeeews by covering up their terrible, malicious, and cunning crimes."
It's pretty clear from this talk page that the editors here, from all ranges of ideaology, fiercely oppose your comments here and intent to create such a section. --Activism1234 23:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
All TWO of you??? Geesh! Jason532012 (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to simply ignore this bit of diatribe. The Statute of the Jewry issued by Edward I of England was very specific regarding the restrictions placed upon the Jews of England, most notably was the outlawing of the practice of usury. General Grant's order was also very specific in terms of those Jewish practices were that considered detrimental to the country at that time. These things you mention have no place in this article. Regardless of how you feel and think of me and my position, I'm not some crispy fried conspiracy theorist on the fringe of lunacy. The issues I mention are legitimate issues of record. I could care less about any of those things you mentioned above. The sooner you realize this, and accept that I am an intelligent, well read individual, the better for us both. Jason532012 (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Code of Hammurabi all over again. It actually appears to be four editors, not two. Geesh! As I said, The Statute of the Jewry is already detailed in a different, appropriate article. It's not needed here. This article is about anti-Semitism, and doesn't really talk about examples (except for "Current situation"). It certainly doesn't list allegations as facts. I have no doubt you are an intelligent person with an unbeliavably high I.Q. But to tell you the truth, I couldn't care less about that. And actually, you should care a great deal about what I mentioned above, as it is a direct response to what you wrote and is quite relevant, as relevant as your comment about the code of Hammurabi... The sooner you realize this, and accept that your views and personal beliefs aren't supposed to go on Wikipedia to push an agenda and are being rejected by a number of editors, the better for us both.--Activism1234 23:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I have mentioned this discussion at ANI.[16] TFD (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Jason has been blocked at ANI for a number of edits to various pages, conspiracy theories, impolite manner, and possible trolling. So I guess this section is moot now... --Activism1234 01:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how to sign my comment. But, here goes. "The historical record is very clear that the Jews have been banned from nearly every single country on this planet for their illconcieved practices of usury, brokering, and banking in general" is definitely ranty. It is assuming that the eviction of Jews was "because" Jews were engaging in usury when there is no evidence to support that this is true.

Even an eviction order mentioning usury does not provide evidence that this was the actual reason any more than the claim that the US invaded Iraq for WMD or to spread democracy is "proof" that this is why we did it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.28.151 (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"Expulsion from Portugal"

A discussion on whether "expulsion from Portugal in 1497" is notable for the lead. I say this because while the expulsion from Spain/Spanish Inquisition is certainly notable, the expulsion from Portugal is like one of many other expulsions, and we can't possibly mention all of them in the lead. I propose replacing it with something else, for example relating to the Black Death and conspiracy theories that Jews caused them --> burning Jewish communities. --Activism1234 03:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

...if it were 1947 it would have been quite notable! --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what 1947 has to do with this. I'm just asking whether we should include this expulsion over other ones, as we already have the Spanish Inquisition. That's all. --Activism1234 21:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Just a small joke. You transposed to 1947 from 1497. And you're right; the Portuguese one is relatively minor. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh my mistake. Wow that's a really bad error. Fixed it. --Activism1234 21:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 August 2012

Please add the following to the EU list of ways in which attacking Israel could be antisemitic:

"Denying the Jewish people their right to self-­determination"
Here's a website that gives the list. [17]

Ta2483 (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Activism1234 04:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I think the edit was a mistake in the wrong direction. Almost all of that paragraph is duplicated at the linked article [18]. It should not be duplicated here; it is only one (albeit important) opinion. --BozMo talk 10:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
That section seems to go into a lot more detail than the one here. I'll try to trim it down or rewrite this one though. --Activism1234 15:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
the edit is not correct, the FRU did not say that denying the right of Jews to self determination was anti semitic. This is more correct.

In 2005, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (now Fundamental Rights Agency), then an agency of the European Union, developed a more detailed working definition, which states: "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." It adds "such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity." It provides contemporary examples of antisemitism, which include: promoting the harming of Jews in the name of an ideology or religion; promoting negative stereotypes of Jews; holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of an individual Jewish person or group; denying the Holocaust or accusing Jews or Israel of exaggerating it; and accusing Jews of dual loyalty or a greater allegiance to Israel than their own country. It also lists ways in which 'taking into account the overall context' attacking Israel could be antisemitic, including denying the Jews their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor, or applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, or holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.[4] comments welcome. Dexys midnight ramblers (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)edit by blocked sock--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the EU was pretty clear in the bullet point "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor." --Activism1234 20:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
the edit gives the impression that the EUMC, said that every instance of "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor" is antisemitic. They did not say this. The qualifications that they applied to the rest of the definition, i.e.

taking into account the overall context' attacking Israel could be antisemitic apply to this as well. I am not asking you to remove the point, merely to improve the wording. The EUMC did not say that every instance of 'Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.' That is the incorrect impression given by the present wording. At present the wording is source misrepresentation. Please read my suggested wording again.Dexys midnight ramblers (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)edit by blocked sock--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So the issue here is that it could be anti-Semitic? I think the article states that clearly though, as the EU ref states could - our article says "It also lists ways in which attacking Israel could be antisemitic, and that denying the Jews their right to self-determination is anti-Semitic, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor, or applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, or holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel." --Activism1234 21:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Shrike probably striked out the editor's comments because the editor is blocked for being a sockpuppet. --Activism1234 23:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Dexys == User:Dalai lama ding dong who is indefinitely blocked. The edit request here was identical or substantially identical to the one Dalai lamaa ding dong left on his user page after being blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 August 2012

This epistemology is blatantly erroneous.

In the following text the article states that the word anti-semitism IS the word anti-semitic. Not only this but anti-semitic in that example, refers to speakers of semitic languages, semitic peoples generally however elsewhere the article is at pains to explain that anti-semitism refers solely to anti-jewish sentiments.

[quote] Although Wilhelm Marr is generally credited with coining the word anti-Semitism (see below), Alex Bein writes that the word was first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase "anti-Semitic prejudices".[/quote]

Wilhelm Marr, in his pamphlet makes 'Semitism' an anthropological process or psycho-cultural dynamic resulting from the practical realism imparted to the jewish people by the teachings of rabbinical judaisam. In fact the first words in the preface are:

'What I intend to accomplish in this pamphlet is less of a polemic against Judaism than it is a statement of facts regarding cultural history.'

What we have instead is the following paragraph, a gross oversimplification and misrepresentation.


In 1873 German journalist Wilhelm Marr published a pamphlet "The Victory of the Jewish Spirit over the Germanic Spirit. Observed from a non-religious perspective." ("Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum. Vom nicht confessionellen Standpunkt aus betrachtet.")[14] in which he used the word "Semitismus" interchangeably with the word "Judentum" to denote both "Jewry" (the Jews as a collective) and "jewishness" (the quality of being Jewish, or the Jewish spirit).

92.40.255.86 (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A few things:

  • "Not only this but anti-semitic in that example, refers to speakers of semitic languages, semitic peoples generally however elsewhere the article is at pains to explain that anti-semitism refers solely to anti-jewish sentiments." Can you perhaps rewrite this sentence in clearer English? It's a bit tough to understand.
  • Can you please provide reliable references to back up what you say?
  • Can you please identify how you would like it rewritten?

Thanks. --Activism1234 00:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Closing as Activism1234's queries haven't been replied to. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Needs trimming

The trend of listing every antisemitic event we can find is not helpful. This is the top-level article for a very large tree of antisemitism-related articles, and we can do better than a list of news flashes. At the very worst, individual incidents should be listed in the country articles (to avoid breaching summary style), with summings-up, statistics, and general observations in the subheads here. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agree. --BozMo talk 19:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Definition

Anti-semitic is not only for jews, it is for all people of the Levant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.106.8.234 (talk) 06:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong and this has been explained here repeatedly. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
No need to feed the trolls. --Activism1234 00:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

RSN is not a joke

There's no presumption of appropriateness, especially for sources that have a demonstrated inability to report factually where Muslims are concerned. You are, actually, required to gain consensus at RSN to use this sort of questionable source. Or better yet, bypass the whole headache and find a real source for your claims; I find it somehow unlikely that a Canadian tabloid was somehow the only paper to pick up a story about a Swiss American composer and an American orchestra in Malaysia. Your content, your burden of evidence. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 05:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You are 100% correct, it was not the only one. We also have a book that picked up on it, and is currently used in the article as a reference, which helps bolster some of the other statements in the Canadian ref. This RSN says the post should be considered generally reliable, there was a whole discussion whether a piece by them was an SPS or not (evident itself was RS, dispute was whether the piece was SPS), and then here where National Post is said to be RS.
Do you know of any other RSN discussions that say otherwise? --Jethro B 06:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
The Solomon discussion, as you say, was mostly about whether it was an SPS, but there certainly wasn't consensus that it was RS. The question of whether their news is reliable is completely distinct from whether their blurbs about their employees are reliable. In your second link, some users say it is reliable while other users say it is not, and the outcome of the discussion was that it should not be used; why are you citing this in support of using it? (The other relevant one is this one in which most users pointed out that it has a known bias as well as a history of fabrication on a topic related to that bias.) –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 06:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

My response

The National Post is a mainstream, nationally published newspaper in Canada. This means that as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is a RS - also, the Post is used as a source throughout Wikipedia. It is true that its not always correct and has made errors, but this is true of any news outlet. Yes, the National Post is right-wing, but it is just as reliable as other mainstream Canadian newspapers such as The Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star (which are liberal and left-wing, respectively). Unless there is agreement in Wikipedia that the National Post cannot be used for citations on the grounds that it is unreliable, you can't remove material that it is used to cite. As Wikipedia's Reliable Sources guide states "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. 'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)."

Next issue: Let me get this straight. You claim that "The other relevant one is this one in which most users pointed out that it has a known bias as well as a history of fabrication on a topic related to that bias." Really? There are a grand total of four users who commented on this in one sentence arguments, as follows:

  • It should be considered generally reliable in my opinion. As far as I know, it's a mainstream newspaper. --Metropolitan90
  • Yes, but it should be kept in mind that it has a specific declared ideological bias. --DGG
  • It also has a horrible track record on at least one politically sensitive scientific topic. --Stephan Schulz
  • Could you please provide a link to the "specific declared ideological bias" ? --Tundrabuggy

How on earth can you claim that "most users pointed out that it has a known bias as well as a history of fabrication on a topic related to that bias"? We have one user who agrees that it is a mainstream newspaper, a second who states that it has "a specific declared ideological bias" (i.e. it is pro-Israel) (good thing no other media source has one of these), a third user who claims that the National Post has "a horrible track record on at least one politically sensitive scientific topic", without providing any sources, and a fourth user who challenges the second user to provide a source to back up his claim (to which the second user doesn't reply).

How do the above statements/opinions from four users provide conclusive (or for that matter, any) evidence that the National Post is not a RS by Wikipedia standards, or that the National Post is unreliable? Based on the unreferenced opinion of one or two users, of whom neither states or even suggests that the National Post is unreliable by Wikipedia standards?? How can you conclude from a one sentence opinion by one user that the National Post "has a known bias as well as a history of fabrication on a topic related to that bias?" No offense, but the one-sentence opinion of one user is hardly sufficient evidence to support your conclusion.

Likewise, your personal expert claim that "they are known for making stuff up, especially about Muslims" is also unsourced. Do you have a reliable source that states that the National Post is "known for making stuff up" - BTW - I have no doubt there are many internet sources which will claim this, but I seriously doubt any of them would be considered reliable or admissible by Wikipedia standards.

I'm sorry, but you will have to provide slightly more convincing arguments than these in order to justify the declaration that the National Post is unreliable. Contrary to your claim, there is certainly no conclusion among Wikipedia editors that the National Post is unreliable - rather, users have simply pointed out (and sometimes criticized) the fact that the Post is right-wing and is pro-Israel. These traits alone do not mean that the Post is unreliable, just as news outlets with the opposite views (i.e. are left-wing and anti-Israel) cannot be considered unreliable simply because of their ideological or political leanings. In closing, I will ask you again to please stop removing properly cited material.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

Do you just use sources without investigating them at all? We have an entire article on the National Post's fabrication of a story in order to drum up hatred against Muslims. (Incidentally, the author also fabricated a bunch of other stories, and the newspaper's defense of their failure to fact-check was basically "Well, it's the sort of thing Iranian Muslims would do, right?") As I said, this is one of several reasons why its support in the WP community has been lukewarm at best, and why even discussions that say it might be reliable nonetheless recommend against using it. If you can't reference these claims with proper sources, that's a big red flag anyway, so why would you choose to use a source you know is inferior? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 07:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Sigh! You seem to have entirely missed the point of what I wrote, so I will explain it to you again. You claimed that "The other relevant one is this one in which most users pointed out that it has a known bias as well as a history of fabrication on a topic related to that bias." Actually, only two users criticize the Post but neither argues or suggests that the Post does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for RS - how you can claim that "most users pointed out that it has a known bias as well as a history of fabrication on a topic related to that bias" based on the one-sentence arguments of one or two users is difficult to comprehend. Second, the National Post is considered as a reliable source by Wikipedia, as it is a mainstream nationally published newspaper, which is owned and operated by the largest media conglomerate in Canada. As Wikipedia's Reliable Sources guide states 'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)."
I've read that Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_23#National_Post_Rejected_as_Reliable_Source and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_42#National_Post_Biography_of_Lawrence_Solomon:_SPS.3F_or_RS.3F, and there is certainly no conclusion that the National Post is unreliable and should not be used as a citation in Wikipedia. True, there are some users which believe this, but there is certainly no consensus - in fact, a number of users state that the Post is reliable. Given that the National Post is considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards, the unsourced opinions of a few users are not sufficent to declare the Post unreliable and unusable for citations. As for your claim that the Post's defense was "Well, it's the sort of thing Iranian Muslims would do, right?" I'll assume you were referring to an article which reported that Iran was planning to make Jews wear Stars of David - the story turned out to be false. The source of this article from an Iranian-American journalist (who does not work for the National Post) and the Post was not the only news outlet that initially reported this claim. You can certainly argue (and I agree) that the Post (and other media outlets) should have done a better job of vetting this journalist's claim before they published it - but this one incident does not mean that the Post is to always be considered unreliable, as you are claiming. The Post is certainly not the first media outlet to publish a story that later turned out to be based on incorrect or misleading information (remember the Killian documents controversy - nobody would suggest that Dan Rather or CBS news be declared unreliable over this).

Nobody is claiming that the National Post is a oracle of truth or objectivity (just as no one would make this claim about any other media outlet), but it is considered reliable by Wikipedia standards - why do you think it is used throughout Wikipedia as a citation? The negative opinions of a few users are not sufficient to reject it as a reliabel source. Furthermore, your claim that "they are known for making stuff up, especially about Muslims" is actually based on a single article (that did not originate from the Post but from a third party journalist). I'm sorry, but this is not sufficient evidence to declare that a nationally published mainstream newspaper owned by Canada's largest media conglomerates is unreliable and cannot be cited in Wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

Let's put aside for a moment that a lot of the WP hits for "National Post" are either about people who write for it or an unrelated juxtaposition of the words (and that it isn't true that the National Post was just following suit in printing Taheri's lies), and consider your statement. "Some users believe it's unreliable, but it's reliable, so there"? That is not how we work here at all. If the source cannot be determined to be reliable - and your glorious fiat that you read it every morning at breakfast won't do - you find another source. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 07:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I never stated that "Some users believe it's unreliable, but it's reliable, so there?" - I suggest you not falsely attribute statements to me (you are only embarrassing yourself). Rather, I stated that a handful of Wikipedia users have expressed the opinion that the National Post is not a reliable source - I have also pointed out that a number of Wikipedia users believe that the National Post is a reliable source. You keep claiming that the Post is unreliable - but in fact, Wikipedia guidelines state that the Post is reliable - please read Wikipedia:BURDEN#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source What counts as a reliable source and Wikipedia:BURDEN#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs Newspaper and Magazine Blogs. These sections state that: Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers." The National Post certainly meets this requirement as it is a mainstream newspaper published by a large media conglomerate and has readers across Canada. Thus, I have justified my claim that the National Post is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Your claim, which is based on the opinions of a handful of users, one incorrect article, and your own personal invective, is the one that requries proof.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC))
The NP is an ill-respected agenda-based source that's far out of the mainstream and that lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Look, I've used Wikipedia guidelines to support my position. Aren't I clever? Really, though, it's your job to take this to RSN and get consensus. I know you think your opinion is very valuable, but it cannot actually overrule everyone else's. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 08:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Your opinion that "the NP is an ill-respected agenda-based source that's far out of the mainstream and that lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is based on what? One incorrect article, a handful of brief opinions from a few Wikipedia editors, and your own personal invective. That is not sufficient to declare the Post unreliable. Furthermore, I have used Wikipedia guidelines to support my position (I'm also pretty clever) - Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that mainstream news organizations such as the National Post, along with other national and/or widely published newspapers such as The Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star are acceptable sources in Wikipedia. You keep claiming I have to prove the Post is reliable - but according to Wikipedia guidelines, the Post is reliable - therefore, my burden has been met. You are the one who is insisting that the Post does not meet Wikipedia standards yet your claim is based on thin and flimsy evidence. Finally, without any discussion, you have started removing large portions from several articles solely because of your opinion that the Post is not reliable. This is not acceptable behaviour. Since the National Post already meets Wikipedia's requirements as a mainstream newspaper, the burden is on you to prove that the Post must always be considered unreliable. I realize you think that your opinion is also very valuable, but you cannot begin removing huge portions of articles simply because you don't like the Post. You keep claiming that consensus is needed to declare the Post a reliable source - but Wikipedia's guidelines state that it is a reliable source - as stated in Wikipedia:BURDEN#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source What counts as a reliable source. You are the one who needs to present a consensus that the Post is not reliable and cannot be used in Wikipedia citations. Otherwise, the Post will continue to be used a source for Wikipedia, just like any other nationally published mainstream newspaper.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC))
Look, I don't know the details about the National Post, so I won't comment on whether or not it can be considered reliable in a general sense. However, I will say that I think you are adopting far too 'absolutist' a position with regard to reliability. Sources such as newspapers are usually reliable in the broad sense - they typically do not print outright lies. But they should be used with great caution. Reports are often hasty and sesationalised and errors do occur. Paul B (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Rosc... You said it's not RS. Do you have any link to the RSN noticeboard that it was discussed and found to not be RS to back you up? Because I gave multiple links above showing on the RSN noticeboard it is acceptable. We can sit here all day and argue all we want, but those links are really the game closer. --Jethro B 14:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I've both linked another discussion and analyzed the links you provided; as I put it above, support for its reliability is lukewarm at best and even users who say it's reliable recommend against using it. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 18:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Ugh... what a humongous waste of time and energy arguing about whether or not the NP is a reliable source. I tend to agree that the NP is probably a reliable post and that content from it should generally be considered reliable as it is a mainstream news source. However, as Roscelese asserted at the beginning of this section, if the content being cited to the NP is encyclopedic, there should be other reliable sources that reported on it also. If no other reliable source mentions the content (positively or negatively), one begins to wonder whether the content is encyclopedic or not. (this effectively shifts the discussion from reliability of the source to notability of the content) Could someone provide a diff to the content in question so that we can evaluate it more fully? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Encyclopedic is a good way of talking about it, given the NP's overt agenda, but I would say it's still a question of verifiability as well; per WP:REDFLAG, we are bound to be suspicious of extraordinary claims that don't appear in multiple reliable sources, so the fact that Hyperionsteel doesn't think he needs a real source for this continues to be troubling. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 18:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary Roscelese, I do believe I need a "real source" for this. And I have provided one - The National Post - which is an acceptable source according to Wikipedia standards - it is a mainstream publication, published nationally, by the largest media conglomerate in Canada (i.e. it is a "real" source accord to Wikipedia). If this material had been published in another mainstream Canadian Newspaper, such as The Globe and Mail or the Toronto Star, it would also be included, as they (like the Post) are acceptable (i.e. "real") sources. Saidly, you seem to have been so blinded by your new-found loathing for the Post that you insist on ignoring Wikipedia guidelines simply because you do not agree with the Post political ideology (which is conservative - just as the Globe and Mail is Liberal and the Toronto Star is left wing). What is truely "troubling" is not only your inability to follow Wikipedia guidelines but more importantly, your rapid removal of huge portions of articles (not just this one) simply because you cannot control your hatred of the Post. What is also troubling is your repeated allegations against me that I have not provided an acceptable (i.e. "real") source for the information I place in Wikipedia - according to Wikipedia guidelines, I have provided a "real" source - it may be a source you don't like (which is clearly an understatement) but that is something you will have to deal with on your own.
Finally, (and I've said this before) the links you have provided to RSN are a debate about the Post in which some users support its use and others don't. What you don't seem to comprehend is that as a mainstream source, the Post is by default a reliable source unless proven otherwise. These RSN discussions are hardly convincing evidence of this - in fact, many of the users endorse the use of the Post, while others acknowledge its political bias (I guess no other newspaper has one of these?). There are some users who make derogatory comments about the Post - nearly all without citing any information. The only evidence of the Post's "making stuff up" that you have provided is a single article (written by an Iranian-American journalist, who is not employed by the Post) which turned out to be false. Yes the Post reported this, so did many other news outlets. A single example (which you have implied is some kind conspiracy by the Post and its writers to defame Iranians) does not establish that the Post is routinely "making stuff up" or provides a "known bias as well as a history of fabrication" as you have stated above. Yes, the Post was guilty of poor fact-checking in this case (just as CBS was guilty of poor fact-checking when they published the Bush army memos a few years back), but all media outlets are guilty of this sometimes.
Finally, if a mainstream newspaper is not a "real" source than what is? - If a left-wing mainstream newspaper (such as the Toronto Star) had published this, I doubt we'd be having this conversation.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC))
One more thing, (not that it matters) additional sources for most (if not all of this material) has been provided (by both myself and other users). I suggest you find something else to complain about.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC))
Indeed, other users have done the job of providing reliable sources. Kudos to them. Now the unsuitable source can be removed. If you have similar problems with other sources, I recommend that you bring them up, rather than continue inserting inferior sources out of spite. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 05:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If anyone attempts again to repeatedly remove sourced content because they have a personal bias against the WP:RS National Post, I suggest seeking administrator intervention. This particular user clearly has a troubled history by looking at the block log, and as a Canadian myself it is totally ridiculous to hear someone attempt to claim that the National Post is not reliable. It is one of the largest circulation mainstream newspapers here and claiming that it is not reliable because it has a particular bias is simply ignorant. Every newspaper has a particular bias. If this continues and nobody else does seek admin intervention, I guess I will do it myself although lately I have been trying to avoid Wikipedia. But when I saw this I couldn't help but comment. This situation is just total stupidity. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Why hello likely sockpuppet! I'll make to you the same suggestion I made to Hyperionsteel: since the burden is on the user who adds material, take the source to RSN. Claiming that the lack of a previous RSN consensus demonstrates that it is reliable, as Hyperionsteel is doing, is nonsensical. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 05:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Falsely accusing me of using a sockpuppet? You must really be desperate. But once again, I will remind you that according to Wikipedia's guidelines Wikipedia:BURDEN#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source What counts as a reliable source and Wikipedia:BURDEN#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs Newspaper and Magazine Blogs, the National Post, as a mainstream publication, is a reliable source. What is "nonsensical" is your repeated attempts to justify the Post as unreliable based on a single incorrect article and the derogatory comments of a few users on RSN.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC))
Clearly you either haven't edited much in this topic area or you condone the use of sockpuppets where they promote your political views. I've already explained to you that the NP in general lacks the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that WP:RS absolutely requires, and you, if you are literate, should have seen in the very section that you linked that blogs and op-eds must not be used to source facts (this is also stated in WP:RS) because they are not fact-checked (in the NP's case, presumably even less fact-checked). I didn't even notice earlier that it was an op-ed, but you were the user adding it and should have known better. Shame on you. The lengths you will go to to promote your favorite newspaper at the expense of Wikipedia policy and content are ridiculous. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 05:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
First, I will confirm that I am literate - I would think you would have figured that out by now (but I could be wrong). Second. I don't condone the use of sockpuppets and I have never used them - I will ask you again to stop making false allegations against me (you are only embarrassing yourself). Third, you keep claiming that the Post is not a RS by Wikipedia standards, but as I have pointed out, Wikipedia:BURDEN#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source clearly states that "reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers" - it also states that: "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals but should be used with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact checking process.[4] Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote...")." - The Post is a mainstream newspaper, thus it is a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines. (despite a few derogatory comments on RSN and your intense hatred of it). Your repeated removal of properly cited material based on your irrational and incorrigible hatred of the National Post is both shameful and fallacious, and is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Again, if you feel my intepretation of Wikipedia's guidelines, file a complaint. Otherwise, I will ask you to a) stop making false allegations against me, and b) follow Wikipedia's guidelines. If you can't handle the reality that Wikipedia will include material you don't agree with, then perhaps you should find a new way to spend your time.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC))