Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 20

< Talk:Antisemitism

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AndriyK (talk | contribs) at 21:01, 31 January 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:01, 31 January 2005 by AndriyK (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Antisemitism/Archive 20 received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Do not delete other editor's comments, and sign your own.

Irate, please do not delete other people's comments and replace them with your own . This is considered to be vandalism. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes. Jayjg 15:14, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Semitic-speaking people

Semite. 1. A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians. 2. A Jew. 3. Bible. A descendant of Shem.

This article is an exmaple of liguistic hijacking.

Untrue. The article reflects the term in the way it is used. And the problem you raise is dealt with:

The term has always referred to prejudice towards Jews alone, and not to other people who speak semitic languages (e.g., Arabs) and this has been the only use of this word for more than a century. In recent decades some people have argued that the term anti-Semitism should be extended to include prejudice against Arabs, since Arabic is a semitic language. However, this usage has not been widely adopted.

Despite the use of the prefix "anti," the terms Semitic and Anti-Semitic are not antonyms. To avoid the confusion of the misnomer, many writers on the subject (such as Emil Fackenheim of the Hebrew University) now favor the unhyphenated term antisemitism.

Maybe a couple of sentences could be added to this, but it's not reasonable to suggest that the article does not deal with the term anti-Semitism in a NPOV-way, I think. - pir 13:50, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For better or worse, English is not a particularly logical language. "Anti-Semite" does not mean "against Semites", though that would make sense in a theoretical way, and some people have recently tried to re-define it that way for political reasons. The history of the term anti-Semite is complex and interesting; I recommend you study it. Since your objection to this article appears to be based purely on an objection to a well understood English term with a long history, I'm going to remove the NPOV marker; an article is not POV simply because you think the English language is biased. Oh, and please sign your comments. Jayjg 13:53, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Huh? What does "linguistic hijacking? mean, and why is this article an example? Slrubenstein

The best example, in the UK, is the word swearing. From the religious (Christian POV) swearing is "A profain Oath" it is n't just naughty words, like fuck etc. How ever various people wanted to claim a religous prohibition against words like 'fuck' etc. So they stole the term, so in the moder UK, the commandment. "Though shalt not swear" is taken to mean don't use these naughty words. Were as really it should stop Christians "swearing on the bible", in court the should "affirm" instead. So the word swearing has been hijacked. This subject should be renamed "discrimination/racism against Jews". This article just promotes the hijacking.--Jirate 15:23, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The word means what it means, and when people want to look up this topic on Misplaced Pages, they will look under anti-Semitism. If your campaign to get the English language to be less "abusive" in this area is ever successful then your suggestions might have value. Until then, it's just an attempt to muddy the waters for political purposes. Jayjg 15:19, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What political purpose is that?--Jirate 16:10, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Israel activists often object to the term "anti-Semitic", assuming that Jews have "hijacked" the term "Semite" for their own use, part of their on-going "campaign" to disenfranchise and abuse Arabs. This notion is often expressed in the specious argument "Arabs can't be anti-Semitic, they're Semites as well." Of course, this ignores the fact that even Jews can be anti-Semites. More importantly, it shows a profound ignorance of the history of the term itself, which was invented and intended by the German anti-Semite Wilhelm Marr to describe Jews only, and which was used exclusively that way for a over century now. Jayjg 13:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)--Jirate 14:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pro Israli fantics always assume that everything is about them and Israeli. You've named the hijacker as "Wilhelm Marr". pir has also pointed out it's a blinding with science origin.--Jirate 14:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Now that's funny! 'Pro Israeli fanatics' (i.e. Jews) are so self-centered as to think that antiSemitism is about them! Gee, all these years those greedy Jews have been refusing to share the antiSemitism with others! Gzuckier 16:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you go and look at the mid west of the US you'll find a hot bed of "Pro Israeli fanatics" and very few Jews.

I think you are confusing Israeli (vs. anti-Zionist) and Jew (vs. anti-Semite) here. anti-Semitism targets Jews not Israelis. In fact many Jews opposed it, a century ago and many anti-Semites supported the creation of Israel, with for example Adolf Eichmann (and he's certainly one of the most murderous anti-Semites in history) going on a visit to Palestine to find out if that could be the solution to the "Jewish question". I'm not trying to be flippant and insensitive, but sometimes it looks to me like Zionists have adopted a point from the anti-Semitic agenda, for very good reasons, but personally I still regard it as a "victory" for anti-Semitism. Some Jewish anti-Zionists I know say that the Zionist reaction to the Holocaust was to "build the walls around the ghetto higher". Another of the many views on the (alleged) new Wall.- pir 14:34, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was simply using the term invert Jayjg "Anti -Israel" and added an I by accident.--Jirate 18:25, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Marr created the term, he didn't "hijack" it. You can't "hijack" something that never existed before. Jayjg 14:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You now saying the word Semite was also invented by this person are you. The word Semite has been hijacked and put into a compound word, where it's meaning is abused. The title of this page is "Anti-Semitism", it has a hyphen in it.--Jirate 15:23, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Semite and anti-Semitism are to be seen as seperate terms, one having been derived from the other historically but not semantically. As the article clearly states, the terms Semitic and Anti-Semitic are not antonyms. Maybe that should be in a more prominent place. - pir 16:54, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The language is what it is. The fact that you think the term is "abuse" (which, of course, is meaningless linguistically) does not make the article itslef POV. Jayjg 15:17, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"The language is what it is. The fact that you think the term is "abuse" does not make the article itslef POV." - Jayjg, why do you refuse to apply the same reasoning to Occupation of Palestine ? - pir 16:54, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's not an example of "linguistic hijacking", it's an example of anti-Semites' stupidity and ignorance and dishonesty and urge to manipulate language. The term was created by anti-Semites, as a scientific-looking posh-sounding euphemism. It actually says quite a lot that we still use a term created by anti-Semites to describe anti-Semitism. - pir 13:57, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I never said who did the hijacking.--Jirate 14:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's only because you had no idea of the origins and history of the term. Jayjg 14:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are you now claim to be able read my mind? or is it just more of your water muddying? My knowledge of lingistics while not being complete does cover this area, chunks of PIE and why Welsh doesn't have a word for Pink. I might not be able to spell, gramatacise and have writing which looks like a doctor but it doesn't imply that I'am in anyway ignorant about language, its form and evolution. And--Jirate 14:56, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I certainly think it would be worth adding to the Welsh language page to explain why Welsh doesn't have a word for Pink. Seriously. And I have no idea what PIE is. Another opportunity to add a contribution to wikipedia. Gzuckier 16:24, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually PIE seems to be a valid link. A article on language complexity and simple measures may well be appropriate, rather just limiting it to Welsh]].--Jirate 18:25, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jirate, I suspect you are being dishonest now. - pir 14:34, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

About what?

--Jirate 15:23, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

About the implication that you were accusing anti-Semites of hijacking the term Semite when you wrote "I never said who did the hijacking." - pir 16:54, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's always amusing to come to a new forum and discover the same silly and ignorant argument being repeated. It happens every time with "anti-semitism"; no matter how carefully and precisely the origin of the term is explained -- as a te`rm coined by Jew-haters to describe their own hatred of Jews -- some people would rather snark than read and think. Guinea pigs are neither pigs nor from Guinea. The Holy Roman Empire was not holy, Roman, nor an empire. And "antisemitism" doesn't mean "opposition to Semites". Sure, there was linguistic hijacking -- by Wilhelm Marr, for the purpose of prettying up his (highly intellectualized) hatred. Me, I've stopped using the term in general; I think "Jew-hatred" is more precise, and doesn't confuse the (sometimes willfully) ignorant. Jpgordon 16:43, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You can't be talking about this as you forgot the hyphen.--Jirate 18:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The hyphen is irrelevant, other than the apparent confusion it causes some folk etymologists (and some people who are offended that there's a special word for Jew-hatred.) The original word was German: antisemitismus. The German language runs words together to form compound words. English generally does not do that, and instead hyphenates to produce the same result. "anti-semitism", "anti-Semitism", and "antisemitism"are simply alternate orthography for the same thing. Jpgordon 22:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

an·ti-Sem·i·tism (nt-sm-tzm, nt-) n.

Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.
Discrimination against Jews.

anti-Semitism

\An`ti-Sem"i*tism\, n. Opposition to, or hatred of, Semites, esp. Jews. -- An`ti-Sem\"ite, n. -- An`ti-Sem*it\"ic, a.

anti-Semitism

n : the intense dislike for and prejudice against Jewish people

These definitions are a bit puzzling. Are any usage references provided by the American Heritage Dictionary or Websters showing "anti-semitism" meaning hatred of any Semitic people other than Jews? Seems doubtful to me, since (at least until recently) there hasn't been any particular tradition among English-speaking people of organized and systemic prejudiced against other Semitic peoples based upon their Semitism. (Sure, there's the generic racism against anyone non-white and non-European, but that's a fairly different category of bigotry.) Jpgordon 22:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This Webster definition seems to be from 1913 , a time when the racial views hald by Herr Marr were quite common even among dictionary writers. So this does not come as a big surprise and doesn't contradict what we've been saying here. - pir 22:54, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's also the definition in the 1996 and 1998 dictionary, and similar definitions are found in every dictionary I've seen. Jayjg 02:20, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

neutrality

Why the banner? When did we achieve a consensus that this is non NPOV or controversial? How about some discussion! Slrubenstein

We achieved consensus that it was not POV. That is what the discussion above was all about. Feel free to remove it whenever it erroneously appears. Jayjg 15:20, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You seem to be making things up again.--Jirate 15:23, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You mean like the "Terrorist campign" that Hunt Followers are "likely to head up"? Jayjg 15:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well recently after they'd had a little riot ourtside parliment, and 5 broke into the commons chamber. They had a convoy of lorries blocking the M25, main London orbital road, the Cuntryside Alliance has threatend a campaign of civil disobedience, it wore miltant wing has styled it's self the "real CA" a reference to the Real IRA. Several members have threatend to "bring the country to it's knees" etc. and has threatened to make various other activists groups look like amateurs etc. Do you get the Beeb or Itv were you are? Were does your knowledge of the fox hunting organisations come from? --Jirate 16:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If anything, it looks like the Hunt Saboteurs are the "terrorists". Jayjg 16:15, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Looking from what point of view? The sabs groups do no more than disrupt hunts, in all sorts of ways, they don't threaten to trash the country. Though some who are more of an animal rights POV, do tend to be fairly violent, especially the ALF. The CA is threatening to hold the country to hostage, if it doesn't get it's way, no one else is. see http://www.huntsabs.org.uk/.--Jirate 16:25, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do not see how any of this discussion bears on whether the article is NPOV or not. I repeat: why is the article not neutral? I am not a genious or a mind reader so if you want me to understand you please write in grammatical, complete, and to the point sentences. Slrubenstein

PeR's commentary

It should be pointed out here that Jesus was a Jew living in a Jewish community. To him, criticising the people around him was equivalent to criticising Jews. There is disagreement between those who consider any criticism of Jews or Judaism to constitute anti-Semitism, and those who would first require the criticism to be rooted in malice or hatred towards the Jewish people. Per

I'll be brief...

...and put it simply: all those edits on various Jewish-oriented articles of the "OMFG DEATH 2 JEWZ" variety... aren't they lovely? *sighs* Just needed to publicly express my displeasure. Thanks for your time. Jonathan Grynspan 04:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Confusion and internal inconsistensies

i think there should be recognition that many Arabs consider themselves Semitic (even though this may be semantically incorrect)and following from that, when they are actually looking for an article on anti Arabism, they may incorrectly look to the Anti Semitism page.

Could someone well versed with the issues, look into this topic, anti arabism and racism ?

i tried to do it, but this is a sensitve issue and i may have inadvertently stepped on some toes, in my few amaturish attempts.

Well, now that Ashcroft has time on his hands, perhaps he can be induced to explain why locking up 5,000 Arabs in the US indefinitely without due process, right to counsel, notifying their families, etc. (with a net yield of zero terrorism-related arrests, detentions, deporations, or anything else) is not antiArabism, just good security. Gzuckier 17:43, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A few points. For the unsigned question above, it is completely accurate to refer to Arabs as a Semitic people; nothing semantically incorrect there. The article does discuss accurately how and why the expression "anti-semitism" is a synonym for "hatred of Jews": it was coined by a Jew-hater to describe his fellow Jew-haters, and though it seems contrary to common sense, word etymologies and meanings sometimes are contrary to common sense. I'm not sure what relevance Gzuckier's comment has; the assertion that the term "anti-Semitism" does not mean "opposition to all groups classified as Semitic" does not in any way deny that anti-Arabism exists (which it obviously does.) --jpgordon{gab} 18:04, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i was just indulging in antiAshcroftism. AKA antiscumitism. oh well, there's enough controversy over this topic anyway (damned if i know why) so might as well see if we can hook it up with the freefloating pro and con Bush argument. Gzuckier 19:58, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is a matter that has been gone over and over and over in archived discussions. In its original technial sense, no one was "semetic:" the term refers to a family of languages and Arabic is a semetic language as is Hebrew. In the technical sense, no one is a "semite," there are only speakers of a "semetic" language. In the 1800s a German coined the term "Anti-Semitism" -- a neologism -- to refer to race-based hatred of Jews. The term "Anti-Semitism" does not refer to anything else. It doesn't mean "people who hate semitic languages" for example. Now, I admit that the history of these words is not "logical" but the history of language and words and ideas seldome is logical. Why do people drive on parkways and park on driveways? Language just doesn't make sense like that. Slrubenstein

It seems clear enough that everybody here knows what "anti-Semitism" actually means out in the real world... isn't all this discussion of whether it includes dislike of Arabs and so on a bit disingenuous?

I feel strongly that this article should be marked "No Neutral Point of View Possible" because in the four-way collision between: anti-Semites wanting to repeat slanders while claiming their motivation is scholarly, investigative, or whatever; Jewish supremacists who want to tar all opposition with the brush of racism; persons interested in European social history; and the rest of us, there does not seem to be a single point all parties are willing to agree on. DMaclKnapp

You are saying that the article is "controversial," not that its neutrality is in question. "Neutral" does not mean that all parties agree. In fact, that no one agrees may be a sign of "neutrality. However, I would even balk at labeling the article controversial. You seem to be saying that the topic is controversial. Well, if that is the case, of course some of the controversy will leak into the article. But that doesn't make the article controversial. It is the topic itself that is conctroversial. Instead of having a warning tag "This article is controversial" it is better to say, somewhere in the first paragraph, that anti-Semitism is a controversial topics because people who claim to be victims of anti-Semitism and people accused of anti-Semitism seldom agree on what anti-Semitism is. Slrubenstein

Link suggestions

An automated Misplaced Pages link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Anti-Semitism article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Anti-Semitism}} to this page. — LinkBot 00:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Confusion

mutually exclusive assertions is a characteristic of a psychological disorder.

I am unclear what is meant by this statement, and what the relevance of it is to anti-semitism in the "Etymology and Usage section". Perhaps it needs to be justified or explained in some way? In general, I think this article is an impressive testament to Misplaced Pages's strengths - presenting the issues in a factual way while trying to avoid bias. Thanks. --Mysteronald 19:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Please see whether the current wording is more clear. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:21, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zain's edit

I don't know what "protection of life against other Muslim states" means. Slim 00:15, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Zain left a note on my page asking for help with his edit: "The Qur'an, Islam's holy book, criticizes those Jews who corrupted and are not following the Hebrew Bible .For Jews and Christians (and others) who (1) believe in God (2) believe in Hereafter (3) Lead righteous life, will receive recompense from their Lord." .

Zain, the problem with this, as I see it, is twofold, First, you're introducing a quote from a religious text published out of context by an unidentified website in California. That aside, the quote doesn't say much, and is arguably quite sinister. It says that those who, in the opinion of whoever is interpreting the Qur'an at any given time, hold certain beliefs and lead a life that, in the opinion of the person interpreting the Qur'an, is a righteous one, where the word "righteous" is not defined, then those people will received recompense in a life to come — which implies they may not receive recompense in this life. And so this is a problematic quote to insert as evidence of anything.

This section is about anti-Semitism and Islam so what the Qur'an says is relevant so long as those accused of being anti-Semitic refer to the Qur'an to back up their views. Have prominent Muslim religious or political leaders quoted from the Qur'an when trying to prove a point about Jewish people? If so, it would make sense to quote someone doing that to back up Jayjg's point. Or have prominent Muslim leaders said "Muslims shouldn't pay attention to what the Qur'an says about Jews: it was all written a long time ago", because that would back up Zain's point.

The same website you cited, Zain, contains more views on Judaism , including: "Like all the other religions in the world, Judaism has been corrupted by the human trend of distorting God's words in the scripture. Judaism as practiced by the majority of the Jews today is not the religion authorized by God in the Torah, but a newly formalized belief system based on man-made innovations and corruptions recorded in the "man-made" Talmud. Similar corruptions by man-made books and laws can be seen in Today's Christianity (e.g. Trinity ) and traditional Islam (e.g. Hadith and Sunna ). . The same page links to another website that appears to be some sort of revisionist thing. Slim 01:28, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

The "revisionist" site Slim refers to is filled with false and anti-Semitic Talmud "quotes". Jayjg | (Talk) 02:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can we provide non-anti claims, which are not responses

I think first we should find what is relevant and what is not. Here is talk extracts from another talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Israeli_violence_against_Palestinian_children#Killing_of_children_is_NOT_propoganda

such a libelous POV title. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why is this title POV but, say, Islam and anti-Semitism isn't? OneGuy 19:30, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A perfect example. The title Islam and anti-Semitism doesn't imply that Islam is anti-Semitic. .... ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So does this article gives both sides. Or does this article only says when islam is anti-semantic and other side can only write response.

Zain 20:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article is about this article, not about other articles. Jayjg | (Talk) 00:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok should I or should I not apply the same policie on other articles? Zain 21:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) Policy of wikipedia is same for this article or any other article! If any policy is used here that should be used in other articles too. Misplaced Pages has a single policy. Same policy should be used in all articles. Then I'll remove all 'irrelevant' points in holocaust denial. May be add new articles which such titles making responses 'irrelevant' How about Only about claims of holocaust denial excluding responses Now that will be NPOV (it doesn't say that claims are correct). It will make all the responses 'irrelevant' to the 'context' of this article.

I think you should think again. Or a 'Title War' might start. And believe me I am very creative with titles!

Zain 00:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

nice one Zain. My advise to you, don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. dab (ᛏ) 15:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The best way is to apply the wikipedia policies uniformly. Is there any thing wrong with asking to apply wikipedia policy uniformly?

Zain 20:13, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policies are being applied here. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can we apply same policies to other articles too? Zain 20:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policies apply to all articles, or should. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. So it means that you telling me that I should apply same policies to other articles too! Ok Zain 21:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not telling you to do anything Zain; please don't misquote me. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Misnomer - Anonymeous user fixation on senseless word Semites

Fjodorii 17:05, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC): To user 81.153.165.21: you changed the word Jews into Semites. However, acknowledged authors such as Bernard Lewis all made clear that the term Semite has no meaning as applied to groups as heterogeneous as the Arabs or Jews (ref. ). Your replacement indirectly also suggests inclusion of the Arabs within the term anti-Semites (and you indeed included the word Arabs in the text). But that is exactly what so much of the other information and sources in that page prove as totally incorrect. With kind regards. F.

Good point, absolutely right.

Misnomer / Fjodorii's latest insertion - original research?

Fjodorii, who makes the argument that you have just inserted into the article? Can you quote someone who makes the argument? If not, it appears to be original research. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:01, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fjodorii 16:44, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC): In my opinion it is not original research. I have added some links now (chosen from several ones I could add). The argument is obvious enough, Bernard Lewis has in fact almost stated this with similar words. There is nothing new about this.

Okay, but look: it doesn't matter how obvious it is. If you have a citation for Lewis, just put it in -- and that solves the problem. If you have sources, always use them! Slrubenstein

Well, your latest work -- in the "Misnomer" section -- is quite unnecessary. Nothing gets clarified by it; it's argumentation. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 17:10, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fjodorii 17:27, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC): I'm not so sure, Jpgordon. In fact, there normally is no reason at all to change the meaning of the word antisemitism, as it has always been pointing to anti-judaism. For that reason, there is an argument to clarify WHY the usage of the term is under discussion... Kind regards, F.

As I just said: it's argumentation. The sentences that were there before you expanded the section sufficed. By the way, it's standard practice here to sign your comments at the end rather than the beginning. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 17:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Exactly; I've cleaned it up, leaving the citations, which make the point. Jayjg | (Talk) 02:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

okay, you misunderstand the policy that Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. It is true that articles are not "really" about definitions. But that does not mean that the history of definitions and usages, and etymologies are irrelevant. How people use a term is important to understanding it, and how the definitions and uses have changed over time is almost essential to understand any debates over a term. Slrubenstein 22:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As for the other matter: It does not matter whether it is "argumentation" or "more than argumentation." What matters is that it is not your view. You must be able to verify that others have made these -- whatever you want to call it, "argumentation" or "more than argumentation" -- and provide sources. Slrubenstein 22:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Final of Fjodorii on this: ok, accept current state of the article (with just the added quotes).

Keep the intro clean, please

There has been so called anti-semitism towards Israeli Jews, although the term itself cannot describe all Jews as 'semites' since Judaism is a religion and not a race.

Because anti-Semitism is almost universally scorned by modern tolerant societies, some critics of allegedly oppressive Israeli policies towards Palestinians have voiced concerns that the charge of anti-Semitism towards such criticism has been unfairly used to nullify any public discourse regarding such policies. I've removed the above text. The latter phrase was added yesterday by User:64.229.221.241, the former is obsolete at best, if it ever was in use in this sense (?), it could be covered further on, but not in the intro. Objections? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The first sentence is inaccurate, since Jews are a people, not just members of a faith. The latter is already discussed in the article on anti-Zionism. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:19, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

'Modern anti-Semitism'

The term modern anti-Semitism seems in appropriate; contemporary anti-Semitism or recent anti-Semitism would be better, given the way historians use the term modern. But modern anti-Semitism is the title of the article. Would it not be better that this be changed? Or is that too difficult to do? Mark K. Jensen 07:32, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Not difficult at all. I have a problem with all of these adjectives as they are drifting with time. This reminds me Old-New Synagogue in Prague built in 13th century. AFAIK, the words "new" or "modern" are the most frequently used to describe the phenomenon. The relative popularity could be measured by Google, I guess. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How many Der Sturmer caricatures?

Did the latest addition of another Der Sturmer caricature improve the article? I don't think so. BTW, it tells only one half of the story: in addition to alleging that the Jews were controlling world financial system, Hitler insisted that at same time they were communists. (even in the same phrase, e.g. in Jan. 30, 1939 speech to the Reichstag). ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, to grant that the addition of this Der Strümer caricature does not improve the article, please note Misplaced Pages's Revert Policy, which I shall quote for you: "Note that reverts are not appropriate if a newer version is no better than the older version. You should save reverts for cases where the new version is actively worse." Ergo, your rationale for deleting the addition is in contravention of Misplaced Pages policy. Furthermore, what can you mean by criticizing what sides of a "story" it tells? It is a classic 1930s caricature exhibiting major racist ideals. Hitler also claimed the Jews were subhuman and all manner of absurd accusations; A caricature is not required to reflect all of Hitler's dogmas to qualify as a valid exhibition of 1930s German anti-semitism.--A. S. A.

We should work to improve articles and make them more encyclopedic, instead of filling them with pointless clutter. IMHO, one Der Sturmer picture is enough. Why don't we dump volumes of anti-Semitic cartoons here? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 23:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2 exhibits from one of Nazi Germany's most infamous papers does not a deluge make. Also, the new addition showcases one of the most repeated slurs against jews, the money issue. This makes it, in my opinion, invaluable to the whole article, and not just the German section.--A. S. A. 00:30, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

While I do not have a specific objection to this particular cartoon, I must point out that you are consistently misinterpreting/misapplying the Revert Policy. Additional materal can indeed detract from the quality of an article, if the information is irrelevant, or the point is already made, or made better in other ways. Too much is as bad as too little, and Humus Sapiens's point is also correct; if 200 new cartoons were added, surely the article content would be significantly worse, and reversion would be entirely justified. Mies van der Rohe's dictum "Less is more" is as applicable to article content as it is to architecture. Jayjg 00:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say about the Revert policy. I do not think your concerns apply here. The Revert Policy statement I quoted applies well to Humus Sapiens' first reasoning for deleting the cartoon, in which he/she stated that the addition does not improve the article. An addition has to render an article actively worse. I responded to the second reasoning, criticizing the non-inclusion of communist affiliation in the cartoon, separately and without recourse to that policy. What's more, I made no argument disputing that 200 more cartoons would be significantly worse. They certainly wood. Since there is no where near that number, the point is moot.--A. S. A. 01:35, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

The point being that just as it is possible for the addition of 200 cartoons to make an article appreciably worse, it is possible for even the addition of 1 cartoon to make an article appreciably worse, depending on the carton and the article, of course. Jayjg 01:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Quite correct. That last qualifier is all-important, of course. It depends on the cartoon. I also agree that 200 additional, perfectly valid and relevant cartoons, would make an article appreciably worse.--A. S. A. 02:19, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

We already mentioned DS once and included its picture, what's the point of doing it again? I propose to get rid of this ugly picture and instead include an encyclopedic list of the most common antisemitic myths. We could start with greediness if you think it is so important. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I get the feeling you are offended personally by the caricature. It's certainly very ugly, you're quite right. I think that makes it all the more poignant in an article on anti-semitism. The list sounds like a good idea, I think you should start on that regardless of the fate of the cartoon. The picture, in my opinion, is remarkably suited to the topic and to it's current location in the German section.--A. S. A. 12:39, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

UkrSSR it the abreviation for Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. This was official name of the part of the Soviet Union which became Ukraine after desintegration of the USSR in 1991. The regional branch of the Academy of Sciencies of the USSR had official name "Academy of Sciencies of UkrSSR". Please do not revert my correction. User:AndriyK

Category:

Old requests for peer review

Archives