Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 15

I noticed this page was protected. ..
I came across this page when I wanted to add a category, but the page has been protected for a while. Looks like there's been an edit war. I'm a new admin, and I don't have particularly strong views about anti-Semitism. I been looking through the history a while now. First, a few points:
 * The procedure for dispute resolution is here: Dispute resolution
 * Reverting is not a valid way to remind anyone of anything. Remind them on the text page; don't revert. See How_to_revert_a_page_to_an_earlier_version
 * NPOV dispute notices are not designed to be permanent. They are to remind us that we need to acheive consensus, so that the notice can be removed. See NPOV dispute

Now as to the substance of the edit war.

Simonides's version deletes a great deal of content. These include:
 * 1) The blood libel
 * 2) Host desicration
 * 3) Martin Luther
 * 4) Pope Clement VIII
 * 5) The Crusades
 * 6) The Pale of Settlement and pogroms in Russia
 * 7) The Bohdan Khmelnytsky massacres
 * 8) most of The Holocaust

It is inexcuseable to delete so much relevant content from this article. I don't believe anyone is challenging their accuracy, and if there are specific points of contention, these should be brought up individually on talk, not by removing huge swaths of content.

In addition, Simonides's version:
 * 1) changes information on Passion Plays to doubt their existence.
 * 2) asserts a "widely held opinion" that "the New Testament by its very message inspires a certain amount of anti-semitism" and makes an irrelevant assertion that some Jews see Jesus in an unfavorable light.
 * 3) moves "Forms of anti-Semitism" from the introduction.
 * 4) includes a new paragraph about anti-Semitism in Islam
 * 5) makes a few other less-important changes.

Concensus on these points could be reached through simple asking, through a straw poll, or through a good-faith effort on an editor's part to mention (not assert) various points of view.

If Simonides can agree to not remove sections of the article, and if all sides can agree to find concensus on Talk instead of reverting, then I think this page can be unprotected. Comments? Quadell (talk) 21:02, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Quadell, congratulations on being made an admin. As far as I know, there is some sort of dispute resolution/mediation that is supposed to be going on with Simonides now, as has been mentioned on the mediation page.  Are you that mediator? Jayjg 21:20, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not. It seems like this page could be unprotected while mediation is going on, if both sides could agree not to revert until a resolution is reached. How about it? Quadell (talk) 12:35, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course. Jayjg 16:35, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hello Quadell, congrats on becoming a new sysop. Thank you for the notes, I appreciate the good will you are bringing to this page. However, before getting involved in a complex dispute I recommend that you read the Talk archives for some context and check with other admin through email or IRC whether the article is currently being examined; this one and some others are currently listed on Requests for Mediation (Archive 8) and several people have been looking into it. - Simonides 21:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * That's wonderful. I have read through the archives; it's a lot of reading. My concern is that the page has been protected for a week, and has been difficult to edit for nearly a month due to a revert war; some users (such as myself) would like to make small changes to the article. It's not a good thing for articles to be protected for long periods. If you are willing to refrain from reversion until the dispute has been resolved, this page can be unprotected, improving Wikipedia for the rest of us. Are you willing to do so? Quadell (talk) 12:35, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe many of us are waiting to make "small changes" to the article. However, the neutrality of numerous contributors to this page is under question and on several occasions - you may know since you have been reading the Talk pages - the "facts" have been presented in such a manner that they only consolidate one POV without making room for adequate historical/ statistical/ critical background (cf. the EUMC report on the rise of anti-Semitism; when I added the Pew report and the rise of Islamophobia report I was called an "anti-Semite" by RK, which began my monitoring of this page and the arguments which have led to the request for mediation.) My suggestion was that we all discuss changes on Talk pages before they are added to the article, but since most contributors (that have been invited to mediation) refuse to do so, I prefer to keep the article protected, to prevent it becoming POV junk. -- Simonides 02:41, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Partisan vitriol

 * I agree. Without dealing with the issues themselves, partisans who engage in reverts are enough in my view to block them from editing the article, while third parties deal with their disputed issues. I suggest simply making a list of partisans for this (among others) article (starting with two) and requesting that they not edit it, while their concerns are being addressed. . -SV 23:20, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)
 * It is a bit facetious and self-indulgent for people to call others "partisans", particularly when they have admitted they do not know or care for the background of the disagreement nor "the issues themselves". Since you don't seem to/ want to present any credible qualifications for judging who the partisans are or what partisanship is in this case, it would be nice if you could refrain from making arbitrary suggestions that only confirm your personal sense of high-mindedness. -- Simonides 02:41, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Whoah! I being one of those who might agree with you politically, some reason now feel compelled to block you or have you banned from this article. If thats the kind of sandpaper youve been handing out for a greeting card, I have to suggest that you take a break and edit something less controversial like knitting or New Imperialism. The term "partisans" as I use it makes no comment on the validity of arguments, rather is used to denote a pair of quarellers who happen to be engaged in a non-productive, counterproductive, or unproductive edit war. So, partisano A and B are equally culpible for the edit war, even if they are not equally logical, reasonalbe etc. Keeping the main partisanos out for a while is a good way to just calm everybody down - pick someone to moderate, and let them implement your changes to the article. -SV 14:36, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)
 * I have been editing other uncontroversial articles for several days now, and the sandpaper is for people full of advice I don't need. What you are suggesting amounts to arbitration - Jayjg requested arbitration and all members declined, so the article is now under mediation and we are waiting for a decision. What I don't understand is why enthusiastic sysops are coming in with unilateral suggestions without consulting or waiting for the other sysops who are already looking into this. Wouldn't it be more like Wiki policy and far more useful for the sysops to work together and agree on a decision, like you suggest the "partisans" on this page do? -- Simonides 19:56, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm still wondering what's going on with the Mediation process; obviously some people have very strong feelings about this article and edits to it, and given the heat generated at just the suggestion of opening the article up for edits, maybe it would be best to wait for the Mediation after all. I haven't been able to see any other way around the insistence from certain quarters that all edits must be approved by them first in Talk: Jayjg 17:41, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey SV, welcome to this talk page -- now that you have experienced some of Simonides' irrational vitriol. I appreciate your desire to be a moderating influence here, but I'd like to point out a danger (offensive, to boot) in Simonides declaration "the neutrality of numerous contributors to this page is under question." Note the passive construction -- what he means is he questions some people's neutrality, although of course he doesn't question his own. Be that as it may, I think the basic idea of the sentence is wrong-headed. There is no expectation that contributors to Wikipedia be "neutral," and the neutrality of contributors has generally not been (and generally should not be) an issue. We expect articles to be neutral with regard to points of view, and one way this is achieved is by presenting different points of view, and we hope that many different contributors, with different perspectives and backgrounds, will eventually achieve this. It is true that sometimes a contributor displays such a conisistently high level of unconstructive and disruptive interventions that he or she is banned. However, I believe that until someone is banned we must all be committed to working together with people of different points of view, to develop a good NPOV article. SV, read what Simonides is writing carefully -- in effect, he is saying that some people (namely, people who don't agree with him) should be banned from this page. He has no right to do this. OF COURSE there is value to discussing contentious changes on the talk-page. But no one contributor has a right to police that discussion or to decide who is a valid contributor or not. If it isn't obvious, by the way, my objection is to Simonides' classifying and labeling some people as not neutral (and, in your case, not qualified). This is ad homenim and disruptive. Discussion should involve debating the status of words that someone wants to put in an article. It shouldn't (at least not on this page) involve the status of contributors. Simonides simply has not authority -- no one person has this authority -- to judge another editor's qualifications to participate in this discussion. But this is his MO, all along -- to avoid reasoned discussion with other contributors, to be hostile and dismissive of anyone who doesn't cower to his claims of authority. Slrubenstein


 * Hi Sr. It is strange that you would interpret "the neutrality of numerous contributors to this page is under question," as coming from someone of 'irrational vitriol,' and yet impart to that same irrational person the articulation to construct a sentence to imply a meaning with any degree of subtlety whatsoever. His implication is wrong, certianly, but irrational and articulate construction dont go hand in hand IMHO. And as for vitriolic, well thats something that requires community correction, not a diagnosis of "irrational" so as to simply exacerbate things. "There is no expectation that contributors to Wikipedia be "neutral," and the neutrality of contributors has generally not been (and generally should not be) an issue." I wonder if the Board would agree with this (not counting the two financiers)


 * "...he is saying that some people...should be banned from this page. He has no right to do this." Well of course not. That is not even in question, now is it?  He has every right to say what he likes, and his rank in terms of persuasiveness will go down. He can try to build concensus on even handed policy, but not to unilaterally ban people. Speaking carefully, rationally, thoughtfully, etc= get respect. Speak with exasperation (I detect a little in your voice too) and people want you to calm down before you start spreading that around. What Im hearing is that everybody here is to one degree or another exasperated and frustrated with the level of communication, and its not just with this article. This may be a failure of the participants in terms of their character ('bad anti-Semites,' 'bad Zionists,' etc.) or it can be viewed as a need, which the community to do something about. It's long been proposed that in such cases, blocking the edit warriors or partisan pairs from the page, for a reasonable amount of time isnt such a bad idea, while others may still edit the page that it reflects the concerns of the partisanos. This has worked well in the past, before the WP:PP rules took away any degrees of applicability for the page protection. Things are so much speedier now, with so many new people coming in, I say: Reflex page protections, anons, newbies, and partisan sysops complain on the talk pages, other sysops must mediate and can edit the article at will. Its almost there, but the degrees are not explicitly stated. If this was Simonedes' goal, then certainly hes gone about it the completely wrong way, and has outcast himself to some degree, to some degree of time, until his...exasperation... simmers down. -SV 19:06, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Yes, you are right I am exasperated, at least a little -- thanks for another sane comment. Still, the thing is the page has been blocked for some time, and the point of that is to give everyone some time to simmer down. The question is, continue blocking, or unblock, the page? Whatever we do, I think it is important that the policy be applied to all contributors (I know in this you agree). I think Quadell made an exceptionally calm, even-handed, and appropriate comment concerning the issues. I think you and I agree that there should be a community process that help people reach constructive decisions concerning articles. Short of banning, I do not think people with strong points of view should ever be excluded from this process on an equal footing with others. I also still object to anyone who relies on ad homenim arguments. Slrubenstein
 * What d'y'all think of Protected page/Draft? -SV 20:34, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein, if your absurd and hyperbolic interpretations of my posts are not unconstructive, irrationally vitriolic ad hominem, I don't know what is: my arguments don't "rely" on ad hominem - that would not make it an argument - they simply haven't been refuted so far and if ad hominems have been mixed in with argument, I was usually only replying in kind. Your only contributions of late to this article have been similar, previous interjections on the Talk pages where you defended the distortion of edit histories (cf. when I provided or asked for two or more views on any issue, which were being deleted by RK, you blathered something about my "censorship" and how I should try to present NPOV by accounting for more than one point of view.) Do you think you could make use of your own suggestions and stay away from this page till you can collect yourself? -- Simonides 19:56, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simonides, I do not recall ever accusing you of censorship. Please tell me where, exactly, I "blathered" about your "censorship?" Slrubenstein


 * Well ain't this just a fine way to simmer down and make friends. Its easy for editors jumping in to make mistakes, and perhaps if you toned your stuff down a little bit, Slr might (seeing as he seems less exasperated) offer an apology for any mistake or unevenhandedness (?) that he might have made. Or should I just let hockey players continue to play dentist...? -SV 20:30, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

SV, it is true I have been unpleasant on this page, but as you may witness from my other discussions on unrelated articles I am actually a very calm editor. What I have no tolerance for is 1) patronizing attitudes 2) distortion and/or lies. If it is possible for people to refrain from both, I can get along with them just fine - for what it's worth, I am quite willing to start over on a blank page with everyone here. -- Simonides 21:02, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I appreciate you turning the angry vibe down, and I'd like to add from experience that being involved in the article debate must be weighed with our own current mood to be engaged, receptive, and productive in collaboration. Some of us have learned over the years (years?? *gasp*) that the take-it-easy approach works so much better. And the take-it-easy people can sort of put out the soothing vibe which usually scares the diatribalists away. Slr is usually a very take-it-easy kind of guy, and I just had to remind you both about the mental health aspects of "working" on wikipedia.
 * PS: "Patronizing attitudes" are not won over with similar patronizing, and everybody is different: Adam "I have a Phd" Carr's patronising is a bit self-effacing, if you can pick up on the vibe. My patronizing is more like a Monica Lewinsky handbag over the head, after which I'll shake your hand and say "the lady who wacked you went that way, and said something about being pregnant." We need a clinic and staff to run it - thats what we need. :) -SV 22:37, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)


 * Try anyway. Grit your teeth as hard as necessary. Working effectively with people who you think are acting like completely obnoxious idiots is pretty much a necessary skill on Wikipedia. This goes for all of you, by the way - David Gerard 22:13, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Some of us more than others, David. ;) -SV 22:37, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

okay, a "new" page
I am more than happy to put any acrimony behind us and try to start fresh. That said, I'd like to return to Quadell's comment. He listed 8 sets of material Simonides deleted, and 5 differences between Simonedes version and the previous version. the first thing I'd like to know is whether Simonides believes Quadell's account is a fair summary of the situation. If it is, I have more questions, but I want to give Simonides a chance to respond to Quadell's account -- is there anything Simonides thinks is missing, or misrepresented, or simply mistaken? Slrubenstein


 * It should be pretty obvious to anyone who is not coming to this page for the first time, unlike Quadell, that Quadell's comments on "Simonides' version" - ie implying that I wrote up all the changes myself, or took the trouble of deleting everything mentioned - is quite unfair. I merely reverted material in the article to its earlier status soon after the last unprotection, and as you can see the changes between those two versions are minor and were previously agreed on: . RK's material was simply reverted, as previously explained, because he refused to discuss it first; a look at his edits (what Quadell believes was "deleted") will also show he was deleting previous material with no prior or later acknowledgement, merely replacing it with sketchy passages that were either not NPOV enough, or for which main articles were already linked. -- Simonides 00:51, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It's all very well for you to spend days viciously insulting those you disagree with, and deleting everything they include in the article "on principle", and then claim you'll be "happy" to "put any acrimony behind [you]" (so long as all future edits are pre-approved by you), but others might not be so "happy" with this outcome. Jayjg 02:56, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Nicely put, Jayjg. I agree completely. "Others" are not happy with the outcome that all future edits may have to be pre-approved by everyone collectively, which includes me, ie a POV critic, ie someone who will scrutinise edits, ie someone who may not agree to every single sentence, quote and webpage as "evidence", ie trouble for those who believe they are surrounded by anti-Semites, or those who believe "Arabs" and anti-Semites make natural friends und so weiter!... -- Simonides 03:59, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * As before, it must be you who is making these claims (in this case that "Arabs and anti-Semties make natural friends"), since I've never made those claims or even implied them. However, I have been to the other page, and responded yet again to your attempts to completely subvert the meaning of quite clear statements.  In any event, I'm really just waiting for mediation, as your posts on this page prove yet again that you are not amenable to working with those you disagree with in a reasonable or non ad hominem way. Jayjg 05:11, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * This is what you wrote: (anti-Semites) still use (Zionist) as a code-word, particularly so that they're not seen as "half-crazed". As for them hating Zionism, yes, they hate it because it is Jewish, and because they're trying to make friends with Arabs and this was my reply: There is only one implication to the latter part of your statement and it is that "anti-Semites are trying to make friends with Arabs" - suggesting that all "Arabs" are alike, and that anti-Semitism appeases them somehow - speaking so broadly and negatively of any ethnic group constitutes racism, and your remark is just as racist as the (anti-Semitic) website Sam posted a link to. Trying to pass this off on my perceived amenability or on ad hominems (your sole argument) is cheap, like your racism. -- Simonides 06:05, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * And this was my reply: There is only one implication to the latter part of my statement? What nonsense. Yes, you would prefer to promote a particular implication, in order to besmirch me, but that implication is one you have invented. Anti-Semites are looking for allies, and they believe they might find them among Arabs, so they are reaching out to them; whether or not they can or will make an alliance with any particular Arab or Arab group is an entirely different question. No, I'm afraid it is only you who thinks "all Arabs are alike". Jayjg 06:59, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Let's see (repeated on the other Talk page):
 * *anti-Semites ... hate (Zionism) because it is Jewish, and because they're trying to make friends with Arabs. (note: no specific mention of any Arab group, much less any fundamentalist group, just "Arabs" in general.)
 * *anti-Semites ... hate (Zionism) because it is Jewish, and because they're trying to make friends with the French.
 * *anti-Semites ... hate (Zionism) because it is Jewish, and because they're trying to make friends with Leftists.
 * *anti-Semites ... hate (Zionism) because it is Jewish, and because they're trying to make friends with Asians.
 * *anti-Semites ... hate (Zionism) because it is Jewish, and because they're trying to make friends with Afro-Americans.
 * *anti-Semites ... hate (Zionism) because it is Jewish, and because they're trying to make friends with Russians.
 * Sounds like ignorance and prejudice to me any way you interpret it. -- Simonides 07:38, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * How does forgetting to mention that not all Arabs are anti-Semites make someone a racist? People don't always put a disclaimer before every generalization. Trey Stone 06:09, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand what constitutes a racist comment - it doesn't declare itself racist. Once common anti-Semitic slurs such as "Jews are money-lenders" are examples of "forgetting to mention" that generalizations are generalizations, or not using adequate disclaimers before every generalization. They are enough to get one legally convicted of making racist remarks. -- Simonides 06:19, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obvious the quote just implied that it is more common for Arabs to hold anti-Semitic views than people of certain other races. That's not hateful, and it's not racism. Trey Stone 06:28, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe Jayjg's statement is getting lost in all the text, so let me repeat it: (anti-Semites) still use (Zionist) as a code-word, particularly so that they're not seen as "half-crazed". As for them hating Zionism, yes, they hate it because it is Jewish, and because they're trying to make friends with Arabs. The only thing the quote implies where "Arabs" are concerned is that one can "make friends" with "Arabs" by being anti-Semitic; it is a straightforward phrase and there is no mention of other races, whether this is a generalization, or even whether it is "common" for them to hold such views. It is a hateful and racist comment. -- Simonides 06:39, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * You've been popping too many PCPills, sir. Trey Stone 06:46, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * In any event, you have again proved adept at trying to turn the subject from the article at hand, and the protocol required to improve it, to those with whom you disagree, even going so far as to draw completely unwarranted and highly racist conclusions from statements made on the Talk: pages of other articles. Well, I'm not interested in the personal stuff, as I've said many times before.  I will wait for mediation, and feel sure the process will allow improvement of the article to proceed. Jayjg 07:04, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Snerk. -- Simonides 07:38, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I guess my attempt to put acrimony behind us didn't work. For the moment, let me simply point out that Simonides point, "Sounds like ignorance and prejudice to me" is simply irrelevant. This is not a chat-room, and it doesn't matter whether Simonides likes a view or doesn't like it. What is relevant is that there are views out there that have been taken by important public figures and are held by significant numbers of people. Such views must tfor these reasons alone be represented in the Encyclopedia. OF course, these views should be contextualized, and other views need to be presented as well. My point is, it just doesn't matter how such views "sound" to Simonides (or to me). Slrubenstein


 * It matters a great deal. If something is racist, it doesn't belong in the article. If it sounds racist, it should be looked at. If the contributor is making racist comments, then s/he should be checked for inserting racist POV. You're right this is not a chat room. Which is why racism should be noted and discussed instead of being tossed aside. Your post suggests you are insensitive to racist comments that don't appear to affect you personally. And no, you didn't make the least effort to put any acrimony behind, don't pretend otherwise. -- Simonides 19:19, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You miss my point. Please stop projecting. Slrubenstein


 * Slr, could you please indicate which point I missed out on. I do not see one. -- Simonides 20:04, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You miss two points: first, whether or not something is racist is itself a matter of POV. If within the public discourse on a particular topic people hold views that others consider racist, we do not exclude it from the article (i.e. you are wrong that "If something is racist, it doesn't belong in the article" -- an article on anti-Semitism by its very nature is going to provide an account of racist views, for example. What we do is include these views but contextualize them and provide other views.  Second, that you consider a view racist in and of itself is not relevant to the article.  What is important is that some major participant in a public discourse considers a view racist -- then we include this critical view in the article. By the way, if you feel I am still being acrimonious why don't you exaplain in what way? Slrubenstein


 * I think it should be pretty clear to all that Jayjg's remark above was incredibly derogatory and racist - if you cannot see that, I seriously doubt any qualitative judgements you can make over what is POV and what non-POV. Secondly, your sophistry isn't quite up to snuff - racism itself does not enter an article except by way of quotation, and to argue that contextualizing racist material is the same as writing racist material is disingenuous - there is a distinct difference between writing that "Anti-Semites say X, Y and Z" and simply inserting X, Y, Z into an article which, it should be obvious, is what I meant should be avoided. As for your acrimony, trying to deny it would start a juvenile game I don't want to engage in; it is quite a simple matter to make sneering and disingenuous remarks as you have above and then re-interpret them in a suitable light (and for the record, I have not tried to deny any unpleasantness from my side - unlike you - only offered to put it aside.) -- Simonides 06:39, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I've read it again, and I think it should now be pretty clear to everyone that my remark was neither derogatory nor racist. Anti-Semites believe they can find allies among Arabs, and are using "anti-Zionism" as a tool to do so.  This does not imply that they can actually do so, or that Arabs themselves are anti-Semitic, only that anti-Semites believe they can use professions of anti-Zionism to gain allies in their fight against the group they see as their "enemy".  Jayjg 19:00, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * No Simonides, Jayjg's remarks were neither derogatory nor racist. The only person with a problem here is you, as you have attacked eevry single contributor here with libel. You are twisting other people's words, and then attacking them for beliefs that they do not have and statements that they did not make. That is a terrible thing to do. RK 22:30, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Trying again
I am not interested in what RK did in the past, or what Simonides did, or who was rude to whom. I only care about the article. I would like the article to be unprotected, I would like it to be the best it can be, and your problems with each other are your own business.

The article was protected nine days ago due to an edit war. I don't think we're going to get to the point where everyone is polite to each other, or everyone agrees on who was at fault, so let's focus on the article itself. I think there is a chance we can find a consensus regarding that.

What disagreements are there regarding the article itself?

There is lots of (seemingly non-controversial) info that has been reverted by various parties. These include The blood libel, Host desicration, Martin Luther, Pope Clement VIII, The Crusades, The Pale of Settlement and pogroms in Russia, The Bohdan Khmelnytsky massacres, most of The Holocaust, and a new paragraph about anti-Semitism in Islam. Does anyone think this information should be omitted? If not, let's agree to put it back in.

There are also disagreements about the section on Passion Plays, the New Testament's alleged anti-semitism, where "Forms of anti-Semitism" should be, and others. (I may be leaving a disagreement or two out.) Can we all agree to put these things to a straw poll, and abide by this consensus? If so, then we're getting somewhere.

Quadell (talk) 14:10, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree whole-heartedly about putting back in material concerning blood libels, Crusades, pogrpms, the Holocaust, etc. Slrubenstein

Meta-Strawpoll

 * I would like this page to be unprotected; I think the non-controversial reverted material mentioned above should be inserted. I think we should have strawpolls about other disagreements, and we should abide by the consensus.

I agree
 * 1) Quadell (talk) 14:10, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Gzuckier 14:54, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) David Gerard 15:38, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) The present situation benefits no-one. Although I note that most of the disputants have actually agreed to try mediation, which is excellent news.
 * 4) I don't like protection being used in this way, but I will say I agree w Simonides about strawpolls being the be-all end-all. They are handy, but signifigantly imperfect. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Sam [Spade] 22:55, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I disagree
 * 1) RK - We cannot unprotect the page. Simonides has vowed that he will continue to vandalize it by removing huge chunks of consensus text, and will refuse to allow anyone to do any edit at all unless he approves. He also has slandered every contributor to this page other than himself. Until Simonides agrees with mediation or is banned, there is nothing we can do. Currently, he is totally out of control. RK
 * I don't think he slandered me... Sam [Spade] 04:20, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Jayjg I disagree as well; the mediation process is apparently moving along, and I think we should let Cimon (the mediator) decide how to proceed. Jayjg 16:45, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments Many others have noted this about him as well. He is also doing the same thing on the Philosophy article. RK
 * Again, I don't care what he did or she did, or who was rude to whom, etc. You should agree if you would like the page to be unprotected. Don't disagree just because you think someone else won't agree. Simonides hasn't voted yet. Quadell (talk) 18:20, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * WP:RFM seems to indicate that he has not merely agreed to mediation, but was the one asking for it; and that you have agreed to it - David Gerard 15:42, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * David, you missed a lot of Simonides letters since then! After his insincere call for mediation, he then continued to call everyone else ignorant, and has since stated that he won't allow anyone to write anything.
 * Um... where? Also, I sent you letters? Earth to RK. -- Simonides 22:07, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The philosophy article has been protected from you; there was no serious disagreement before you showed up, and your only contribution has been to randomly substitute or repeat carefully worded material, because you were trolling for edit wars as you have done before, documented here Requests for comment/RK. -- Simonides 22:07, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * So what's your vote, Simonides? Quadell (talk) 22:48, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * If the mediator can be found, I'm sure it'll be worth a try - David Gerard 16:11, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Two comments: 1) Quadell notes "non-controversial reverted material" should be inserted (which no one sane should mind), but this is superfluous because the whole page is about how to agree on what is non-controversial! Strawpolls are a particularly inadequate way of dealing with complex issues - if the majority of users always have one POV, that POV is always going to be recommended, regardless of facts, and the whole point of Wikipedia being open to any editor with any valuable contribution is lost - we're not after popularity here. 2) I have already told Quadell that Mediation and Protection were the result of consultation with sysops I spoke to before he showed up, and that if he is unhappy with the speed of things, he should consult with the Mediation Committee. I am not sure why he is so keen to flex his new sysop powers and pursue some unilateral action - are we to assume that sysops here work in a completely arbitrary manner and the existence of a mediation committee is moot because other sysops have other plans? -- Simonides 22:07, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Please try to be civil, Simonides. I'm not flexing my sysop powers -- I haven't done anything I couldn't have done before I was a sysop. And strawpolls, by their nature, are not unilateral. So far, it's 4 to 1, multi-lateral. I'm also aware that a mediation is going on between a few users here. That's great, but I'm not concerned about that. I'm concerned about this page, which is what this strawpoll is about. I'm also aware that this isn't a formal vote, and it isn't binding on anyone. It's just a way to gauge consensus. I think, Simonides, if you put this good advice into practice, you'd have a much more pleasant time here at Wikipedia. Quadell (talk) 01:11, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * I am being more than civil with you Quadell, giving you pointers and links to clarify the situation for you, despite the fact you are ignoring my various objections. The problems surrounding this page, and the users under mediation, are not really distinct issues; polling may be multi-lateral, but the decision to solve issues around polls was yours and was uni-lateral; none of those who have provided consensus for your suggestion have been involved in this article previously; if you are not concerned about the mediation process, then I seriously doubt your ability to make judgements about the persistence of controversial material on this page which has led to the mediation; in brief, you are oversimplifying issues to make it appear that the content of the article is separate from the disputes arising around it, and following other false leads in believing that those disputes are merely personal and have more to do with personalities than facts, and that the facts or their presentation exist in isolation. On the contrary, the disputes have arisen because of a great difficulty in stemming resurgent POVs, and in unprotecting the article you will merely start the cycle all over again, which simply adds to the issues already being mediated; if you haven't understood this from reading the 20/so Talk pages (only about five of which I appear on) then I object to your pursuing apparently helpful resolutions until you understand the machinations here better (however I am open to having the page unprotected only if Cimon agrees this will not burden the mediation process, and if we can all agree on material here before it is added to the article.) -- Simonides 01:50, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Third option

 * 1) SVI propose an ordered approach to editing the article: Slrubenstein and I edit the article as an amicable pair, representing the interests of the disputees.. Stephen Rubenstein is Jewish professor, and I am a "proven" anti-Semite, (sic) so between us we have enough expertise and qualification to deal with the material. We will set up a talk:Anti-Semitism/Draft page for the partisanos on this page who have concerns, and for other edits, while the page is protected. A shortlist of perhaps 4 moderators should be in contact for making edits added to the draft. Judging by the attitude of polarization on this page, I think that it should remain protected long-term, that a shorter long term protected header be changed to reflect this. This is a secondary issue, however; but both of the above ideas related to the proposed formal policy change on Protected page/Draft. Dances require steps; so does the moderation of perpetual edit wars like this one. -SV 04:16, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

Wikipedia Talk:Protected page/Draft
 * YIKES! Much as I appreciate SV's confidence in me, I am not sure I am best suited for this task.  Were we to create some sort of draft committee, I would nominate Danny and Quadel, and then I am sure SV and I would try to moderate whatever acrimonious discussion on the part of others will surely emerge.  I have no idea whether Danny or Quadel would even want to do this, though.  I think that mediation between Simonides, Jayjg, and RK is the first step, actually. Slrubenstein
 * The point isnt "to create some sort of draft committe" - the point is to create a process by which these conflicts are dealt with, wether the conlfict or disagree is resolved, cooled down, or not. ;) -SV 15:04, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, nothing personal, but if we were to go down this route I would see Danny and Quadel as the draft committee. Jayjg 19:29, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The point isnt "to create some sort of draft committe" - the point is to create a process by which these conflicts are dealt with, whether the conflict or disagreement is resolved, cooled down, or not. Also, the process by which people announce their desire to be a article moderator, and the converse process by which people grumble about the poor selection of choices should be formalised. This is all Im interested in, frankly. ;) -SV 15:04, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I have had quite enough problems with this article already, as well as with most of the other Jewish-related articles. It has been a constant source of frustration to me: the incessant bickering here by people who could use a dose of humility is a real chillul hashem (those who need to, know what that means). I therefore decline to work on this article. Danny 20:51, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Thats a nay vote from Danny - I suppose since he and Prof. Rubenstein declined, Uncle Ed would seem the most wise choice. I notice hes chimed in at the bottom here. -SV 15:11, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm honored -- but I wouldn't want the article to be semi-permanently protected. I would certainly be delighted to work with anyone here on a draft, especially if the work were relatively acrimony-free. (Sorry to see you go, by the way, Danny.) Quadell (talk) 15:09, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Im not talking about permanent protection or a draft - Im talking about keeping the page protected for the forseeable future until conflicts die down (note the subtle difference) and letting two article moderators make edits on the page itself, (In contradiction to current PP policy) while everyone else is confined to the draft and talk. Besides, when called for service, people normally dont complain about the terms; The first step would be to find the second; Mr Ed? Then the two of you clear the talk page, let people restate their grievences in as few words as possible confine to 50-100 words (these people can be long in the wind) and just work on ideas for how to represent these. The protected page notice should be changed to reflect the kind of protection its in. -SV
 * Steve, I notice you wrote up the draft yourself. May I add a comment (which we should probably take to the Talk page of your proposal) - defining or assigning "roles" to contributors is an oversimplification of views and only a short step away from the ridiculous nature of two-party politics, and two short steps away from demonization of well-defined parties: people won't be able to contribute without being labelled first, and the labels will become an issue rather than individual views and contributions themselves (ie I believe in the cluster of views model rather than the synthesis of two antitheses which sidelines everything else). With that caveat, your proposal is quite fair but instead of you forming a pair with Slrubenstein, I nominate Danny, Zero, or Viajero (no offense - I have followed and trust the contributions of the other users on disputed articles, but don't know much about you). -- Simonides 04:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment by Simonedes and my response - on

-SV 17:06, 2004 Jul 23


 * Steve, could you please move back that part of my post which pertains to members on the draft committee - it belongs here. Also, I see you are failing to get "the trust of the community" (your own standards), so I was right in pointing out my impersonal lack of trust had little to do with your diagnoses. -- Simonides 19:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, Quadell and Danny are fine choices, and lets leave it at that. :) -SV 15:02, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I reiterate that I recuse myself from this. Danny 15:20, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fourth option: unprotect
Let's not let one or two users force the rest of us to have this page locked. If anyone arbitrarily removes useful contributions from others -- instead of discussing these changes -- this may be grounds for Arbitration Committee action.

Mav and Fred are likely to rule that any troublemaker(s) abstain from editing this article for a while... --Uncle Ed 20:08, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Nah, let's let Cimon decide these things. Jayjg 20:13, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I believe Ed is keen to see another edit war begin; on the Request for Mediation page he expressed enthusiasm twice over the prospect of mediation leading to arbitration. Since he has ignored all of our objections above, and the strawpoll + comments which also show that recent contributors do not want the article unprotected, I have requested protection again. -- Simonides 06:42, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

When seen as unjustified? Those favorable to them and their views?
"Anti-Semitism is hostility toward Jewish people, particularly when seen as unjustified.

As defined by Jews and those favorable to them and their views, it's often defined as ranging from ad hoc antagonism towards Jews on an individual level to the institutionalized prejudice once prevalent in European societies, of which the highly explicit ideology of Hitler's National Socialism was perhaps the most extreme form."

Huh? When is hostility toward Jewish people justified? Did Jews define anti-Semitism? Do non-Jews have a different definition? Who are these people who are "favorable to them and their views"? How do we know they are "favorable to them and their views"? Jayjg 20:19, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) Only justified when Jewish people do something so bad as to merit a hostile response. Like, suppose I'm Jewish and I steal your Kosher hot dog in the park, you might say 'give that back you greedy Heeb' ;-)
 * 2) The article will have to provide the many sources of definitions for anti-Semitism. Please help with this.
 * 3) Christians who see Judaism as the forerunner to Christianity, are often supportive of Jews; Catholic nuns hid Jewish children during the Holocaust, etc.
 * 4) It's hard to recognize a favor, eh? Well, I guess they're sincere when they don't want anything in return beyond maybe a thank you... --Uncle Ed 20:36, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If a Jew steals your kosher hot dog, that justifies hostility towards Jewish people? On the contrary, hostility towards a people based on the perceived or real faults of individuals in that group is the very heart of prejudice/racism.
 * As for definitions for anti-Semitism, I'm interested in any "better" ones you can find.
 * While many people may be favorable to Jews, in what way did they, or "Jews", "define" anti-Semitism, or give the definition you included?
 * This makes no sense.
 * --Jayjg 20:51, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1. I agree with you. 2. So am I. 3. I simply made it up. 4. Okay. --Uncle Ed 21:09, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See User talk:Humus sapiens/AS for a try at "better" definitions. -SV

Moderation edit process
Why not "unprotect," but only allow the two agreeable and agreed upon moderators: Perhaps Quadell and Uncle Ed, to keep the page technically "protected," (what does that mean, anyway - most everyone here is a sysop) but change the header to a moderation edit in progress, signed by each of them. Made a template:, which gives:

-SV 15:43, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If "Uncle Ed" is "Ed Poor", given his rather startling and highly POV recent edits, I don't think he should be one of the "agreed upon" moderators. Jayjg 20:58, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Protected
Ed Poor unprotected the page and started editing, along with Jayjg, and though it was amicable ("stop messing around"), Jay left this note on Simonedes' talk page:
 * "The sysop Ed Poor has gone ahead an unprotected the article and started making some rather startling changes. Would it be possible for you to start getting involved?"

So I thought it was a good idea to stop things now, to force some gameplan for how to proceed. Quadell has not yet responded to my invite to participate. -SV
 * Correction Steve - he left a note on Cimon's page, not mine. Thanks for protecting the article. -- Simonides 22:01, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * As Simonides as pointed out, the request was made at Cimon's page; the request was made there because Cimon is supposed to mediating the issues here, though at last count there are at least 3 other admins who seem to want to take charge of the situation. And I didn't edit anything, I just reverted Ed's edits; in fact, I didn't do a good enough job of that, since I missed a third controversial paragraph he managed to slip in. "so called blood libel"?   What does that mean? Jayjg 20:58, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What is happening here? The page is marked protected but wasn't protected. I'm going to remove the notice unless Stevertigo actually protects it or someone explains why it should be protected (edit war, consensus to protect to work out differences, vandalism, etc.) -- Cecropia | Talk 05:55, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Steve, I'm not sure if you're enjoying the practical joke, but some of us don't appreciate the games being played and it ought to have been made clearer that the article was not really protected. If the article has to be protected, protect it; if you're not sure, then put up a note asking people to refer to the Talk page first; don't leave things done half-way to create confusion among other users and newcomers to the article. -- Simonides 06:01, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * It appears that Ed is not the only one who has been "messing around" on this page. Jayjg 20:58, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * FYI I did protect it, and if there were a way of knowing who actually unprotected it, there should be some sanction against them. I tried a DB query, but these are still turned off. -SV 16:30, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Steve, when I checked the protection log there was no listing of a protection edit between Ed's and Cecropia's. If there has somehow been a breach it should be mentioned on arbitration/elsewhere right away. -- Simonides 21:09, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Well Im damn sure I clicked that button, but if I didnt, well that must have been my mistake. Arbitrate me if you want. Go right ahead. :} -SV 00:52, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about you, but anyone who may have meddled with the Protection tag without announcing it. -- Simonides 01:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, anyone would have been in their rights to edit the page, if it werent actually protected - the header alone does not imply protection as much as someone forgetting to remove it. -SV 05:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * What we're asking is whether you protected the article, or simply replicated the header. As I understand it you can't do both - non-sysops can edit articles with any header, but not protected ones. -- Simonides 05:16, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Taking Charge
I don't want to take charge, but here's my 2 cents on what has been happening.


 * There is an ever-recurring edit war an the anti-Semitism page.
 * A few other Wikipedians not involved in the edit war have tried various ways to resolve the conflict.

The main options advocated have been:
 * 1) Leave the page protected and duke it out on the talk page (this is the default choice, i.e., what I predict will happen if no other choice is agreed upon).
 * 2) Leave the page protected, but allow one or more elected spokesmen to determine consensus by reading the talk page, and have these spokesmen apply the consensus to the article (problem: no one can agree on who those spokesmen should be)
 * 3) Drop out of the process (perhaps the most-commonly voiced 'alternative', e.g., Danny said he's out of here if I recall correctly)
 * 4) Unprotect the page and try real hard to make some neutral edits (my favorite option, although Simonides and Jayjg have objected several times).

Hmm. I seem to alternate between options 3 and 4, but option always seems to result. So I guess I'll just have to think of something different. Danny, let's discuss this on our trip to Boston -- if you're still going (details by private e-mail, please :-) --Uncle Ed 14:48, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I like option two, but without that enourmous header at top.
 * I think I should drop out of this too. Ever since this page was protected I have been going around tweaking Wikipedia and there is a great deal of constructive work to be done; I doubt there will be much progress and a clear shift to NPOV on articles like this one however, until there are several users more knowledgeable, firm and persistent than I am. My only concern is that Wikipedia always shows up on searches for anti-Semitism, and our material is borrowed by other web sites who do not use our disclaimers, so it is not just enough to leave a POV tag up - strong POV on a single article can make several readers distrustful of the rest; but if the policy makers don't find it objectionable, then I guess it shouldn't bother me. -- Simonides 21:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Realizing that life is short, Simonides has gotten tired of squabbling and chosen option 3. A fine choice, and now that you can look back on it all, what was all the squabbling really about anyway? -SV 01:01, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Garbage and POV. Retracting doesn't mean changing one's opinion :). -- Simonides 01:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perahps the only solution is to create two pages, AntiSemitism-Against and AntiSemitism-In Favor of. ( I have what might be termed a bias regarding this issue, which I will keep to myself, yet I can't help but feel that my position is shared by the majority of people on Earth who could pass a test for mental/emotional health; which makes me wonder yet again the question, so relevant in recent current events, as to why it is so hard to keep the nutcases from screwing up life for the rest of us? ) Gzuckier 17:19, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * LOL! Thanks for a sane message ;). -- Simonides 21:00, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * This 'opinion split' idea is the same as Fred Bauder's, approach which has its merits, if your into that sort of thing. He's got quite a crew over there; many of them WP rejects - nutcases is perhaps a good term for them. "Bring to me the stone which the builders have rejected..."!!??-SV 01:01, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Danny's constructive criticisms
Once again, this article has become a focus of paranoid hysteria. It is depressing to me, as someone who actually studies the historical phenomenon professionally. I have taken a vow of silence for a long time, not wanting to get into any edit wars over this, however, I think it is time for me to speak up again. First, let me state that anti-Semitism is a very ancient phenomenon that has evolved and developed over more than two thousand years. There was anti-Semitism in the ancient world and, unfortunately, there is anti-Semitism today as well. It is no accident that one author entitled a work on anti-Semitism The Longest Hatred.

Two millennia of hatred is a long time. There have, in that time, been many different manifestations of anti-Semitism: ideological and religious, socio-economic, and most recently racial. That is my problem with the article. It seems to give excessive coverage to current manifestations of anti-Semitism while practically ignoring historical anti-Semitism. It fails to classify the various forms of anti-Semitism and, instead, lumps them all together into some amorphous category. It fails to distinguish between victims, thereby diminishing the suffering of those who were killed, often brutally, only because they were Jews--the implicit comparison of an article condemning Israel with the gassing of a trainload of children is tendentious at best. Personally, I find it anti-Semitic because it trivializes genuine suffering. Obviously, the failure to distinguish between genuine political criticism and the Holocaust is no less objectionable. It is a clear example of misusing the Holocaust for political ends, and that is vulgar.

Here are some facts about the article. There are 25 external links, more than any other article I know of, yet all of them relate to modern (post-Holocaust) anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Not a whimper of a mention of the Crusades, the pogroms, the blood libels, Martin Luther's statement .. Nothing. There is no mention of the expulsions from England or France or of the Crusades (though the little that does cover the medieval period does have a couple of paragraphs about the 20th century). Nothing about ghettoization. Dreyfus is a redirect, as is the Pale of Settlement. Nothing about Kishinev in 1903, and nothing about Chmielnicki except a redirect tacked on at the bottom (the massacres decimated the Jewish community of Poland and the Ukraine). There is nothing about any of the anti-Semitic movements that led to the rise of Nazism, of Gobineau, of Chamberain (Houston, not Neville), etc. There is, however, a lengthy bit on anti-Semitism in the New Testament (What is that saying? That Christianity is essentially anti-Semitic? It says precisely that, as long as there is no debate there, and who wants to get into a flame war?). There is a decent piece on anti-Semitism in the ancient world (I know. I wrote it) but even there, the link is to Christianity--hardly relevant to Apion or Tacitus.

Perhaps the biggest problem is that once you take out the links, etc., the article has about 3,700 words. Of these, almost 1,400 are about contemporary "anti-Semitism." That is almost 40 percent for the last 20 years: 40 percent for a total of 1 percent of the time. Given that proportion, I can only assume that the writers think that the other 1,980 years weren't that important after all. The hell with the Crusades, the Black Death, the blood libels, the pogroms, the ghettos, the massacres, the expulsions, the degradations, the yellow hats and badges and stars, the Inquisition, the forced conversions, the Holocaust. A newspaper article condemned Israel, and someone threw a rock at a synagogue. Yidden shrei gevalt! That is all that really matters. That's what it all boils down to. To me, the very fact that all of these other instances are belittled like that is the real threat of anti-Semitism, not the ranting of a handful of neo-Nazi extremists.

I have said my piece and will go back into my self-imposed silence. I imagine that the Sicarii will continue to make a mockery of real victims, real atrocities, and real memories. Siyag le'chochmah shetikah. Danny 00:21, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Danny, none of us here are making a mockery of real victims of anti-Semitism. However, your critical points about what this article is lacking are taken to heart. Most of the topics you mention are now in the article, and practically none of this article is now about modern forms of anti-Semitism. RK 02:51, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Judaism in the New Testament
It seems to me that this section is rather POV. The first paragraph is okay, but the list of "Some examples of anti-Semitism in the New Testament" is inherently POV. (Since, of course, there are plenty of people who believe that a) the New Testament is not anti-Semitic and b) even if parts of it are, those might not be them.)

Better wording might be "Some examples of purported anti-Semitism in the New Testament are:". That way

However, they are still taken out of context. The second one is not actually from Acts 13:46-48 but rather Acts 7:51-53 (I think I'll go ahead and correct that), which means it comes from Stephen, and he's talking to people who are trying to discredit him and get him killed, so one sort of expects him to be a bit irritable. The one from Revelation is actually addressed to the church at Philadephia, and I really don't understand why it is supposed to be anti-Semitic. (If anything, it's supporting the Jews, condeming those who give them a bad name.) It looks like someone just looked up New Testament verses containing the word "Jew" to get that one.

The one from John is probably fair (I think it's entirely reasonable to say that some people find that line anti-Semitic), but still taken out of the larger context of the New Testament or even just the Gospels (or what the heck, even just that chapter). Of course, people take things out of context to support their own views all the time, so it's fair to say that folks have used this to support their anti-Semitism.

I don't know if it would be appropriate in this case to include counter-examples, either.

I'm new around here and, though I've browsed the history, I'm not sure if this has been discussed previously and I don't want to get into trouble by making overly presumptuous edits on a debatable issue, so...

--Aranel 18:24, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You're right about the POV nature of the opening sentence. Regarding the statements from John and Revelation, they're often applied by anti-Semites to today's Jews, as proof that today's Jews are actually fakes, and evil as well. For example
 * In this study, we have shown but a small sampling of the evidence which shows the jews of today to be the synagogue of satan, the children of the devil (John 8:44), a race of vipers, and impostors who seek to steal the promises Yahweh has given to His people, Israel - which is manifest in the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic and kindred white peoples.
 * You can now see what Jesus meant, when he accused the Jews of his time, of not being Jews. In the book of John, while Jesus was talking to the Jews he said their father was the devil. He also said that they and their fathers were liars, because they claimed to be God's people. John says of Jesus, as he was talking to the Pharisees; John 8:44: Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it... Jesus also makes a revelation about the people who call themselves, 'Jews, but are not Jews, he says... Rev. 3:9: Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. According to Jesus Christ, the people who say they are Jews, are really not Jews. He said, that not only are they not Jews, but they are of the 'Synagogue of Satan.' Jesus also said "that their father is Satan" (note-devil) These people called 'Satan,' and so named by Jesus Christ, are adversary of Christ, and Christ's people. Christ's people are 'the white Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, and kindred peoples of the world who make up the nations of Christendom, and who are his racial sheep.' ,
 * Bolshevism and Judaism

Your understanding of the verses, of course, differs from how these groups see them. Jayjg 19:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * That works. I'm willing to settle for the reworking of the opening sentence (and, of course, correcting the reference to Acts so people can look it up if they are so inclined). That way, we can leave the difficult question of interpretation to someone (and somewhere) else and go work on something more productive. --Aranel 21:45, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The point about POV is important. However, I wonder if it would also help to have a more nuanced discussion of different kinds of anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism in the NT. I think Aranel is right that someone may have just taken verses with the word "Jew" or "Jews" in them and plopped them into the article. The problem is not just that this takes the verses out of context; it also obscures the point made in the opening of the section -- that there are actually (at least) three different ways in which the NT has been understood as anti-Jewish: statements disparaging actual Jews in general (e.g. the nasty comments about Pharisees) and statements that seem to assign blame for Jesus' crucificion on the Jews are veryu different kinds of statements. And then there are statements that are very easily taken by most people as innocuous but which for Jews are anathema -- for example, Paul's line in Galetians that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile. For Christians I think this is understood as an inclusive, universalist quote but for most Jews it is deeply threatening and offensive. I suggest we work first on the intro, clarifying the different ways people have identified anti-Jewish features in the NT, and then give quotes to illustrate each way specifically. Slrubenstein


 * The examples are not random verses that happen to mention Jews; rather, as my links above show, they are verses favored by antisemites for spreading antisemitism. Jayjg 17:31, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I apologize, but you miss my point. Slrubenstein


 * I didn't miss your point, I just didn't comment on it. Your approach sounds potentially useful, but I'd have to see what specific text you wanted to insert. Jayjg 18:40, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks -- I am glad you feel it may be useful. As for adding quotes -- well, the one from Galetians, for starts (I'll look into it). But for now, I would urge you to add contextualizing information for the quotes you put in: in other words, who, exactly, has used them for anti-Semitic purposes, and how. You might think this obvious, but no matter -- adding such info would protect against NPOV challenges, and of course be more informative, Slrubenstein
 * I think any premise or suggestion that the NT has any kind of "of anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism" in it should and would be construed as anti-Christian. I suggest a different course. HH


 * I think that ignoring the negative feelings of the New Testament authors towards Jews and Judaism is ignoring history, particularly in light of the point made (above) about the persistent use by Christians of verses from the New Testemant to promote anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism. Jayjg 14:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why was a talk comment restored without the follow up, and with a different title? The version in the history is different from the one in the archive. HH


 * I couldn't see what you were referrring to, could you be more explicit please? Also, it would be helpful if you got a userid and signed your comments. Jayjg 14:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)