Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 19

Circumcision & Antisemitism Sources
Although I still strongly feel that many wikipedians are using WP as a platform to censor information linking antisemitism and circumcision I feel that progress is being made in this area as an increasing number of people are seeing that indeed Wikipedia must include this information if shown to be valid. In that spirit, I am willing to be sensitive to people's concern that I haven't provided adequate sources for now. I will however note that links supporting the current version of this article such as which is a seminar and certainly not a encyclopedic references are not challenged simply because they reflect the status quo view of this forum. I seem to be held up to the flame. I doubt many universities would accept it as a source in a Masters or Doctoral thesis. I will note that I don't think its realistic to expect Wikipedia to live up to that standard anyways. I am myself a university grad, so I know something about the standard.

Because of the enormous bias I cannot guarantee that it is possible that any link will be scholarly enough to satisfy my most forosious critics that believe that WP is a soapbox to idemnify circumcision and believe that the cure to antisemitism is to change everyone but those greatest effected by antisemitism: The Jews themselves. It brings to mind an old saying I once heard. You can't change anyone but yourself. This is something I think is relevant here. But in any event I will not stay on this point as I have given up on constructively critizing Judiac circumcision on WP but hope the inclusion of data linking circumcision and antisemitism which I believe now to be inevitable, will speak for itself. So I will do all I can.

Since I do not decide what scholarly and what's not around here I will begin a list of links to web sources which are relevant. Even if none of these are seen as scholarly I trust that eventually their shear number will provide that this is a real and not isolated phenomena and others will join in and eventually sources can be found that are considered scholarly, or the community will be content that the shear volume of links is enough to show that this phenoma is actual and documented: Not just OR. I have started by adding a completely new, never before seen on wikipedia link and invite others to contribute.

I look forward to working together in a constructive manner. Sirkumsize 09:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sources (discussion)
Circumsision makes Jews look evil only to people who are already anti-semites. The anti-Semitic rant in item 20, above, is a perfect example. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  13:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) TALK 17:57, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC) Most of the links don't even refer to anti-Semitism, and what you described as the "scholarly" one is unverifiable. If that's the best you can come up with, then it appears to be a minor and non-notable phenomenon at best. Jayjg (talk) 15:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a huge difference between objecting to a Jewish practice and being anti-Semitic. The same mistake appears to be made by Sirkumsize and those who say his opposition to circumcision is ipso facto anti-Semitic. Supportive data for Sirkumsize's position might include some statements from anti-Semites such as "Oh, I'd be just fine with the Jews except for that circumcision stuff." But I'll be bold and generalize that anti-Semites who object to circumcision would have no difficulty at all finding plenty of other justifications for their anti-Semitism should circumcision suddenly be removed as a Jewish commandment. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Jpgordon, this is a kind of circular argument, since if you think about, we have to first decide who gets to label who as antisemitic or just someone who criticizes a Jewish practice. If for instance you consider the Antisemitism World Report to be the authority on who's antisemitic and who isn't then there's fairly good example of that already.  I certainly don't see any evidence that Sami A. Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh is antisemitic beyond his views on circumcision and I think we have an obligation to assume him innocent until proven guilty.  Therefore he is antisemitic because of the circumcision issue.  If the Report is wrong and he's just a dude that criticizes circumcision, then I guess this link doesn't means anything.  So hopefully you see my point:  Quoting an antisemitic person like you suggest doesn't mean a darn thing because we have to decide first whether or not he is antisemitic.  So we have to decide whether or not being anti-circumcision makes you antisemitic before hand.  I hope that's clear (its still leaving my head spinning).  Sirkumsize 21:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm appalled that you wasted nearly a minute of my life by writing that. I guess I'm complicit since I actually took the time to read it.  Tomer TALK  22:15, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Is my argument difficult to follow? Sirkumsize 02:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That's not it at all...the problem is that it was utterly frivolous. Tomer
 * Frivolous? Maybe it just goes to show that Jpgordon's request for an example of someone that's "antisemitic" because of circumcision alone is already provided?  Sirkumsize 7 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clearifying that I am person with a valid objection to a Jewish practice rather than an antisemite. I am a lot more comfortable seeing myself that way.  If I am forced to wear the label antisemite for opposing circumcision as some here seem to believe, then I'm not particularly bothered by that.  After all its just a label ascribed to me by other people.  It doesn't change who I am as a person.  I am glad that this issue is getting clearified because the links suggest that there is huge indistinction between supporting a ban on circumcision (including but not limited to Jewish) and being antisemitic and here on Wikipedia we have a golden opportunity to clearify that by adding it into the article text.  If you are in agreement that there is considerable confusion on this at large, then surely you agree that it needs to be in this article.  Perhaps this issue is bigger than you think and adding a circumcision section to the article would not be disproportionate afterall.  64.229.149.16 02:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it's a trivial and unimportant part of the anti-semitism discussion, and an ambiguous one at that; I don't think there needs to be a section on it at all. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * But that's the whole point. The fact that it isn't clear is why it needs to be addressed somewhere on this academic context.  People need to know the complete thinking on this issue on both sides.  Sirkumsize 09:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The whole point is that it's trivial, unimportant, and ambiguous? The fact that it's trivial and unimportant makes its ambiguity trivial and unimportant as well. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * One hands claps in a forest. Tomer TALK  17:57, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course its verifiable. Just buy the book.  Sirkumsize 21:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL! You first. Jayjg (talk) 01:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tomer, thank you so much for commenting on the sources. I want to note that I am not currently trying to justify the thesis that antisemitism is increasing because of anti-circumcision activism. I did mention only in one revision that I made. Currently there is nothing in the article text or on WP about the circ-antisemitism link, but I would frankly settle for anything at moment, even if its to discredit the link. I would even be happy with a statement that doesn't make a specific reference to circumcision but states that there is a debate between where the valid criticism for Jewish practices ends and antisemitism begins. Sirkumsize 02:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, I think you've just made the case that it doesn't belong in this article. Perhaps in Circumcision, but not in Anti-Semitism.

Sirkumsize, you just added a list of citations, but what do those books/articles actually say? Jayjg (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Sources (discussion) Rehash#1
Just to recap -- based on the references I provided, there is now sufficient grounds to include the following in the text of the article:
 * 1) The Jewish practice of circumcision has been banned since the Hellenistic period -- at least one specifically references it in the criminal code.
 * 2) *Relevant perhaps in Circumcision, but not here...especially, as I've said at least twice now, the practice was outlawed in the USSR in order to try to squelch Islam, not Judaism. Tomer TALK 17:57, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) **Apparently you haven't checked the sources section for updates. Sirkumsize 18:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Antisemitism World Report has cited anti-circumcision activists -- or at least reserachers who publish findings that would counter-indicate it as antisemitic for no other apparent reason.
 * 5) *Not relevant at all, since citing someone is not the same as calling them antisemitic. As I said in my earlier comments, he was cited not because of his opposition to circumcision, but because he called Jews hypocrites.  Tomer TALK  17:57, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) **Please read my reply to this point above. Sirkumsize 18:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) A study has shown that people of other culturals do react negatively to tangible Judaic practices and circumcision is the most signicant of these -- not a trivial finding to anyone interested in antisemitism.
 * 8) *This is indicative of xenophobia. That said, there is nothing in the cited source that indicates that being disturbed by circumcision.  If the individuals who say they're disturbed by it are antisemites, there's nothing to indicate that they're not just using circumcision as an excuse, just as many antisemites cite Israel's "mistreatment of the poor defenseless peaceloving 'Palestinians'".  That's an excuse to cover up a pathology, it's not a cause of the pathology itself. Tomer TALK  17:57, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) **This is all just speculation. We have to add this to article somewhere I think.  No one really know if antisemitism isn't related to Jewish practices and its very healthy to concede in the article that some Jewish practices are disturbing.  This is a quantitative scientific study.  Sirkumsize 18:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Otherwise antisemitic people seem to hold negative opinions in at least some cases towards circumcision, showing a link exists in so much as the views are known to coexist in some individuals.
 * Sirkumsize 09:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) *I couldn't disagree more strongly. The majority of suicide bombers are young men, muslims, who likely have circumcised penes.  Most Jewish men have circumcised penes.  Therefore there's a link between being Jewish and being a suicide bomber.  Oh, I see.  It "coexists in some individuals".  Some people have tapeworms.  Irrelevant.  Tomer TALK  17:57, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) **One of the reasons why some people didn't want to include a reference to circumcision-antisemitism link was because "antisemitic people don't say that". Clearly some do.  Sirkumsize 18:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The paltry and generally unrelated references about this indicate that the connection between anti-semitism and anti-circumcision is tenuous at best, and certainly not worth mentioning. Most groups who are interested in combatting anti-Semitism don't seem to see it as a significant phenomenon; in fact, only one seems to have ever commented on it, and then it was about one specific individual several years ago. Jayjg (talk)  15:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The fact that most groups combating antisemitism don't comment on it is a very good reason why the information should be on wikipedia. If good information about the causes, or possible causes of antisemitism are left out then no one benefits.  Sirkumsize 18:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The fact that no-one comments on it, including groups combatting anti-Semitism, indicates that it is original research, which is a very good reason to keep it off Wikipedia; in fact, it would be against Wikipedia policy to include this. Jayjg (talk) 28 June 2005 18:23 (UTC)
 * The definition of original research is not "anything that a group combating antisemitism hasn't commented on" -- it means that it has no references to support it. Clearly this isn't the case with the circ-antisemitism link.  Sirkumsize 7 July 2005 03:13 (UTC)

Proposed Circ-antisemitism para
Guys: Here is my proposal for a paragraph on the link or proposed link between circumcision and antisemitism. It is entirely based on the research above and so belongs in the article. Please do not thwart this effort out of malice but comment on it. You owe me this for the hard work I've gone to, to include such a paragraph.
 * Research into the causes of antisemitism has shown that the single most disturbing tangible aspect of Judaism is their circumcision ritual. Many individuals with antisemitic view have held view strongly against circumcision in specific.  Throughout history circumcision has been banned in a number of instances.  Many legends that defame the Jews such as the blood libel make specific reference to the practice.  In recent years there as been increased activism against circumcision due to ethical concerns about the practice.  Some researchers who publish work that counter-indicates circumcision have actually been cited in reports against antisemitism.  There is no way to know how much anticircumcision activism is actually rooted in antisemitism.
 * Sirkumsize 18:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, original research cannot be included in Wikipedia articles. Jayjg (talk) 28 June 2005 18:23 (UTC)
 * Oh good. Then I don't have anything to worry about.  I will insert the paragraph now.  Sirkumsize 7 July 2005 03:14 (UTC)


 * It's original research, as Jayjg said. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 7 July 2005 04:25 (UTC)
 * No, Jayjg simply pointed out that if I were to post original research in the article that it would be against wp policy. He made no reference to the above paragraph.  Since the above paragraph isn't OR I just assumed that the statement was rhetical.  Sirkumsize 7 July 2005 19:24 (UTC)
 * I'll be kind and assume no disingenuity there. Please read the original research guidelines, and maybe you'll understand better. You're synthesizing conclusions from various sources and coming up with a conclusion. That's what you don't get to do. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 8 July 2005 01:42 (UTC)
 * Jpgordon, thank you for not assuming any disingenuity. Unfortunately I cannot do the same for your erroneous claims that the above paragraph is OR.  If you were sincere in this, you would rewrite it to illustrate to silly how it would look in the format you suggest.  Otherwise it would almost be as if to say that you are not co-operating here.  Wouldn't that be strange.  Sirkumsize 06:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Mistakes happen
Please avoid personal attacks and making inappropirate points with section titles, Sirkumsize. I am of course refering to this edit. 70.28.160.144 03:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing sources, which are always welcome, but this has nothing to do with the article New Anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:12, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * User_talk:SlimVirgin, these links are to support a controversial inclusion of a section linking circumcision and antisemitism. This section has been debated widely before.  An article was written on wikipedia specifically on this subject was deleted - I believe - unjustly.  Sirkumsize 10:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the merits or otherwise of the debate, it has nothing to do with the new anti-Semitism, which is a distinct phenomenon, described by the article, and written about by several journalists and others. If you can find a credible source linking the new anti-Semitism to circumcision, by all means include it, but the source would have to make that specific link; otherwise, it's your original research. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:10, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what this talk is about New Anti-Semitism. This is just the plain old antisemitism article.  There is no mention of circumcision in the other.  There perhaps should be, since I don't really get the distinction between the two types anyways.  Do you?  Sirkumsize 11:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, as radical a suggestion as this is, you could try reading the article. ;-p SlimVirgin (talk)  11:26, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * If I understand the article correctly this refers to new anti-Judaism since the 1970's. It seems very focused on anti-semitism/anti-zionism.  Maybe this issue is relevant to it since there are some sources that suggest that anti-circumcision sediment is rising and this will lead to increased antisemitism.  Personally I don't think that the circumcision/antisemitism link is new, but I will agree that it is fairly new that it is finally coming into the public conscience.  I can see the change in the number of relevant links since I last searched the net for WP articles on this topic a few months ago.  I am still curious however what brought your attention here.  Sirkumsize 11:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to discuss circumcision. This page is for the new anti-Semitism. If you can find a credible source making the specific link between new anti-Semitism and circumcision, then include that source's argument, with a full citation; in the absence of that, there really is nothing to talk about. And please stop moving posts around. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 11:50, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well this time your wrong. This is the place to discuss anti-semitism, New Antisemitism has its own talk page.  If you want references linking circ to antisemitism then look at the list above.  And as for moving the posts around, don't you think it would be best to keep the chatter the links separate?  Is it just me or is everyone here crazy?  Sirkumsize 11:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL! Sirkumsize, I owe you an apology. I've been copy editing New Anti-Semitism tonight, and for some reason, I thought I was on that talk page. I wondered what you were talking about. Now I feel like a real idiot. Feel free to either delete my comments, or leave them as evidence of my silliness. I'll leave it up to you. ;-) SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 11:59, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * To quote myself from above, as radical a suggestion as it is, I should try reading the article. ;-p SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 11:59, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

What's about present France?
France is most anti-semitic country in EU, but in the article here ain't even a word about it! --Krzysztof.cichos 17:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * So add something. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any facts to support your claim? // Liftarn
 * ADL 2004 report --Ttyre 13:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell the report makes no such claim. It just lists a seriece of incidents. It may be that such incidents are more often reported in France. // Liftarn

Cleanup?
Removed the "cleanup" template. What exactly in this article needs "cleanup"? I don't see it, do you? IZAK 28 June 2005 06:31 (UTC)

Kevin MacDonald's evolutionary theory of anti-Semitism
Can someone explain why MacDonald's theory doesn't belong here? Spencer195–spencer195 3 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)
 * This article does not discuss theoretical "causes" of antisemitism; that is left to the external links. Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK  July 3, 2005 21:49 (UTC)

TShilo12,

What do you mean? If you read the anti-semitism page, there are a bunch of "theories" there that anti-semitism is based on the "alleged" massive socio-economic power Jews hold. Well, that socio-economic power Jews hold is NOT "alleged" it's a documented fact. So that alone should be changed.

And it's also interesting that we read about how bad the Jews suffered under pogroms or the Pale of Settlement, but never once is there an honest reflection by Jews that their own behavior, manner of dress or ways of working as a unified Tribe and repeated refusals to assimilate have anything to do with it.

That's like a 10 year old who is constantly getting disicplined by his teacher going, "I don't know why everyone's always pickin' on me" but he insists on wearing his own clothes to class, not associating or assimilating, refusing to sit, etc. And somehow he is the 'victim' and the native group is supposed to feel sorry for the newcomer that refuses to assimilate with the group but has the audacity to demand the group assimilate and accomodate him!

--Titus70AD 00:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

In addition, it is a highly speculative theory by one individual which is notable only for being intensely reductionist. Very few researchers seem to take KBM seriously; the fame of his theories is pure notoriety. JFW | T@lk  3 July 2005 22:35 (UTC)

Jfdwolff,

Just because only a few "researchers" take MacDonald "seriously" doesn't mean MacDonald is incorrect especially when his biggest critics are Jews.

In the interest of fairness, Jews should recuse themselves from that debate less they continue to show their bias.

And if you want empirics on what I say about MacDonald, consider that when Stanley Prusiner introduced the idea of a protein called a "Prion" causing diseases like mad-cow all the scientists thought he was a dumb jackass! That didn't prevent Prusinger from not only BEING RIGHT but WINNING a NOBEL PRIZE.

This is especially true when MacDonald is facing so many "circle the wagon" Jews in the media and scientific community.

Lastly the "notoriety" you ascribe to MacDonald is the same notoriety that drove Gibson's "Passion of Christ" - fearful, hateful, paranoid, Christophobic Jews reacting to something THEY didn't like.

--Titus70AD 00:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Spencer195, even though I know nothing of this theory I feel for you. I was treated exactly the same way when I tried to introduce a section on the link between circumcision and antisemitism which I think is fairly well established by a variety of sources. I was shot down the same way. This particulair bunch just don't seem open to anything outside of the status quo. Its very unwikiquette. Sirkumsize 02:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Sirkumsize,

I agree with you. I fear that nothing, no matter how true it is, will see the light of day on this site as long as a Jew is in control because if it makes a Jew look bad, it's getting buried.

And I've yet to see any objective framework of WHAT makes anything anti-semitic other than some Jew says it is.

--Titus70AD 00:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Criticising Israeli politics
I'm quite sure we've all both heard it and seen it on television: one person is criticising Israeli politics, for example for its treatment of Palestinians and particularly the separation barrier. Another person defending the Israeli politics, after some initial discussion on the topic, reverts to calling the first person an anti-semite. I added a small note to the beginning of this article in reference to this. Someone (you know who you are) found it too uncomfortable and removed it. Now I want a proper discussion around this because I don't see why there should be any hiding the fact that idiots come in all shapes, colors, nationalities and religious beliefs. DSandlund July 6 2005, 19.02 GMT+1


 * Can you find some example of this? What you are exhibiting, in fact, is what has been called Strawman anti-Semitism. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  6 July 2005 17:09 (UTC)


 * Uncomfortable about your edits? Did you even read my edit summary? If someone is trigger-happy with branding people anti-Semites, that doesn't affect the definition or the commonly understood usage of the term (which is the purpose of the article's intro). If I run around calling people "anti-Swiss" because they don't like Swiss cheese, it doesn't make cheese-haters into Swiss-haters. I think you get the point. Thanks, HKT 6 July 2005 17:20 (UTC) (P.S. I'm afraid I can't decipher your last sentence. Looks to me like non-sequiter. Care to explain?)


 * You are very inconsistent HKT.


 * On the one hand, you are happy to classify people criticising Israeli politics as anti-semites. I'm referring to the article about Nazism - section "10 Nazi / Third Reich terminology in popular culture" - the paragraph about critics of Israel. There, I removed the sentence "Some regard this as anti-Semitic" (in reference to people disagreeing with Israeli politics regarding the separation barrier). My reason for doing so was, clearly (although not stated in the edit comment), that the only reason for having that sentence there, would be to stupify critics of Israeli politics as having no merit (which I think is a rather serious way of disrupting discussions of merit in general). But, only minutes later, you cared to make one edit to put that sentence back in.


 * On the other hand, you refuse to acknowledge that people criticising Israeli politics regarding the separation barrier, are by some classified as anti-semites (as in the article about Anti-Semitism, where you removed the sentence in the introduction that said "Some people may also call anyone disagreeing with Israeli politics, an anti-semite").


 * Do you realize just how inconsistent this is? I hate to make the comparison but the concept of doublethink does come to mind very clearly here.


 * To some it might seem that you are attempting to glorify one party here, and by later reading your User-page, that view may seem justified. Please try to be subjective.


 * Also please try to refrain from flaming me by stating things like "Uncomfortable about your edits? Did you even read my edit summary?".


 * To Jayjg: what you say is something that is very important to remember, but to this particular case it's actually not relevant at all. Accusing someone of being anti-semite with the purpose of nullifying your opponent like you are doing right now, is more along the lines of Godwin's_law.
 * DSandlund July 6 2005, 20.06 GMT+1


 * Actually, what I said is quite relevant, since you have provided no actual evidence, but instead merely made strawman allegations. Moreover, even if it were true, it has nothing to do with the definition of anti-Semitism, but is rather a polemical statement made for other purposes.  As for HKT being inconsistent, not true as well; the article in question said that some believe describing Israel as "Nazi" is anti-Semitic.  Calling someone a Nazi is not the same thing as criticising their actions or policies. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  6 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)

As to the important points, ditto to Jayjg. Now, to clarify something else:
 * "I hate to make the comparison but the concept of doublethink does come to mind very clearly here. To some it might seem that you are attempting to glorify one party here, and by later reading your User-page, that view may seem justified. Please try to be subjective. Also please try to refrain from flaming me...."

Let me translate this from doublespeak:
 * "I'm delighted to accuse you of doublethink. I am certain that you are attempting to glorify one side, but I'd rather accuse you of this subtly and suggestively, merely implying that proof of this exists. I'd also like to imply that I stand for objectivity and must preach it pedagogically to you (note: I assume you meant 'objective' instead of 'subjective'). To conclude, I'll portray myself as an indignant victim of your writing, which I will characterize as hostile."

Your writing style is not at all original; it's frequently employed by certain unsavory journalists. If you'd write in a less condescending tone, you would quickly gain the respect of the greater Wikipedia community. I hope you take these comments as constructive; I mean them as such. (P.S. How exactly do extensive scholarly backgrounds in Jewish literature, Jewish history, and American politics prove that I try to glorify "one party" (i.e. the "Jewish party")? Maybe the fact that "you'll usually find me editing Judaism-related articles" proves this? Well, I can only point to the large numbers of editors who "you'll usually find editing Judaism-related articles" that were banned from Wikipedia for anti-Semitic vandalism. Do you think that it's also possible that someone could "usually edit Judaism-related articles" and also try to follow WP:NPOV? Just maybe?) HKT 7 July 2005 05:51 (UTC)