Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 7

Martin, as you are describing the debate, it is agreed that hatred of Jews is "anti-Semitism," whereas "antipathy" toward Jews is considered by some not to be "anti-Semitism." A quick look at Webster's dictionary gives me a definition of "antipathy" as "a deep, habitual dislike, aversion." "Hate" is defined as "intense dislike, extreme hostility." In other words, you want to make the distinction between "deep, habitual dislike" (not anti-Semitic) and "intense dislike" (anti-Semitic). That's not a question of NPOV or not. That is pure rhetoric. (It can also be used to justify certain anti-Semitic behaviors. For example, when Jews were denied membership in country clubs in the United States, was that only because of deep habitual dislike, or was it intense dislike?) Danny

Can you stop at a word-book definition, if the words hate and love have a broader usage in USA than in many other countries? -- Ruhrjung 11:58 21 May 2003 (UTC)


 * It sounds to me, Danny, like you accept the existence of this debate, but you feel that these particular choices of words (ie, "antipathy") are sub-optimal in expressing it - would that be accurate? Martin

What's gained by a definition of Anti-semitism which is that very narrow that most anti-semitism by a normal usage (think of the Dreyfus affair) are excluded? Ruhrjung 12:02 21 May 2003 (UTC)


 * I added some stuff - the debate is not between "deep, habitual dislike" and "intense dislike", rather it is between "intense hostility" and "prejudice" Martin

Your claim is actually intensely inaccurate Martin. I do not at all accept the debate. Now, let me see if I am getting this straight. Intense hostility is anti-Semitic but prejudice isn't? What exactly does that mean? (That is a rhetorical question. It means nothing). A prejudice against people because they are Jewish is an anti-Semitic prejudice. Danny

I removed "generally speaking." When it is not generally speaking does it not mean that? I also removed:


 * There is some debate over how widely the term anti-Semitism should be applied. Some dictionaries suggest that anti-Semitism'' refers only to intense hatred, while others broaden the definition to include any form of anti-Jewish prejudice. For example:


 * Merriam-Webster: "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews..."
 * Cambridge International Dictionary of English : "the strong dislike or cruel and unfair treatment of Jewish people"
 * American Heritage Dictionary: "Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews..." or "Discrimination against Jews..."
 * Cambridge Dictionary of American English): "hate or strong dislike of Jews..."''

The first definition states "hostility" or "discrimination." The second states "strong dislike" (in other words, hatred) or "unfair treatment" (i.e., discrimination). The third one states "hostility or prejudice" or "discrimination". Only the fourth, which happens to be a different edition of the second (both are Cambridge), says only "hate or strong dislike" without discrimination. For one thing, you are reading far too much into these definitions. For another, you are then claiming that the "Cambridge Dictionary of American English" says hatred but not discrimination, so hatred of Jews is anti-Semitic, but discrimination against Jews is not. Then what is discrimination against Jews? THe Nuremburg Laws were discriminatory, but since they do not fit the final Cambridge definition, are you saying they are not anti-Semitic? Danny


 * I would call discrimination against Jews "anti-Jewish discrimination". Some discrimination against Jews I would call anti-Semitic. Some I would not. Single-faith schools do not admit people who are not of the relevant faith. In the case of a non-Jewish single faith school, this is discrimination against Jews. I would not call that anti-Semitic, though I would call it misguided. The Nuremberg Laws were based in hatred and fear, and I would call those anti-Semitic.


 * Since you do not approve of my use of the dictionary definitions, I will try to find you alternate references. But first, I'm going to quote you from Talk:Anti-Semitism (archive 5):


 * I also agree with [stevertigo] that the term anti-Semitism often has "too wide a context" (your term). For me this means that the term is bandied about too freely (I would even go so far as to say as a hyperbolic phrase used to score political points, but that is just my POV). That is why I believe that a carefully worded definition is so important". Danny 00:56 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * What you were saying back then, it seems, is that some people use the term anti-Semitism widely ("bandying it about"), and that you disapprove of this usage. And I agree with you that a carefully worded definition is important. However, I think it is important to acknowledge that some people use the term more "freely" than others, as you yourself have said!


 * Regarding "generally speaking", see my comments above: when one "speaks broadly", one speaks in generalities and simplifies details. Here, we are simplifying details by not speaking (yet) of the considerable debate, which you yourself have taken extensive part in, as to the meaning of the word anti-Semitism. If you can think of a better way of putting this, please do. Martin 15:05 21 May 2003 (UTC)


 * No Jewish person claims that it is discrimination that Christian schools that teach Christianity only accept Christians as students, and not Jews or others. That is not discrimination; that is religious freedom.  No Jews, Muslims or atheists can force Christians to violate precepts of their religion. Similarly, no one should ever accuse Jews (or Muslims, etc.) of discriminating against others if their own religious schools are meant to teach members of their own faith!  That is not what Danny meant when he was talking about people discriminating against Jews. RK

Hi everybody!! :) - &#35918;&#30505sv

Question about the usage of the word "semitic": I have read and understood that Semites include Arabs, and thus anti-semitism (as a racial term) would include bias against both Jews and Arabs. Is there strong opposition to writing this alternative understanding of Semitism into the article? If not, I'll get to work, but I'm not especially interested in getting involved in an editing war on this page which seems to be somewhat controversial. Silver Maple


 * Yes, for four reasons:
 * 1) racial categories are largely products of 19th century European ideology. They are not scientific and certainly shouldn't be applied historically as if they were scientific -- or as if they are used in a logical (consistent) way.


 * 2) properly, "semitic" refers not to races but to languages. Yes, Arabic and Hebrew are both semitic languages.  Of course, two people living in completely different parts of the world, who do not share any ancestors *well, until 40,000 years ago, let's say), may speak a "semitic" language, and read the same books -- and even share values.  But this is not "race."


 * 3) the person who coined the term "anti-semite" and "anti-semitism" singled out Jews. There is no logical reason, or is there any strong empirical correlation, that supports the notion that because one hates Jews one will also hate Arabs, or vice-versa.


 * See the paragraph (which is the result of a couple of edits back and forth):


 * A seemingly similar type of hostility has increased in Western Europe during the latter half of the 20th century, as a growing number of Arab and/or Muslim refugees and immigrants has arrived and come to constitute visible, often ghettoized, minorities in larger towns and cities. Several populist political parties have recently gained victories on anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiments. Critics of politicians such as Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, Pim Fortuyn in The Netherlands and Pia Kjærsgaard in Denmark, sometimes brand them as "anti-Semites". Even if these political forces really are hostile towards the Jewry, which some of them without doubt are, such a usage is not advisable in English. It confuses the matter rather more than it contributes to clarity, as with many other emotionally charged words. Ruhrjung 10:47 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Inter alia outside of a few people here at Wikipedia I have never heard anyone claim that anti-semitism means hatred of Arabs. You say this is an alternative understanding -- well, whose understanding is it?  I have never heard any representitive of the Arab-American Anti Discrimination Committee characterize racism against Arabs as "anti-semitic," for example.  Conversely, what term would you use to describe hatred specifically targeted at Jews?  I guess we could have an article on "Jew-Hatred," except anyone reading such an article would think "Oh, this is about 'anti-semitism.'"


 * For meself, I use antijudaism and antizionism for the two things usually encompassed by antisemitism. Whatever the origin of the latter term, I am convinced the more rabid Zionists (also needed, a section on Zionist antiZionism, cf the recnt New Yorker on Chomsky) have perpetuated the usage. It seems to be a version of the accusation-in-the-mirror propaganada trick; as some Orthodox Jews point out, rabid Zionism does as much harm to Jews as Arabs. Kwantus


 * 4) there is another term for someone who hates both Jews and Arabs and expresses his or her hatred in racial terms. It is "racist."


 * Slrubenstein


 * My refactoring (written back in early Feb) of the "anti-Semitic =?= prejudice against Semites" argument is at Talk:Anti-Semitism (etymology). Worth reading (thinks me). Martin 23:47 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * rm answered question - thank you Slrubenstein

Where has anyone seen evidence that Saudi Arabia bans Jews from entering? I would remove that mention of it if no evidence is found. --mr100percent

"Several populist political parties have recently gained victories on anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiments. Critics of politicians such as Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, Pim Fortuyn in The Netherlands and Pia Kjærsgaard in Denmark, sometimes brand them as "anti-Semites"." (taken from the fourth paragraph of the Etymology and Usage section.)

First of all, I think that the whole paragraph that this passage came from detracts from the article. It seems confused and confusing and it doesn't add much to the subject of the article. Anti-semitism is generally more than an issue of immigration, IMO.

Secondly, is the term "populist" the most appropriate here? At least in American political history, "populism" has referred to ideas that are rather on the left side of the political spectrum (public ownership of important utilities, support for the poorest workers, etc). Jean-Marie Le Pen (the only example I know anything about), at least, does not fit into this category. He is quite clearly a right wing politician, with positions that more resemble Fascism than Populism. I don't know about the others, but it doesn't seem clear that they should be called "populists," either.

Finally, the syntax of the second sentence quoted is strange and makes it sound like the three examples given are the "Critics of politicians" (an extremely vague phrase) and that they are calling the so called "populists" (who are others, presumably) "anti-semitic"! I vote to get rid of the whole paragraph. The last two sentences of it simply explain that we shouldn't call them anti-semites. And, if so, what is the point of the paragraph? --Jesse


 * Populist - left wing? That is completely wrong. Most populist leaders and movements on the right. Populist means appearing to the masses, or the 'mob' as it used to be put, saying what was needed to win support, often without any coherent intellectual structure behind it. Some left wingers do that but it is mostly associated with the right. The current prime minister of Italy is a classic populist. Hitler was. Ditto Mussolini. In modern politics the neo-gaullists in France, Fianna Fáil in Ireland etc are classic populist parties. In some states, public ownership of important utilities and support for the poorest workers may appeal to people and so for that reason be adopted as policy platforms. But they aren't definition of populism, merely vehicles of populism. (In most states outside the US those things are so automatic that the vast majority of people across the parties believe in them.) Populist leaders can adopt religion, nationalism, secularism, fascism, communism, whatever it takes to gain mass support. FearÉIREANN 22:53 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * It may depend on where you are whether populists are typically left- or right-wing. I agree with your examples, but there are quite a few examples of left-wing populists as well.  For example, many "Marxist" revolutionary groups are populists, attaching themselves to whatever issue may curry them favor (and hopefully, money, arms, and support).  Some examples include the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and numerous South-American groups.  (Some of these groups initially were ideological Marxist groups, but have since become primarily populist). --Delirium 23:07 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Yeah. The bottom is that populism is neither left nor right. It adopts the issues that are popular in its political system. If they are left wing issues, there it will be left wing. If in other places they are right wing, populism will adopt a right wing stance. It can be argued that the Pinochet dictatorship was populist, as was the left wing regime it replaced. The point I am making is that Jesse's situation that populism means left wing is wrong. It simply follows the crowd takes whatever stance it deems necessary. FearÉIREANN


 * Ok, perhaps populists can be both left and right wing. However, the ideology that motivates it seems inherently to be (to some extent or another) in contradiction with what motivates most right wing politics, which is a sort of elitism and contempt for the masses.  I agree that many right wing leaders (e.g. Hitler) have used populist rhetoric to gain influence and power, but it's pretty easy to see how hollow that rhetoric actually is.  From populism:

''In the twentieth century populism gained an altogether more ominous character when dictators such as Juan Peron, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler and Huey Long used demagogery and populist rhetoric to achieve their privileged leadership positions. It could be argued that none of these men were genuine populists because they usually saw the masses as not fit to govern for themselves and therefore their elitist and privileged style of leadership was needed to govern and regulate the behaviour of the masses.''


 * If you count everyone "who gains mass support" as populist, the term kind of loses all meaning. For example, a person could gain mass support by a campaign of terror.  That wouldn't make them a populist.  Or suppose a country comes to believe that some form of elitism is the preferrable form government and elects a leader based on that premise.  Even though he may enjoy mass support, that doesn't make him a populist.  Not every elected leader in the world is by definition a populist.


 * In any case, I don't think the paragraph in question belongs. I'll try to think of a better way to present the contentious nature of the word 'anti-semitism,' and then present it here.    --Jesse

Then you have to appostrofe the usage of anti-Semitism for prejudice-based hostility towards Semites and not only Jews in a better way. Take it all away, and it won't take long until that debate pops up again. The important thing is to define this article's usage in a way which don't invite to further editing. A proposition might be: In other parts of the world, "anti-Semitism"'' can be used also to denominate anti-Arab and/or anti-Muslim hostility. In this article, however, we follow the US/Anglo-Saxon usage, according to which anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic are synonyms.'' -- Ruhrjung 11:22 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree that something should be said about the term's usage. However, I think that arguments on both sides--that the "minority" usage that includes other semitic groups is anti-Jewish; and that "anti-semitic" meaning only anti-Jewish gives special preference to the Jews and is therefore racist--are a little bit rediculous. We don't have to try to appropriate language to fit our own specific agendas (something that might demand questions about ones agenda)--that is not legitiment.

That being said, I think that both usages are acceptable. The word is a derivation of three clear (Latinate?) parts. I don't think we should be saying that it's combinational meaning, the logical meaning which flows from its parts, should be excluded. We certainly can't prevent anyone from using the word in such a way.

However, in this article, we should make a note that "anti-semitic", at least in Western European and American culture, has historically been used as an idiom. And it is that usage which has predominated. Furthermore, the topic of the article (from my understanding) is the particular historical phenomenon of Jew-hating. The word "anti-semitism" is only a pointer to a discussion of that topic, which happens to be the idiomatic meaning of the word "anti-semitism".

I don't mean to suggest that nothing about hatred and discrimination against other semitic groups should be mentioned in this article. That is fine, and even preferrable, I think. However, it should be brief and to the point, perhaps providing links to other wiki-articles that could expand upon these phenomena. The paragraph referred to above, however, is neither brief nor to the point, IMO. --Jesse

I rewrote the statement Tacitus, for example, writes disparagingly of the refusal to work on the Sabbath. Actually, Sabbath observance is about the only supposed Jewish practice that Tacitus does NOT write disparagingly about. The full text is here.


 * He writes: In course of time the seductions of idleness made them devote every seventh year to indolence as well (emphasis my own, of course). As noted a scholar as Father Edward Flannery in his seminal work on the history of anti-Semitism (The Anguish of the Jews) notes this as an example of Tacitus's anti-Semitism, noting the word indolence (p.21). I don't care if it's out but let's be accurate. Danny 23:04, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Danny, the text I removed was not about 7th years, but 7th days. Tacitus disapproves of it from the viewpoint of his own work ethic, but if you read the whole chapter you will see that his disapproval is very mild by his standards.  Sabbath keeping and not eating pork are described with only a mild hint of disapproval, and only after that does he begin a stronger tirade with "The  other practices  of  the Jews are sinister and revolting,  and  have  entrenched themselves by their very wickedness."  My point is that if we want to give an actual example from Tacitus we should give one that demonstrates the point unambiguously.  -- zero 02:38, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Zero0000, what we need is a named advocate who believes as you do - preferably someone who can be set against Flannerry as a viable authority. Then we can add that dispute to the aricle on Tacitus, and replace the example in this article with one that both authorities agree is an example of anti-Semitism.


 * I have no objection to Tacitus being given as an example on this page, I was just noting that the choice of Sabbath keeping was a strange one as that is one of the practices of the Jews that Tacitus is the least critical of. If that was the only thing Tacitus ever criticised about Jews then I'd argue that it isn't an example of anti-semitism at all; however there is much more in Tacitus than that as you will see if you read the web page I cited above. -- zero 02:38, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * What is, however, interesting about Sabbath observance is that it is a recurring motif in Roman jeers at Jews. Tibullus, Ovid, Horace, Martial, Juvenal, Petronius, and Seneca all cite it as an example of Jewish indolence. Esentially, it came into conflict with Roman attitudes toward work. See here for some examples. An argument can be made (though let me stress that I am not making it here) that this attitude had an impact on Christian perceptions of the Sabbath (Sunday rather than Saturday; relaxed attitudes toward work). Once again, if you think some other statement of Tacitus is more worthy of mention instead, by all means go ahead. Danny 11:19, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Difficult to find half-remembered references, I know, but could you take a look? Martin 23:19, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Even if these political forces really are hostile towards the Jewry, which some of them without doubt are, such a usage is not advisable in English. It confuses the matter rather more than it contributes to clarity, as with many other emotionally charged words.

Wikipedia is not an English-language usage guide. DanKeshet 23:38, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism section
The section called "Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism" is teeming with weasel words. Here are a few: "Most Jews hold that...They hold that...They further hold that...", "Many people who consider themselves...", "Jews distinguish between..." (and nobody else does?!), "most Israelis and Jews hold that..."

Has anybody done surveys of Jewish opinions on the prevalence of anti-Semitism in anti-Zionist thought?

DanKeshet

From Criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism:


 * For example, Noam Chomsky holds that some Jewish groups, in particular the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), see all criticisms of Israel as anti-Semitic attacks.  For its part, in an essay entitled Activist's Guide to Advocating for Israel, the ADL states that "Criticism of particular Israeli actions or policies in and of itself does not constitute anti-Semitism".

I would like to see a citation. In fact, I will provide a few, from the text I have on hand, Necessary Illusions, although Fateful Triangle would clearly be better. I will put the actual Chomsky quotes in bold to make it less confusing.

Chomsky says that the ADL "interprets anti-Semitism as unwillingness to conform to its requirements with regard to support for Israeli authorities" and that an ADL official's logic goes that "Anti-Semitism is opposition to the interests of Israel (as the ADL sees them)". These are both different statements than "all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic". The statement that we (wrongly) attribute to Chomsky is not in accord with what the ADL actually says (say, in Advocating for Israel). But the statements that he actually makes are perfectly in accord with Advocating. There is no reason that you can't criticize Israeli policy sometimes and still "conform to [ADL's] requirements with regard to support for Israeli authorities". DanKeshet


 * I think the point he was making is that certain political groups have made it a political distinction rather than a moral one. As such, like all political distinctions, the term becomes a situationally-subjective one, rather than one that needs to meet the criteria of *any definition. - &#25140;&#30505sv 00:28, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)


 * Fair point Dan: we shouldn't misrepresent Chomsky. Martin

---

Mythical physical characteristics
Some people have a disdain for Jews based on widespread mythical physical characteristics of Jews (e.g. Jews have hooked noses, or devil-like horns),

I doubt many people believe in a myth of Jewish physical characteristics, then, based on that, hate Jews. I would think it works the other way around: people hate Jews, then use mythical physical characteristics to reinforce their hatred. DanKeshet


 * I agree with DanKeshet on this. You can see this clearly from the fact that other people with the same characteristics (for example large noses) are not hated on account of that.  The case of horns is also clear; Medieval art sometimes depicted Jews with horns not because the artist really believed they have horns but because the artist wanted to show the supposed nature of the Jews.  Of course there is no limit to human ignorance and possibly some people really believed Jews have horns, but I don't think that is the important or dominant aspect of the story.  -- zero 02:38, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In 2002, the Israeli Supreme Court made a landmark decision saying in essence converted Jews are Jews - a decision which angered Orthodox Jews, but was met with praise by people who wished to convert to Judaism, but were relegated to 'Converted Jew' status, and not considered "Jews" by the Orthodoxy or the government. -- This statement is confusing and inaccurate. What happened was that the court required the government to interpret the word "converted" in certain legislation as applying to Reform and Conservative conversions as well as to Orthodox conversions. Previously only Orthodox conversions were accepted. The court ruling had no effect on whether converted Jews are "considered 'Jews' by the Orthodoxy", so the statement is misleading from that point of view too. In any case, I wonder why this issue belongs in this article. It either has to be corrected or deleted; I vote for deletion. -- zero 02:57, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I've removed it. With your corrected version of the story, it's no longer relevant here -- the decision appears to be one relating to the right of the Conservative and Reform sects to act essentially in as "authoritative" a manner as the Orthodox sect.  It'd belong more in an article on conflicts between Orthodox and Conservative/Reform Jews. --Delirium 08:48, Aug 31, 2003 (UTC)

--

No Steve. I am using the latest version of Netscape, and I usually have no pb with floating tables. So this one should have a pb. please fix it but do not let it this way. I do not myself understand how it works very well.

Here is what I see. The table appears just fine. Then below the table, there is a paragraph, with "hostility toward Jews in a degree that greatly exceeds any legitimate grievances or resulting from no legitimate cause whatsoever;" and "disdain for supposed physical or moral features of Jews. "

All this paragraph appears with only one word per line. It is ugly. And I do not think the little improvment some see with the table compensate the fact that some see something very ugly. And as I said, other table appear just fine to me. Hence, this table is broken in some way. Do not just revert it without fixing the pb please. Anthère 06:58, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

wait wait wait, with my adding the top message, it now is working. I am gonna make a few experiments there...

this must be a bug. If someone has an explanation, do not hesitate to enlighten me. But it only works if something is above the floating table. A character; a line or a br. It does not work with a space or an international link. Anthère

Use of term "Self-hatred"
1 - Hi, I have not honestly read this entire article. But one thing that jumps out at me is the dated use of the word "self-hatred". This is an outdated notion in social psychology. I would like to know when the source cited, "Racism And Its Effects, Shreya Khatau", was written, was published, by whom, and where. What kinds of studies did Khatau do to demonstrate that one can hate oneself, and what measures did s/he use?
 * I looked for it in half a dozen major libraries, including the Library of Congress and the British national library, but found no sign of it. That could mean it is not in English, or it could mean that it is not a normal book but a pamphlet, magazine article, PhD thesis, etc. -- zero 12:25, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I do not understand why you claim that the entire concept is "outdated". Since when! In fact, in recent years many articles have been written on self-hatred in the American black community, and among homosexuals.  Its not a small literature, either! Within the Jewish community is is well known that some of the worst anti-Semitism comes from Jews.  I personally have have observed more tolerance towards religious Jews from liberal Christians and Unitarians than from secular assimilated Jews. When liberal Christians find out that people I know are observant (and me, to some extent), they say "Gee, its nice that you keep your people's customs". When secular assimilated Jews find out, they often say "What is wrong with you? Are you a fundamentalist?  You make the rest of us look bad. Its people like you that cause hatred in the world." That's just a mild set of examples. RK 22:48, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Re: When one states that self-hatred exists (the previous wording of the article), it is important to explain how and why. Personal and popular anecdotes are helpful, but not enough to describe the mechanisms of this feature.  How can you prove that someone would hate oneself?  Better terminology might be something like, "members of a subgroup may tend to value mainstream society's traits and features..."   Guppy 01:18, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion to create a new article for "self-hatred". I would hope that someone would soon debunk the myth of self-hatred in said article.

2 - I also object to the use of "hatred" as an opening definition of anti-Semitism. Though it may describe the intensity of one's prejudice and hostility against a group of people, when you later include a reference to "self-hatred" it is hard for me to reconcile. Thanks, Guppy 02:32, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * People, in general, make decisions that are hard to reconcile or make sense of. I understand that this section doesn't seem to make sense, but it seems to me that this is just a subset of the way that people in general often don't make sense. This is related to the way that people also have unjustifiable beliefs about religion, science, ethnicity, race, magic, etc.  That is why I adhere to scientific skepticism as a way of approaching claims and ideas. (Your mileage may vary) RK 22:48, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you're implying about my "mileage", but I am glad to know that you are a scientific skeptic. Then you would understand the need to fully prove the existence of something like "self-hatred" using evidence and the scientific method. Thus far, I don't believe this has been done. Guppy 01:20, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I am not following you. No one needs to prove that some people hate blacks, Jews, or gays, using the scientific method. The existence of such hatred is such a well-founded fact that anyone who denies it is incoherent. And it is also well known and well documented that some blacks happen to hate blacks, some gays happen to hate gays, and some Jews happen to hate Jews. This is so extremely well known and written about that I am finding your total denial of this hard to understand. RK 02:26, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Self-hatred is different from the concept you just outlined above. The usage of "self-hatred" seems to imply that the person with prejudice is going through some internal process of actually hating oneself. That is different from holding prejudice or deep hostility against a group of people.  I feel bad for taking up so much space on this page. Perhaps we should relegate this exchange to e-mail? Guppy 04:42, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * You are using the word "self-hatred" in a way that differs significantly from how it is used in the article, here, and in the sources I have read. I think you are referring to a psychological phenomenon unrelated to what I have been writing about. RK 14:24, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism
Would I be factually correct to say:


 * there is no general agreement as to whether opposition to Zionism is necessarily anti-Semitic

Uncle Ed 17:11, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Translation from German
The article-section "Etymology and Usage" includes the following German words or phrases in its 2nd 'graph. (I use "[?]" for a word or stem whose meaning i don't want to stick out my neck too far about.)
 * "allerneueste Weisheit" -- [?] wisdom ("all" means all or whole or wholly; "neueste" is newest; i think the "er" suffixes "all" rather than prefixing "neu...". I would read "erneuen" as "to renew"; could "erneueste" be the superlative of the past participle "erneut", based on an obscure rule for dropping a "T" from "erneutst-"?  But i don't recall seeing the full word before.  Does it mean much more than "latest"?)
 * "Magazin für die Literatur des Auslandes," -- _Magazine for Foreign Literature_
 * "Deutschtum u. Judentum["] -- (the abbr is for "und", Eng. "and") lit., "Germandom and Jewdom"; "Jewry" might be a proper translation for "Judentum" but i'm at a loss to capture the ambiguity i sense in "Deutschtum" in English; i'd consider "the Germans" or "the German people" or "the German nationality" as different nuancings that seem feasible to me
 * "Unsere Zeit" -- _Our Time_ (or, more poetically, probably _Our Age_)
 * "Erinnerungen" -- _Memories_
 * "Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums" _General Newspaper of Jewry_; perhaps _Jewish World_ would capture the intent (BTW, the "TH" rather than "T" in "Judenthum" is a disappearing spelling that might suggest the invoking of "the good old days".  Oddly, this parallels Nazi nostalgia as in the term "Third Reich", archaic given names, etc.)
 * "Allg. Zeit. d. Jud." -- abbr for the words of the preceding entry

And in the 3rd 'graph:
 * Antisemitismus -- anti-Semitism
 * "Zwanglose Antisemitische Hefte," -- [?]-less Antisemitic [?]s ("Zwang-" sounds like a noun derived from "zwingen", IIRC, "to force"; "Heft" can mean "notebook" and probably "pamphlet" or "booklet")
 * "Antisemiten" -- anti-Semites
 * "Neue Freie Presse" -- _New Free Press_
 * "Judenhaß" -- "Jew-hatred" is given already in the article; IMO it is accurate & my further exegisis on nuance would be pointless.

Maybe someone with stronger German will step forward to fill in for the gaps in mine, rather than my risking over-stretching my skills by relying on a dictionary. (Germans tell me my German is good, but i think it's lame, and they just find it refreshing to meet a Yank who occasionally forgets that "English is understood everywhere in the world, as long as it's spoken loudly enough.")

I'm unclear how to attach a better version of the above to the text of the article section; perhaps a footnote with a similar list, and just note in [] the exact English for the words that actually include -Semit-, since the unfamiliar suffixes can be misleading.

Tangentially, the logical relationship of these two 'graphs escapes me; should they be woven together into a single chronology embracing all these Semit- words? --Jerzy 19:32, 2003 Oct 17 (UTC)

In Europe, and esp. in France
If I dare suggest...The beginning of the Europe paragraph states that There is a long history of anti-Semitism in many European nations. Then the only two examples given are Poland (1648-1649) and France (2000-2001). I can't help feeling the top of the paragraph is giving a statement that is absolutely not backed up by argument later in the paragraph. Antisemitism in the XVII and in 2000 are not really sufficient to justify a claim of "long history".


 * I do not understand how one can be totally ignorant of the history in Jews of Europe for the past 1000 years? Theirs has been a history of nearly non-stop persecution, discrimination, and often, mass-murder. Jews have rarely been tolerated in Europe as anything more than second class citizens. Hundreds of very well documented books on this subject have been written. Please take the time to do some in-depth reading on this subject, and stop making ridiculous allegations. RK 14:24, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * precisely. I do not object to the long history. I object to the fact the only period covered is now, while there have been much tougher times than now. I would *much* prefer RK that you explain to me the dreyfus affair here than talking about issues in 2000 2001 wich are *far less* significant ihmo. Anthère


 * Your criticism is well taken, and acknowledged. RK 16:21, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

Second, the passage about France indicates Since 2000 anti-Semitism has been on a startling rise in France. I do not necessarily object to this, but then the rest of the France paragraph gives a impressive list of material defacement, not any argument for a startling rise in the list.


 * Threatening to murder Jews is "defacement"? Burning down a synagogue is "defacement"?  Having gangs beat up Jewish people is "defacement"?  Putting up graffiti saying that "All Jews must die" in Jewish neighborhoods is merely "defacement"?  Nope, not so.  Your bizarre comments indicate that you are totally unread on this issue, and that perhaps you didn't even read this article itself. Your lack of sympathy towards French Jews who receive non-stop death threats is scary. You wouldn't like it if you constantly received death threats, and were beat up. Why is it so surprising to you that others do not like this? RK 14:24, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * I may not have used the right word. There have been very few deaths that I am aware of. I meant to insist on the difference between "death" and other points (such as threats, graffitis, burning and such).


 * Ok. RK 16:21, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * This said, you do not reply to the point, only complain about a choice of words. I still object to the fact the current isolated acts can be compared to antisemitism around WWII. I also object to the use or words "startling rise". No numbers are given. And I object to the fact no where is mentionned the improvment of the situation. As written right now, it looks as if the situation is still the same. Which is grossly wrong. Anthère

Finally, the comment According to many groups with monitor bias crimes, the amount of anti-Semitic incidents in France is now even greater than in the years immediately preceding the Holocaust. Should I respectfully mention that the "many groups" is perhaps a bit fluttery; and that writing "is now even greater" is first alluding to a specific time that is not precised here (when was now ?), and that of course, the way it is written impose the fact that the level of antisemitism before the holocaust was awfully high. I think that such a comment require a proper citation, or numbers to justify such claims.

Finally, I can't help feeling that such a long and detailed listing, however true it is, is unfair to France and french governement, since it does not give any of the reasons why these acts were perpetrated (2nd intifada), it rather lightly indicate how the gov reacted to it, and it does not mention that since then, things have improved. Anthère 01:42, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC) And...why is there no paragraph about antisemitism acts in the United States in this article ?


 * Many Jews would regards this statement as anti-Semitic.


 * which statement ? My statement ? The fact I find the paragraph unfair to my country ??? Could you explain better ? I feel troubled my statement is regarded as antisemitic, it was not meant to. Anthère


 * There is no justification for French citizens and residents to beat up Jews, attempt to murder Jews, burn down synagogues, vandalize cemetaries, and put up hundreds of graffiti signs saying "Kill the Jews", and smear Nazi swastikas in Jewish neighborhoods.


 * Of course, it is no justification. But we are not trying to justify people actions, we are trying to explain why they do it. I think that is the goal of an encyclopedia. I certainly do not support this. Anthère

I am appalled that you think that disagreement with the policy of the State of Israel is considered grounds for such heinous violations of human rights in France.


 * Unfortunately, this is not my opinion RK. That is a very widely believed opinion in France. Perhaps not expressed in America ? I regret you do not read french, but I can give you proper references if needed.


 * In the USA, a great many Americans are very angry with the decisions of the French government.


 * Which decisions are you referring to ?


 * Would this give Americans the right to beat up French people, attempt to murder French people in the USA, burn down French cultural centers, vandalize French cemetaries, and put up hundreds of graffiti signs saying "Kill the French"? I should hope not!


 * Let's focus on the topic at hand please. This is not answering my comments.


 * Anthere, people need to learn better ways to show disagreement then through justifying the violence, beatings and hatespeech of extremists. RK 14:28, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * Absolutely RK. I agree. But we are not here to explain to people how they should behave, we are here to explain people what is going on. I insist that what was written in the article was grossly unsufficient to understand why some people are actually doing antisemitic acts to jewish people. Anthère 15:49, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I removed the section on Europe because it was gosh awful, which is pretty bad, considering that this entire article is gosh awful. It began with a meaningless statement: Many European countries have a history of anti-Semitism--if anyone managed to get through the convoluted article already, they would have figured this out by now. It then gave three lines on the Chmielnicki massacres in Poland. These were a major event in Jewish history, and the rise of the Sabbatian and Hasidic movements, as well as the Haskalah can be attributed to them. It said, for information see Anti-Semitism in Poland. I did and it was an awful article as well, not least because it made no mention of the Chmielnicki massacres. Then it went on to France. Yes, France has a history of anti-Semitism. The Dreyfuss Affair immediately comes to mind. The Crusades come to mind. The expulsion of Jews in the 1300s come to mind. The collaboration of Vichy with the Nazis comes to mind too. None of these are mentioned. Instead, we get a listing of hate crimes and responses. If I want that, I will check a newspaper. This, however, is an encyclopedia, and it should provide some history--not clippings from someone's scrapbook on contemporary anti-Semitism. Given all that, I removed the material. I was tempted to remove a lot more, and eventually I will. Danny 03:12, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a lot of articles that need improvement. The solution is to fix the articles, not delete them and throw them away. For quite some time now you have been complaining about this article. Please contribute to this article in a positive fashion by doing some writing, not just cutting. Wikipedia is built by each of us improving the work of the communiy. RK 14:36, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * I restored the link to Anti-Semitism in Poland. I'm not saying it's a decent article, but maybe by linking to it it might get improved. Revert if you like. Martin 13:09, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Martin, but that page has nothing to do with anti-Semitism in Poland. It is simply a laundry list of contemporary hate crimes, and I personally think it should be deleted. If anything, it should be replaced by an article History of the Jews of Poland, which would cover all aspects of one of the most significant Jewish communities in history--and there were many good times as well as bad there. As for Chmielnicki per se, I might point out that while his troops massacred the Jews of Poland, he was, in fact, a Ukrainian national figure (Ukraine was then ruled by Poland). As for this article, I am itching to clean it up, but I do not want to get into the edit wars that this will inevitably provoke. Meanwhile, I am just pruning out the .... Fill in the blank as you please. Danny 13:17, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * No, we should not be deleting entire articles, or huge chunks of articles. We need to improve the articles we have. When you make specific criticisms, you are pretty much always right.  So spend slightly less time making those criticisms here, and just say what you want to say within the article itself.  I am sure that if you rewrote just the intro paragraphs of the Anti-Semitism in Poland article, then it would lead to even more edits that would continue to improve the article. RK 14:36, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. If I feel bold I might try to turn Auschwitz cross into something worthwhile, which I cut and pasted it out of it. Martin 13:36, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Anti-Jewish, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiments are however on the rise in many countries of Europe. The contemporary hate-crimes is one indicator. I urge you not to throw out the child with the bathing water. --Ruhrjung 13:43, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree. Contemporary chauvinistic crimes should be covered, however, the bulk of this article should focus on the 2,000-year history of anti-Semitism. Now it does not. Danny 13:47, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * But, then, this article must not only list isolated crimes; it must also explain that most of these crimes are inter-communities crimes, of pro-palestinian young north-africans community and pro-sionist communities in poor suburbs, and is more a mirror of disastrous situation between Palestine and Israel that a deliberate move from french government. It should also mention there are antisemitic acts in other countries, and USA as well. It should also mention the current trend that consist of qualifying a country rather pro-palestinian necessarily an antisemit country. It must also detail the long list of provocations toward the french governement, and explain how Sharon is using these isolated acts to claim the whole country is antisemit, the french jewish people will be victims of a pogrom, and should emigrate to Israel for safety. It should then also be mentioned that the french jewish community is the largest in Europe (just as the muslim community is also the largest in Europe), and that french jewish massively emigrating to Israel would solve its demographic pbs. And then it should perhaps give number of people who actually decided to drop french nationality to emigrate. Then, we can actually write that indeed the french governement was not very quick to react to hate crimes in 2000 and 2001. Anthère


 * Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is not the only person suggesting that much of France is becoming increasingly anti-Semitic. In fact, many rabbis in the USA are warning Jews to leave the country. Whether they are right or wrong to do so, this is now a very common perception. I, for one, agree with my rabbi and my rather liberal congregation on this issue. It is no longer safe for Jews to live in France. This point of view is now common even among many liberal left-wing Jews in America and Europe. In fact, most people who have this point of view are likely not even Israeli. We should not make the State of Israel out to be some big bad guy which everything can be blamed on. There are solid reasons why French Jews are afraid of this huge increase in attacks on them. RK 21:36, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

I respect your opinion RK, and I respect the opinion of your Rabbi as well. If he finds french jewish are so much in danger for their lives, it is of his duty to call french jewish people to leave France. But is just one opinion. I found a couple of interesting links for you.

About the impact of international disagreement

Note the peak : Second intifada : september 2000 : http://www.crif.org/index.php?menu=5&dossier=1&id_doss=23

Note the peak : WTC : september 2001 : http://www.crif.org/index.php?menu=5&dossier=1&id_doss=24

Note the peak : Operation Rempart in Palestinian territories : april 2002 : http://www.crif.org/index.php?menu=5&dossier=1&id_doss=25

The graphic per departement represent the geographical area in France. The *huge* bar on the left represent the departments of Paris and Paris northern areas where most of the poor muslim and jewish suburbs are.

But that is France being a problem, France only of course. There is no question external international relationship have no impact whatsoever in France. Of course not :-)

I looked at the past year list of reported incident. The last reported one is interesting. it says on a Paris synagogue (19 sept 2003), someone has written "jew" on the door; This is considered as an anti-semitic act.

About Sharon and american jewish lobby

I would not denied french jew people were very worried at some point. Much more jews emigrated in 2002 than 2001 (waiting for this year numbers). I just say that part of this emigration was due to antisemitic acts, and part was due to jewish lobby in the us and Sharon loud calls for emigration.

About improvement of the situation

Very recent http://www.col.fr/breve-229.html

"We had a friendly talk and an honest exchange of views (with president Chirac). We never accepted the concept that France was a antisemit country, but we condemned the slow response of the preceding government to the acts anti-semites.  We noted that with the current government, that changed ", declared David Harris, of American Jewish Committee. The interlocutors of the president announced to him their feeling of isolation of Israel and their concern in front of the rise of the anti-semitism in the world, in particular in the Moslem countries, in parallel with the rise of Islamism.

I think RK, that perhaps the information you and your rabbi have are a little outdated.

I do not say there are excuses for bad actions toward jews, I just say that just offering to readers, Sharon and american rabbi perceptions of what is anti-semitism in France is grossly misleading. -

The bulk of the history of anti-Zionism stuff was already in anti-Zionism, but I merged what was not already there. Good cut, Danny - less redundancy.

I now removed the bulk of excess verbiage, particularly all these newspaper account-style bits and pieces about every anti-Semitic remark made in the past six months. It was excessive, it was not representative of this important topic, it was filled with polemics, and it was apologetic. How can we have two whole paragraphs on Phyllis Chesler when Dreyfuss and Chmielnicki are missing? How can we mention the ADL every three lines without discussing the Pale of Settlement? How can we give as much mention to Mel Gibson as to the historic passion plays? At least now we have a historic overview, if only in terms of caption-headings. These still need to be filled in, and I will try to do so gradually and with some research. I picked some salvagable lines and stuck them in where appropriate, but that is hardly the whole picture. Looking back at what was there, I am a thoroughly disgusted Danny.

Danny, please calm down. You should not totally gut this article, and replace the entire peer-reviewed text with your own point of view. That is not how Wikipedia works. If you wish to make wholesale changes throughout this entire article, then please make changes one section at a time. I find that when you slow down, and take the time to make specific criticisms, they are generally well thought out. When you take the time to write new material, it generally is good. All of this is good. But you have an irritating tendency to suggest blanking out entire articles (like the one on the Timeline of Jewish History) because you think it is "bad writing" or "disgusting". If everyone here did this, Wikipedia would never have worked. Please restore the large amounts of deleted material, and slow down. No one, least of all I, is preventing you from making suggestions, edits and even very large changes. Just do it slowly and carefully, the same way that everyone else does on Wikipedia. RK 21:36, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

I re-added the sentence on the coining of semitism - seemed like a useful link/factoid. Most of the cuts look very appropriate though. Good work. Martin 21:51, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Danny writes "How can we have two whole paragraphs on Phyllis Chesler when Dreyfuss and Chmielnicki are missing? How can we mention the ADL every three lines without discussing the Pale of Settlement?"


 * Danny, calm down. You used to be a voice of reason on this forum, and I don't understand why you are now pretending that you don't understand how Wikipedia works. You know full well the answer to your questions: Wikipedia is not finished. We are still adding new material all the time. When you see one subject briefly mentioned, and another subject not written about yet, the standard Wikipedia response is to create new material...not to hysterically delete the small amount of material already there. If we were to follow your destructive advice, we'd have to dump the full text of half the Wikipedia articles to match you odd idea of "balance".  No one is stopping you from writing material on the Pale of Settlement; please do so, I am sure you can do an excellent job. RK 03:04, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)

As for your claims about Alfred Dreyfus, the Dreyfus affair and Bohdan Chmielnicki, you are incorrect. Wikipedia has a substantial amount of material on this topic; hadn't you read these articles ? If you wish to add some material from those articles into this one, fine. But stop deleting discussions of most other topics because you getting angry that no one else wrote about your favored topics first. Don't be angry at others for not writing the article you wish existed; instead, be productive by helping bring such text into creation. Please do this by working with others, and not by deleting huge amounts of other people's work, insulting others, and forcing this entry match your own POV. Calm down and get back to your old self. I know what excellent work you are capable of when you put your mind to it.RK 03:04, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the condescending platitudes. This is an article about a 2,000-year-old phenomenon, hence it should cover that 2,000 year old phenomenon, instead of being a polemical justification for Zionism or a refutation of the claim that anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism. That, in fact, would be POV. Yes, the article needs reshaping and reforming, as practically everyone with some interest in it has stated. And this is a process that takes time, as it should. Cramming the article with every contemporary manifestation or pseudo-manifestation of anti-Semitism is not the way to go about doing it. Personally, and this is my POV, I think it makes Jews look like a bunch of lame victims--and taht is hardly the way to portray a rich, 3,000-year-old culture. Professionally, it ignores major historical episodes in the story of anti-Semitism and replaces them with contemporary footnotes. Oh, and I have some soft music playing and an aromatherapy candle burning, so I am quite calm. Danny 03:28, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Having had just the briefest of looks at this article, my first question is: what has poor Richard Dreyfuss done to provoke such debate? Could we possibly be confusing him with Alfred Dreyfus? Adam 04:02, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Richard Dreyfuss has made some bad movies, perhaps? JeMa


 * Whoops. :-) Danny 04:11, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am glad to see this article improving :-) Anthère

Offer of mediation and a request
I would like to offer a suggestion to help mediate this dispute. First off, I am a little unclear: does being a sysop grant editing priviliges that others do not have? If so, then Danny is right, and Rk is wrong. However, if this is not the case then how about the following compromise: Rk has stated that he will support the right of other people, especially Danny, to edit and change this article; he has stated that he would be willing to allow others to make substantial and large changes. Let us put his claim to the test. Restore some sections (any two, choose randomly) of this article to the state where it was two days ago, and allow Danny to start editing each section, one section at a time, as he sees fit. Check to see if Rk is allowing Danny to edit, as he states he shall, or if he is reverting the work of others. Both seem to be people of good will and substantial knowledge, and it would be a shame for a "flame war" to prevent further improvement. This is especially so, as I consider myself unqualified to add any substantial material here myself. JeMa 15:28, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)

I also want to make a request. Maybe this should be in a separate article, but there seems to be a large amount of anti-Semitism in some nations where Jews, for all practical purposes, do not exist (e.g. Malaysia, Japan, Austria). Why? How? JeMa 15:28, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)


 * << [D]oes being a sysop grant editing priviliges that others do not have? >>


 * In the context of the present good faith dispute come edit war, an appeal to Wikipedia's sysops is totally inappropriate. Virtually anyone can obtain sysop status at Wikipedia by simply asking for it, and I would be hard-pressed to name more than one or two Wikipedians who have been denied sysop privileges.  As such, an appeal to Wikipedia's sysops reflects a false belief that Wikipedia has a power structure that it does not have.  The very most that a sysop might be able to do in the present situation is protect this article so that rank and file Wikipedians could not edit it, and there are many other conflict resolution procedures that can and should be tried first.


 * Ok. I was just checking. This means that Danny does not have the extensive editorial power he has effectively claimed. his editorial powers are the same as ours. JeMa 17:54, Nov 5, 2003 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I am not at all pleased with Danny's decision to make drastic wholesale changes to the present article, and I would support a reversion to the status quo ante as of 12:32, 26 Oct 2003, or earlier. From that point, Danny can propose specific changes to specific sections on this Talk page, and implement those changes once discussion has ended. -- NetEsq 16:43, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I am in agreement. JeMa 17:54, Nov 5, 2003 (UTC)

User:Danny
Danny has taken total ownership of the anti-Semitism article. It has slowly grown over the past two years, and yes, it has included a lot of his point of view. In fact, much of what I added was based on mutual phone conversations with Danny. But in recent days he has decided that he and he alone will control the entire article. He has gutted it, and won't discuss anything. I told him "If you wish to make wholesale changes throughout this entire article, then please make changes one section at a time. I find that when you slow down, and take the time to make specific criticisms, they are generally well thought out. When you take the time to write new material, it generally is good. All of this is good. But you have an irritating tendency to suggest blanking out entire articles (like the one on the Timeline of Jewish History) because you think it is "bad writing" or "disgusting". If everyone here did this, Wikipedia would never have worked. Please restore the large amounts of deleted material, and slow down. No one, least of all I, is preventing you from making suggestions, edits and even very large changes. Just do it slowly and carefully, the same way that everyone else does on Wikipedia."

These comments were made in a spirit of open and honest compromise, and reflect a very flexible point of view. I even told him to go ahead, and one step at a time, do what he likes. But do it just one step at a time so the rest of the Wikipedia community can see what is going on, and gets their own say as well. Yet Danny's response was to just continue gutting the article. He then made some problematic statements, indicating a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. Danny writes "How can we have two whole paragraphs on Phyllis Chesler when Dreyfuss and Chmielnicki are missing? How can we mention the ADL every three lines without discussing the Pale of Settlement?"

I don't understand how any Wikipedian could ask such a thing; we all know the answer: '''Wikipedia is not finished. We are still adding new material all the time.''' When we see one subject briefly mentioned, and another subject not written about yet, the standard Wikipedia response is to create new material...not to delete the small amount of material already there. If we were to follow this destructive path, we'd have to dump the full text of half the Wikipedia articles. Look, I've repeatedly told Danny that I will respect his suggestions, edits, and even lage changes, and that I think he does excellent work. He just needs to work with others in the same way that everyone else here does. RK 03:31, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)


 * Whether Danny went about it in the manner most likely to succeed is a question that can be debated. However, his judgements concerning the article were spot on and needed to be said.  The real problem user is the one who thinks that the article on anti-Semitism should read like the web site of the Anti-Defamation League and screams when someone tries to change it into an encyclopedia article.  --Zero 11:18, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Please stop writing insulting fictions and personal attacks. Not a single person here, least of all I, has advocated such a position. In fact, I repeatedly supported Danny when he said that he would like to make specific changes, and would like to make some big edits. I still hold this position. Your claims to the contrary are total fabrications, and grossly insulting. The problem, which you conveniently forget to mention, is that Danny has tried to take total ownership of this entire article, which is a gross violation of Wikipedia policy. It would be a disaster if this occured in all of our articles; it shouldn't be allowed here either. No one person has the right to totally gut an article and rewrite in his own words. RK 00:54, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)~


 * Danny is certainly not a problem user. He should be given support, assistance, and space to work in, rather than engaged in a pointless revert war. Martin 20:22, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you are talking about. No one is preventing Danny from editing this, or any other article. Some of us are, however, worried by the way that he taken total ownership of this article, and refuses to work with others. RK 00:54, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree with Martin. Danny is by no conceivable definition a problem user. FearÉIREANN 20:26, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ed asks "What specific changes do you want to make to anti-Semitism? What changes did you object to, and why?"


 * I don't have any specific changes I want to make. There aren't any recent changes that I object to.  However, Danny has deleted most of the article without explanation!  He can't do this; none of us can.  He refuses to allow any of that material to appear, reverts it when that material is put back, and makes promises about replacing all this with newly written material.  This just isn't the way that Wikipedia works.  For all of our articles, including this one, anyone can make criticisms, and anyone can make edits. That's fine. RK 21:29, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)


 * In this case, Danny has for some time said that he finds many problems with this articles, and wishes to make many changes. That's fine. As I keep saying to everyone, when Danny takes the time to make specific comments and write new material, it usually is not only good, but excellent. But Danny isn't doing that anymore, for whatever reason. He has just deleted huge amounts of other people's work...put nothing in its place...and won't let anyone else do anything.  That's totally wrong, and for whatever reason, he doesn't understand this.  He can't just sit on this article and keep large sections empty until he gets around to writing new sections. We need to restore the deleted material, and then allow people ....especially Danny...to have full support in making changes, one change at a time, the same way that all of our articles are worked on. I am confused as to why this mundane position is now controversial, and I can't figure out whey Martin (MyRedDice) and Anthere are supporting this abrogation of Wikipedia etiquette and practice. RK 21:29, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)


 * I am not supporting anything special RK. I am in an wait and see attitude right now :-)


 * RK, please be patient. Try cultivating a good working relationship with Danny. See how well I get along with William C. even though he and I have a major disagreement? We are polar opposites, and we've been tussling over global warming and related articles for almost a year. Yet there's hardly ever a sharp word between us. Why? Because all our talk is nothing but hot air! ;-) --Uncle Ed 19:28, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have re-read the Wiki policy articles. One person may not delete entire articles or large sections of articles, and refuse to allow others to edit them. While User:Danny is certainly sincere when he says that he doesn't like the present artcile, he cannot hold large parts of the article in an empty state until he gets around to writing his own version. This must be a consensus article. Now some of the deleted material has been returned. As a group, we may edit it, if we choose.. JeMa 17:54, Nov 5, 2003 (UTC)

Hello JeMa. I do not think you understand my critique of the article as it stood. It was based on my perception that the article concentrated on the last twenty years of two thousand year old topic, with barely a nod to historic anti-Semitism--pogroms, anti-Jewish decrees, massacres, anti-Semitic writing, etc. Yes, there are other articles that cover specifics, but this article should be an overview of the historical topic, linking to those articles. Furthermore, the material on anti-Zionism, which dominated the article (along with some anti-Islamic positioning) was both polemical and defensive. It should be neither--it should be NPOV. Proportionally, in an overview of such a vast subject, it should merit a few lines at most. Hey, I was beaten up with some friends in 1980 because we were visibly Jewish. That does not merit an article. Furthermore, the issue of anti-Zionism, which is covered in an extensive (though to my taste, biased) article, is in itself POV. Many Jews are and historically have been anti-Zionist. I do not mean just Chomsky either, or Neturei Karta (both have been forums for extensive debates here as well). The Reform movement was anti-Zionist, the Bund was anti-Zionist, communist Jews were anti-Zionist, Agudat Israel was anti-Zionist, the great Jewish historian Dubnow was anti-Zionist, Marek Edelman, deputy commander of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, was anti-Zionist. In fact, Zionism was but one alternative in Jewish life, which gained predominance after the Shoah. There were understandable reasons for this, whether I agree with them or not. That does not mean anti-Zionism per se is synonymous with anti-Semitism. It also does not mean that anti-Zionism cannot be tainted with anti-Semitism. In many instances it is. My problem, therefore, is with the generalities. As for Wiki policy, I have been here for two years, sometimes more actively, sometimes less so. I am fairly familiar with Wiki policy, including the idea of being bold while editing. I can also point to countless examples where crap was removed, point blank. You may have missed the HJ debates of over a year ago. As for me not allowing anyone to edit the article, that is mistaken. Anyone can edit it--just put in factual NPOV information. Being able to edit an article does not mean being able to fill it with polemics, poor history, biases, and whatnot. As for consensus, there was none. Most people who dealt with this subject were unhappy with the article, but most people were also unwilling to get into the many fights that ensued with a user who was, shall we say, rather zealous in his defense of his particular version of history--a version, by the way, that was historically amateurish at best, though most Jewish historians I showed it too (yes, I deal with lots of them professionally) thought it boorish and ill-informed. I have replaced it with a framework, which is certainly open for debate. Filling in such a topic does take time, and I hope other people fill in some of the blanks. Your final statement also bothers me: "As a group, we may edit it." Yes, I am part of this group, and I am editing. Editing is not just adding--it is also removing. Many people (but not all) from the so-called group were happy to see that I removed material. If the material is polemical or biased or inaccurate, I will continue to do so. So, I repeat: Zionism is not the sine qua non of Judaism, nor is anti-Zionism the equivalent of anti-Semitism. I say this as a proud Jew, who works professionally in the Jewish community teaching about anti-Semitism. I also say this as someone who has spent over two decades in regular service and reserve duty in the IDF--a lot more time than I care to remember. Danny 02:50, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * That's unfortunate, but being beat up doesn't make you right, and being on the academic left (only slightly, admittedly) doesn't make people with other views wrong. If you wish to edit an article, please do so. No one is stopping you! But stop repeatedly blanking it in a heavy handed way and insulting those who have points of view that differ from your own. That is a violation of Wikipedia etiquette. You still misrepresent the Jewish community's views. The great mass of both the secular and religious Jewish community see most forms of anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism. While many Jews would admit that exceptions can exist in theory and practice (i.e. some of the points you mention), nonetheless the fact is that most anti-Semites today use anti-Semitism as a way to express anti-Semitism. Many academic authorities on this subject state this quite explicitly, and I cannot fathom any Jewish educator saying otherwise. Your position is thus tenuous.


 * Danny may choose to continually insult text I wrote, but it is telling that he finds himself unable or unwilling to produce even a single sentence of text to replace anything I and others wrote. There is a difference between wanting to improve an article, which involves editing and writing, and insulting a Wikipedia contributor that you disagree with. RK


 * This article currently mispresent the beliefs of most Jews. Within most of of Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism and Modern Orthodoxy, anti-Zionism is seen as anti-Semitism, for precisely the reasons that Danny keeps trying to ignore. Even many Reform, Conservative and Modern Orthodox Jews views the tiny Satmar ultra-Orthodox sect as anti-Semitic because of their anti-Zionism and support for the PLO; many Jews do not hold a double standard.


 * This view is even true among many non-religious Jews, and also among many Christians. Look, no one is preventing Danny from inserting text on this subject, including the above paragraphs. In fact, as I have said before, I invite Danny to make additions and edits to this article. But Danny refuses to do so. He still is only making ruthless cuts. He needs to learn to work with others, and to stop hiding views that he disagrees with. RK 03:35, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)