Talk:Antisemitism in Islam/Archive 8

Reliable Sources on Antisemitic Verses in Quran
Pamella Geller is certainly a reliable source for the opinions of Pamella Geller and the people she represents. She and others consider a number of verses in the Quran to be antisemitic. Those verses are listed. I've added additional references that also view the Quranic verses as antisemitic. It could be disputed that the Quran has antisemitic verses, and certainly there are Muslims who would argue this, and perhaps there should be a subsection under the Quran header that discusses this point of view (provided the section is not original research). Some Muslims would argue that there is no antisemitism in Islam, but that is not the point of this article. Wikipedia should be a source of information. Just because we disagree with a source doesn't make it unreliable. RebSmith (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Pamella Geller is considered an extremist even by mainstream Jewish scholars like Deborah Lipstadt. Put her opinions on her own page and don't make Wikipedia a mirror of her outlandish views.  You even used her opinion without attribution in the section title.  The second source you give does not mention antisemitism.  Spencer and Bostom wrote books, so what?  A whole book is not a source. The obvious fact that your sources are all from the right-wing anti-Islam group of writers also means you have not attempted to follow policy. Zerotalk 08:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto. There are numerous scholarly works on the subject. Where controversy exists, we are obliged in writing for an encyclopedia to use sources that exhibit meticulous care in interpretation. There is no place here for political shouting-matches.Nishidani (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This article really does need a rewrite. If you took a look at the list, it included verses from the second link that were not included in Pamella Geller's list. The second link doesn't say "antisemitism" but it does say "disparaging". Indeed, Pamella Geller represents a view that many consider extreme. She was even banned from speaking in the UK. Her confusion of Islam with modern day radical Salafi movements is abhorrent. Her list of antisemitic verses comes from Robert Spencer's analysis. Many people would consider Robert Spencer as representing the views of Islamists in relation to his analysis of Islam. I believe it would be nice for this article to include a list of controversial verses from the Quran that both Robert Spencer and his cohort, as well as the Islamists, view as "disparaging of Jews". Islamists draw from these verses as well to justify their antisemitism. Pamella Geller & Co. draw from these verses to justify their analysis of Islam as "Jew-hatred". The former, as well as the latter, groups should be mentioned in this article. If my additions have appeared in any way to have infringed on the neutral point of view policy of wikipedia, it is due to simply not having enough time and not doing a good enough job at displaying the content. It would be nice to have you all work constructively with me in trying to improve this article rather than flat out rejecting any inclusion of relevant information to the reader. Thank you. RebSmith (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Deleting this kind of useful collection instead of refining it and sourcing it more effectively is by definition a political shouting match, shouting down the topic instead of helping it be covered in an encyclopedic fashion on Wikipeia and is a gross violation of policy. Kindly refrain from destructive and tendentious deletions.  The whole article stinks and should be rewritten, but any encyclopedic coverage of the topic must include Koran verses that are foundational to Islamic anti-Jewish thought.  If this is disputed between different Islamic schools then cover the dispute in an encyclopeic way here.  Deletion is not the solution to incomplete content.Bkalafut (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * May I add that WP is an encyclopedia built piecewise by amateurs and there is no obligation for any to have a comprehensive coverage of the sources. The process is meant to lead to encyclopedic content.  Somebody who does not know well or understand importance in the overall scholarly discussion of the left-wing anti-Islam group of writers or Islamist writers is not enjoined by WP policy from contributing.  WP is not an experts-only affair and to represent NPOV as requiring every edit to be comprehensive treatment of the sources is way out of line with the site's history and policies.  I suspect it is a deliberate falsehood wielded like a club for tendentiousness's sake, but we're supposed to assume good faith, so consider it a clarification.  Be constructive.Bkalafut (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * NPOV is not required of every edit, but it is required of every editor. Speaking generally, not particularly about anyone here, editors are violating policy if they make no effort to promote neutrality in articles.  That could mean putting in all sides of a debate or it could mean adding one side that is underrepresented.  A simple way of putting it is that every edit should make the article better (which includes policy-conformance) than it was before. Zerotalk 01:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My objection is very simple. Of course there are passages that inveigh against the Jews. Of course anti-Semitism exists, in Arab countries as well. But in Biblical, Talmudic, Quranic, New Testmental contexts, just citing either primary sources for 'anti-Semitism' is polemical and unhistorical. The only way this kind of material can be used is when specific verses are cited by reputable Arabists as pointing to what we now call anti-Semitism. One cannot retain a list from a twit, and then remove the twit's name, and proceed to document it alternatively. By a similar technique, one could get some (they abound) netspeak listing the use of 'Jews' in a hostile context in the Synoptic gospels (far more contexts yield this) and plunk it down as proof of 'Christian anti-Semitism'. The state of the art scholarship doesn't allow this, since most of those documents were written by Jews, or members of a Jewish sect, in dispute with more traditional Judaism, and threshing out what is generally 'anti-Judaic' from infra-Jewish polemics is difficult, and can only be followed by close attendance to what reputable scholars argue. The same goes for the large number of anti-Christian or minim attacks in Jewish religious literature. People who rush into this either do it in a scholarly manner, or they cohabit with shit-stirrers, in an age when playing the racist/religious zealot card, (predominantly against Muslims while all keep quiet about the dirt under their own ethno-religious carpets) is of tidal proportions. Wikipedia's policy of neutrality only finds a defense in fidelity to qualitative scholarly arguments on these sensitive issues, and I cannot for the moment finds a parallel with what goes on in "fixing" the Islamophobic image into Islamic articles in articles on other faiths. As it stands, this editing is political, not historical.Nishidani (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The list has substantially changed. Verses have been added and more verses have been documented where they are used by Muslim clerics in their antisemitic comments. What is a "twit"? I'm unfamiliar with that expression, but I do assure you that the editing was not politically motivated (I in no way endorse the opinions of Pamela Geller). The only reason that I used Pamela Geller's list to initially begin was because it was the most comprehensive and used Robert Spencer's material, which draws from antisemitic Islamist writings and statements. Yes, I do understand that Robert Spencer is political, but he is accused on representing Islamists (from several Ahmadi Muslims). So, I decided it was easiest to start with that list, then source it and change it (which is what I've done, although it is not done). But please consider reading NPOV tutorial. On side notes: Although I understand this is a matter of opinion, I would contest the idea that there are more "hostile contexts" to Jews in the gospel than in the Quran, and I would also contest the philosophy that history is not political.  RebSmith (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I just want to emphasize this. Pamela Geller's opinion doesn't come from a vacuum. It has been argued by Muslims that She and her cohort (Robert Spencer) represent the view of Islam that is in line with Islamists. In light of this, I believe it perfectly responsible to consider her opinion on Islam (in the context of the Muslims who criticize her arguments). RebSmith (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, if we want to talk about reliable sources, it could be argued that the opinions of Western academics are not reliable, even if they have "Islamic Studies" degrees. The only truly reliable sources on Islam are those with ijazah. I've had Muslims tell me this, and it is one of the reasons they reject the recent self-declared Caliph al-Baghdadi of ISIS (although he has a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies, he doesn't have an ijazah). RebSmith (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense.'Western' academics =anyone in the world, from any ethnic background religious or secular tradition, who has a doctorate attesting to analytical competence at the highest level by a college of peers, of different ideological religious or personal persuasions. 'Western' = a technique of comparative textual analysis and peer review to achieve provisory knowledge, not ultimate understanding. To use the old cliché there is no intrinsic reason why we should believe an 'emic' statement is more correct or authentic or closer to the facts than an 'etic' interpretation (Emic and etic). Indigenousness yields no intrinsic epistemological edge over outsiders. A doctoral degree by an insider is no prophylactic against stupidity, and in this case, encyclopedias give more credence to scholars who know eight or a dozen semitic languages and the respective cultures and history, than to scholars who know only what they have read or been taught by one of the many traditions in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. As for anti-Semitism, it was a product of Western civilization, which almost exterminated the Jews, whereas Jews have survived in the Middle East for millennia without any known attempt to wipe them off the face of the earth, and the roots of anti-Semitism come from Christianity (and from Christianity's Judaic heritage, where extermination in the name of God, as in the Book of Judges, was inscribed in its theological mythistory).Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In regards to Western education, this is not my opinion, but according to Islamic tradition (at least Sunni tradition). An ijazah requires personal training by (at the feet of) a learned scholar. How can we write about Islam and consider the opinion of Western academics on par with or have even more weight than those who have ijazah? To me, this is clearly a Western supremacist point of view.
 * The roots of Western culture and Christianity are Judaism. If we follow the logic in your thesis that the "roots of antisemitism come from Christianity", then we will ultimately arrive at the conclusion that the roots of antisemitism are Judaism and Semitic. If you've ever actually read Mein Kampf, on the other hand, you would understand that it is in competition with Christianity and anti-christian [], and if we consider the pogroms conducted prior to Hitler, you will find that they were conducted in direct violation of Church teachings and orders (and simply mob frenzy with perhaps a touch of pre-Christian (pagan) ideas). RebSmith (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I do also find this article Oldest synagogues in the world quite telling. I wonder why Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE etc are not listed... We know that Jewish tribes did live in some of these places during Mohammad's time (7th century). What happened to all of their synagogues? Perhaps it is just due to the article itself not reporting correctly... Synagogue construction to me represents a tangible indicator on the flourishing of a Jewish community, and the history of a synagogue (its construction and destruction or conversion into Church) should mirror the state of the Jewish community in the local area. I am not at all convinced that by simply looking at the history of synagogues across the former Islamic empires, you would come to the conclusion that the Jewish community was flourishing there. Many synagogues were popping up throughout Europe during the height of the Islamic empires. Why? And why were there 9 million Jews in Europe pre-World war II, while the population of that was much smaller in the Middle East? We can talk till we are blue in the face about antisemitism in Europe and how Islamic empires treated the Jewish populations better, but the remnants of these Jewish communities (or lack there of) speak for themselves. RebSmith (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Rebsmith, in your hands the section you have been editing might as well have come directly from Geller's website or from some Islamophobic youtube video. Not the slightest, teeny weeniest attempt to provide balance is evident, just an cherry-picked compilation of sources supporting a particular viewpoint. Have you even looked for Islamic sources which deny the interpretation of those verses? Instead you link to some cleric who nobody ever heard of before the quotes he generously provided. Nishidani's "we could do that too" is not an idle comment; with a little time one could compile a similar list for Christians against Jews, Jews against gentiles, whatever you like. But we won't, because this is not what Wikipedia is about. It simply isn't possible that we will keep this material in the form you have constructed it. Zerotalk 01:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Come on. It's hard to work on something when I'm busy fighting to retain content. Please see my "to do list". It would be very helpful if you guys chipped in on developing this section rather than trying to delete everything. I only have so much time in one day to work on something like this when I'm busy with my own life. For balance, I am going to Ahmadi Muslim sources, who I know interpret the Quran in a very tolerant fashion, as well as Hamza Yusuf and other scholars at Zaytuna College. It should be noted that what you see there is not cherry picking. If you don't understand how influential the scholars of Al-Azhar University are in the Muslim world, then you shouldn't be commenting on Islam. RebSmith (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an article on Antisemitism. I am first citing the antisemitic stances. Then, I will include the rebuttal of those stances. If you want to help develop this subsection: "Muslim Interpretation for Tolerance of Jews in the Quran" or some such title, here are some news sites [] and [] to know which clerics you should investigate. Also, look into Hamza Yusuf in what he has to say about the Quran and Jews. He's quite good at representing a very tolerant stance on Islam. RebSmith (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, here is a reference that should be used by Hamza Yusuf:[]. RebSmith (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is already a travesty of what we are supposed to do on wikipedia, noted for the crap which we allow for Islamic-related articles, while we sedulously block fringe lunatic ravings, or authoritative figurehead dopespeak, abundant in other monotheistic quarters, when it is used to characterize Christianity and Judaism. 'Across the Muslim world, depicting Jews as apes and pigs is quite common '(so is depicting Arabs as insects, animals, beasts, bacteria. I have a private list of dozens of such remarks made recently: I don't make an article of it, or draw generalizations about 'across the Jewish world Arabs are likened to primitive beasts or insects'). What has been done here can best be understood by comparing it to another article, which is in an indifferent state, Christianity and antisemitism but at least tries to subscribe to encyclopedic demands for quality sourcing. That article is not distracted by fingering and corralling a huge list of ultrarecent statements from the fringe (WP:Undue) to make a case. It gives a scholarly review of the institutional, theological and historical moments underlying Christian anti-Semitism as a tradition.


 * This article does start by an attempt at scholarly overviews, but then from note 124 to 215, it goes into overdrive to scour for contemporary expressions from an assorted scramble of obscure or otherwise figures, to create a picture of endemic anti-Semitism in Islam. The authoritative views of Bernard Lewis ('According to Bernard Lewis, there is nothing in Muslim theology (with a single exception) that can be considered refutations of Judaism or ferocious anti-Jewish diatribes.[24]' is noted, only then to be overturned by a huge blast of contemporary idiotspeak often from the fringes, while any reaction from the Islamic clerisy critical of what this shiekh or that mullah said, is ignored. I could imagine someone coming along to plunk what rabbis like the Ovadia Yosefs (http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/shas-spiritual-leader-abbas-and-palestinians-should-perish-from-this-world-1.310800 here) Shmuel Eliyahus (http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Eliyahu-advocates-carpet-bombing-Gaza here), Dov Liors (http://www.timesofisrael.com/hardline-rabbi-calls-to-cleanse-israel-of-arabs/ here), and David Batzris and Shalom Lewis and their ilk to make a case for Judaism and anti-Arabism, misconstruing 2000 years of complex thinking by slanting the subject to a focus on contemporary ravings. The Christian anti-Semitism article deals with the institutions, structure and theology as elaborated over time, relating to anti-Semitic currents in Christian tradition. What we have here is a hundred examples of the Terry Jonese, Stephen J. Andersons, Stephen Sizers, Jeremiah Wrights of this world, material we do not stuff into every article on Christianity.
 * Secondly, no use of primary materials, unfiltered by scholarly citation and analysis, is allowable in this kind of minefield because it suggests WP:OR. For everyone of those statements, there is a literature of analysis, hermeneutics, and refutation even. One could make a marvelous case for both Judaism and Christianity being favourable to ethnocide or genocide, starting with Deuteronomy 7:16 by using the techniques employed here. For this reason I will revert you, and ask you to work out collegially here the material you have added, so that it respects Wikipedia standards.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are dissembling. Because there appears to be some original research--but even this is only due to style problems all of it is taken from the references--you blanked all of the edits, which clearly represent secondary sources.  It appears that you are trying to do this for reasons of POV and/or violation of fringe.  Kindly cease edit warring or I will have to request a block.Bkalafut (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Lets take a look at the material returned here: In short, that entire edit returned material that violates WP:OR and WP:RS. I'm removing the material on that grounds.  nableezy  - 18:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Completely unsourced:"The Quran is the central religious text of Islam, which Muslims believe to be a revelation from God. Muslims believe the Quran was verbally revealed by God to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel (Jibril), gradually over a period of approximately 23 years. Muslims regard the Quran as the most important miracle of Muhammad, a proof of his prophethood, and the only revealed book that has been protected by God from distortion or corruption. There are various interpretations of how Jews are presented in the Quran. Some Muslim clerics have used Quranic verses to justify antisemitic statements, while others have used Quranic verses to argue tolerance of Jews. Some Western trained academics view the Muslim antisemitic interpretations of the Quran as recent (19th century) phenomenon drawing from European antisemitism, while others insist these interpretations are historical and rooted in early Islamic history."
 * Subsection titled Quranic Teachings and Annihilation of the Jews - not a single secondary source, with the second paragraph being completely unsourced.
 * Subsection titled Jews are the "eternal" enemies of Muslims - one clerics views do not a religion make. Belongs in the article on
 * Subsection titled List of Quranic Verses Considered "Antisemitic" or Disparaging to Jews - sourced either to unreliable sources (I'd say a Regnery published book by Spencer is unreliable, but that may be up for debate, but JVL and Pamella Geller aren't reliable sources, see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_134 and Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61 some of the things that JVL hosts are fine, others are just webpages by random people and this one is nothing more than a number of verses with no reliable source commentary on them), or to primary sources (the Quran itself). Material requires reliable, third party, secondary sources to be included.
 * Could whoever supports retaining this material explain how it is not a straightforward violation of both WP:OR and WP:RS? Thank you.  nableezy  - 19:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The correct thing to do would have been to remove the paragraph, not revert the edit which restored both that paragraph and kilobyte after kilobyte of properly sourced material. It is difficult to assume good faith if you blank 10X to remove X.  Looks like an attempt to cement vandalism.  Please keep it civil.Bkalafut (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Uhh, I outlined what was wrong with the kilobyte after kilobyte of material, and none of it properly sourced.  nableezy  - 22:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've put back the paragraph and it is now completely sourced. Nothing I've included has WP:OR. Hamas (which is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood) clerics represent a large section of the Palestinian population and are respected by governments in the Arab world (Qatar). I'm not exactly sure how you can call these opinions fringe when they are representative of the Muslim Brotherhood. In the few free elections in the Muslim world, the Muslim Brotherhood won across Egypt, one of the most populated Muslim countries and Hamas won in the Palestinian territories. It seems idiotic to have an article on Islam and antisemitism and not include any views from modern-day Muslim clerics on this topic, as well as call their views "fringe" simply because they are contrary to the views of Western non-Muslim academics. RebSmith (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Quranic Teachings and Annihilation of the Jews - This clearly comes from the secondary source: Bostom, Andrew G. The legacy of Islamic antisemitism: from sacred texts to solemn history. Prometheus Books, 2008.
 * Jews are the "eternal" enemies of Muslims - How is a Western academic's view more important than a Muslim cleric's view on Islam? This section is not to say that all of Islam is this one cleric's view, but Muhammad Hussein Yacoub is representative of certain Islamists' view on Jews and has gained notoriety in the English speaking world for his view.
 * List of Quranic Verses Considered "Antisemitic". Just because you disagree with a source doesn't make the source unreliable. There are four sources there, two are scholarly and two are from commentators, in addition to the actual Muslim clerics that use these verses. RebSmith (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Hamas ... clerics a large section of the Palestinian population and are respected by governments in the Arab world"
 * That gives the game away. Get an obscure cleric from some Muslim enclave to say something eminent Muslim clerics would, as often as not, dismiss as hillybilly nonsense, and you can say that it 'represents a large section of the Palestinian population'. Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ?? Qatar views Hamas as an "humanitarian organization". Your comment "from some Muslim enclave" and "hillybilly nonsense" give away your view of the Palestinian people. RebSmith (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But please, by all means, add content from "eminent Muslim clerics" that says this is "hillybilly nonsense". RebSmith (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I find it absolutely insane to have an article titled Islam and antisemitism and for editors to refuse to include popular modern-day Muslim sources that hold an anti-Jewish interpretation of the Quran. This interpretation has been discussed in many scholarly works:

Bostom, Andrew G. The legacy of Islamic antisemitism: from sacred texts to solemn history. Prometheus Books, 2008.

Kramer, Martin. "The Salience of Islamic Antisemitism." Full text of a lecture delivered by Prof. Kramer at the Institute of Jewish Affairs in London and published in its “Reports” series 2 (1995).

Webman, Esther. "The Challenge of Assessing Arab/Islamic Antisemitism." Middle Eastern Studies 46.5 (2010): 677-697.

Clear, A. "Muslim Anti-Semitism." (2002).

Zeidan, David. "The Islamic fundamentalist view of life as a perennial battle." Middle East Review of International Affairs 5.4 (2001): 26-53.

My intention was present this interpretation, not with Western academics sources, but with Muslim sources. The article should include this interpretation, as well as the mainstream scholars that rebuke this interpretation. It seems that some Wikipedia editors are engaging in gross censorship of this topic. RebSmith (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Im sorry, but whether you think it is nonsense or not, you are required to provide secondary third party reliable sources for material. What one random cleric says isnt that. And directly quoting from the Quran without secondary sources discussing what you are quoting is a straightforward violation of WP:OR. Quoting from that policy: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.  nableezy  - 22:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Christianity therefore should include any outrageous or controversial remark made by every Florida pastor, Congolese evangelical, Chinese Baptist, Alaskan Methodist, Aboriginal Anglican, Indonesian revivalist, Mexican fundamentalist, Brazilian Seventh Day Adventist, has been recorded as uttering, about the Bible and any contemporary political issue or contiguous people? That is the trick being played by polemicists, and by editors here. The only way this error of WP:Undue fishing for a POV purpose, is to look at the academic scholarship on the problem, which tends not to be hysterical, and to get its facts straight or its interpretations less seamed with the urgency of utter conviction and persuasive necessity. I think anyone with a University degree understands the statistical rort liable here (A billion Muslims, perhaps half a million clerics, and we have just a baker's dozen of hysterics to represent them).Nishidani (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is a large group of people endorsing that opinion (even if it is a minority opinion), if academics have taken note of that opinion and have written copious amounts of material on it, if that opinion is influencing geopolitics, and if there is a Wikipedia article made to address this opinion, then, yes, we should include it in the Wikipedia article. RebSmith (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * From WP:IRS:


 * In a discussion on Islam and anti-Antisemitism, using Muslim clerics as a source would be perfectly consistent with Wikipedia policy. RebSmith (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And for the record, none of my content was OR. RebSmith (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And let's make sure we are clear on something. Primary source - Quran. Secondary source - Muslim cleric.
 * Nobody said that a source has to unbiased. It however has to be reliable. Which means, quoting from the policy, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and later editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. If there is some cleric who has published his work through a publishing house known for its fact-checking, then by all means include him. But some random person on the street that MEMRI got a clip of is not that. And, for the record, oh yes it was. The entire compilation of verses is straightforward OR. It is using a primary source and providing your own interpretation of it by virtue of its inclusion, without any reliable secondary source provided to back up that interpretation. Yes, you are clear on that part. What you seem to be missing is the reliability of the secondary source.  nableezy  - 22:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The list was clearly sourced, although it could have been sourced better with the actual page numbers from the books. Nonetheless, it was due to the secondary sources that this edit war began. Say what you want about the reliability of the sources, but it was not OR. And for the record, I wouldn't call renown clerics from Al-Ahzar University nor the leadership of Hamas "some random person on the street." MEMRI is reputable and fact checks, identifying who, when and where. I understand that you take issue with the Muslim clerics' POV. That's your problem with an ideology not with reliability. RebSmith (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The list of verses were clearly sourced to the Quran. You need reliable secondary sources including such verses, specifically, to include such a list, otherwise it is original research by WP:SYNTH. As far as renown clerics nor the leadership of Hamas, uhh no, you still need published reliable secondary sources. You have no idea what I think about any of this, so no you do not understand, and my issue is with using reliable secondary sources in an encyclopedia article. MEMRI has been discussed at WP:RS/N multiple times, and no, they are not reputable, and at times they have blatantly distorted what a person said.  nableezy  - 03:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I find no mention or discussion of MEMRI at WP:RS/N. I do understand that it's been declared a "pro-Israel" organization given its selection, but its materials are used in major reputable new organizations, from the New York Times to the Washington Post, as well as academic articles   . The onus is on you to explain how it isn't a reliable source.
 * The list of verses were sourced to: a) Robert Spencer's book, b) Andrew Bostom's book, c) Pamela Geller's website, d) The Jewish Virtual Library. I hadn't had time to source each individual verse separately before complete deletion of the material. It was a compilation citing secondary sources. How in the world is that OR? The proper behavior in this situation is not to delete but to put up a notice of possible unreliable sources or improperly sourced material.
 * I find this whole debate suspicious of a coordinated effort to block relevant information on this specific topic. If you look at the current subsection of the article as it stands, you have this kind of discussion: "Frederick M. Schweitzer and Marvin Perry state that references to Jews in the Quran are mostly negative." or "According to Tahir Abbas the general references to Jews are favorable, with only those addressed to particular groups of Jews containing harsh criticisms." or "According to Bernard Lewis and other scholars, the earliest verses of the Quran were largely sympathetic to Jews." without detailing anything about what Muslims actually believe about the Quran or their interpretation. There isn't even any mention of Naskh! which makes me very suspicious of the entire subsection (Note that there is another Quran subsection that appears to be a POV fork in the article). There are no Muslim sources, by which I mean no one trained as a Muslim scholar is actually cited. Imagine if we were to write an article on Judaism only citing Muslim sources or Catholicism only citing Protestant sources... This makes no sense. The analysis provided by the academics provide no understanding of the actual subject at hand. Even this comment, "Thus, Kramer concludes that there is no doubt modern Muslims effectively make use of the Quran, using Islamic tradition as a source on which antisemitism today feeds, but it is also a selective and distorting use.", is out of left field as it provides no context to what Kramer is discussing. I understand it perfectly only because I am well aware of the views to which he refers. I was attempting to cite those particular views in an easily accessible manner with legitimate Muslim sources to provide context to the reader. Unfortunately, people wish to block this content. There are people who fear this particular interpretation, but failing to add relevant information (that's even mentioned by a source in the article) isn't good encyclopedic behavior. RebSmith (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First, kindly keep your opinions to yourself. I have views on your motivation, and they arent exactly glowing, but I keep them to myself. Back to the point. On MEMRI, see eg Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_8, or for a reliable source showing their shoddy work here. Pamela Geller's website is a complete non-starter, see eg Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_134. Her blog is not a reliable source, full stop. Spencer I dealt with below. Bostom is probably fine, even though he is a medical doctor and not a historian of religion, but it may be fine. JVL is just a list of verses, and their website isnt a reliable source by itself, though it may host material from other reliable sources. Random websites are not reliable sources, please please please go actually read WP:RS from start to end. It is extremely difficult to have the discussion when you seemingly refuse to actually look at the requirements. You can include a Muslim scholars views where that scholar has been published by an organization with a reputation for fact-checking and strong editorial control. That does not mean any random comment a newspaper or MEMRI picked up. And for somebody to come here with Pamela Geller as a source and then accuse others of not engaging in good encyclopedic behavior is sadly not the most foolish thing Ive read on WP talk pages, but its up there.  nableezy  - 14:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read the entire discussion above if you question my motives, as well as the reason for using Pamela Geller as a source on this particular topic in the first place. I clearly state my reasons and motivation. This was to be simply an initial start. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be an ongoing process where the end result leads to encyclopedic content, but it is hard to work on an article when people just blank delete rather than put up notices and discuss. If you look at the history of this page, you will find that it was I who insisted on discussion. This article is far from encyclopedic content as it stands. As for MEMRI, even the article you linked says "Nobody, so far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of Memri's translations". It is full of innuendos and doesn't present anything concrete against the organization. It's only contention is that it doesn't translate all of the Arab world, but only selects the most inflammatory. It is good behavior to know the criticism of a source when using it. Knowing this, MEMRI thus provides a good source for identifying antisemitic sentiment in the Arab world, at least who supports it. If I wanted to find out who was saying anti-Nazi comments and had anti-Nazi stances, I might very well get this from pro-Nazi organizations provided that even the critics don't dispute their content. Clearly, from that article you linked, no one is disputing the translations of MEMRI, it simply casts suspicion, which can be cast on any source, including (and especially) academics. RebSmith (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The lead
EJ has done the sensible thing, and locked the article. The lead I wrote however has gone out, when, in the edit-warring, no one, to my awareness, contested it. I have asked EJ to consider its reincorporation as uncontroversial here. If on the other hand, someone did object, or challenged it, and I missed it, please note that here. It's not of course definitive, but it is not, surely, what we were to-and-froing about?Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are there any objections to restoring that lead, then? Nishidani (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, editors can vote pro or contra for its restoration.Nishidani (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please provide diffs, one to the article as is and another to RebelSmith's lede. Nobody but you knows what you're talking about. Contra until discussion around those has taken place.Bkalafut (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In your reverts here

The lead I wrote remained untouched, from the moment I posted it. If there is some diff that challenged that lead I can't see it. Nishidani (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * The lead has a blatantly anti-Christian POV. The article is Islam and antisemitism, not Christianity and antisemitism. RebSmith (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is an opinion. Unfortunately, all of the serious literature notes that you cannot handle the topic of anti-Semitism (a Western concept born within the bosom of Christianity,) and Islam without looking at the impact of Christian prejudice on Islam. The lead simply reflects that. The question is
 * 'how and why has anti-Semitism, historically rooted and concentrated in European Christian culture, diffused into the Arab and Islamic world? 'Jeffrey Herf, Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism in Historical Perspective: Convergence and Divergence, Routledge, 2013 p.xi.
 * 'The old and stale anti-Jewish stereotypes that appear in European Anti-Semitism, and have been copiously replicated in Arab and Muslim anti-Semitic writings, have of late affected some new twists, concurrent with the enhanced anti-Semitic mood in the West.(Raphael Israeli, Muslim Anti-Semitism in Christian Europe: Elemental and Residual Anti-Semitism, Transaction Publishers, 2011 p.7
 * 'The history of Jew-hatred in the Islamic world is not as intense as that of the Christian world. Jews have generally had a tolerated and protected status in the Islamic faith, in contrast to the demonization of Jews as Christ-killers, which has been so much a feature of Christianity through the centuries. . .In modern times, parts of the Islamic world have also been influenced by antiSemitic conspiracy theories that have their origins in Christian Europe.' Toby Greene,  Blair, Labour, and Palestine: Conflicting Views on Middle,Bloomsbury Publishing USA,2013 p.170.
 * ' A principal source of anti-Jewish prejudice and hatred in the Middle East is the Arab Christians, few of whom have renounced, as required by the Second Vatican Council, and parallel Protestant guidelines- the inherited teaching of contempt in favor of the new teaching of respect.'Marvin Perry, ‎Frederick M. Schweitzer Anti-Semitism: Myth and Hate from Antiquity to the Present, Palgrave Macmillan 2002 p.14.
 * 'Antisemitic libels previously typical of Christian anti-Semitism and staple propaganda of Nazism, such as the blood-libel, now form a regular feature of Arab propaganda. . .It must be concluded that there  now been a confluence of Christian and Muslim anti-Semitism in the Middle East, for which the brokers were the Nazis.' Hyam Maccoby, Antisemitism and Modernity: Innovation and Continuity, Psychology Press, 2006 p.151
 * 'The reason why anti-Jewish feeling has existed in all Christian culture for centuries before it appeared in a deep sense in Islamic culture is that the status of the Jews in Christian mythology has always been much deeper than it ever was in pre-modern Islam. It is part of the fundamental myth of Christianity that its divine founder, Jesus,. was opposed as an enemy by the Jewish leadership, who actually brought about his death by their false representations of him to the Roman leadership as a danger to Rome.' (something Islam lacks) p.148 (There is no parallel, he continues, in Islam with this)
 * These and many other sources make the connection, view it as intrinsic. These are not my views. They are the views of various authorities, and must be duly registered here. The lead as I wrote mirrors a number of views of key scholars on major themes, which the text then develops. To be defensive about one religion, while hauling in truckloads of material critical about another, is simply not acceptable on Wikipedia, let alone polite society (if that still exists).Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The lede focuses too much on importation of anti-Semitic tropes from Christendom. It is thus inappropriate for an article about antisemitism in Islam.  You may treat the topic of imported vs autochthonous antisemitism in the body of the article. Strong Contra as lede is POV relative to article. Bkalafut (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the focus is from the sources. When sources discuss the impact of Christianity on Islamic antisemitism, and do so regularly, that belongs.  nableezy  - 19:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "The lede focuses too much on importation of anti-Semitic tropes from Christendom."
 * Leads summarize. One strong thesis is that anti-Semitism in Islam came from contact with European prejudices. It is supported by the eminence grise of the topic, Lewis, and many other scholars. It has to be there for that reason. Please note, that so far, neither of you has introduced, or shown familiarity, with any of the standard scholarly works on the subject. Your unique contribution is scare-monger additions or primary sources culled from them. No page numbers, nothing...Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
I have taken the advice proffered, to dispute resolution. See here. Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Muslim Clerics as sources
Here are a list of the Muslim Clerics that I used for the anitisemitic interpretation of Quranic verses: These clerics should be considered reliable sources WP:RS on Anitisemitic (or anti-Jew) interpretation of Quranic verses unless determined otherwise. RebSmith (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Ah yes... Nishidani thinks these men are "hillbilly" and their opinions "nonsense" ... lol RebSmith (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi
 * Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais
 * Algerian cleric, Chemseddine el-Djazairi
 * Yusuf Al-Qaradawi
 * ‘Atiyyah Saqr
 * Yunis Al Astal
 * Muhsen Abu 'Ita (Hamas Cleric on Hamas sponsored television, he is a veteran of Hamas leadership )
 * Muhammad Hussein Yacoub


 * A few of these people are notable and the opinions of those few are also notable. The problem here is ably illustrated by your list. Why did you only list clerics whose opinions are (you believe) supportive of the story you wish to tell?  Have you looked for clerics whose opinions of the same verses are different?  (Try searching for things like "Quran Jews misinterpretation" and you will find many to choose from.) Basically this is cherry-picking of the first order, a violation of WIkipedia's core principles. As well as that, most of what is claimed to be the opinions of these people comes to us not directly but via the anti-Islam machine.  Have you looked for alternative opinions on what these clerics believe? Zerotalk 01:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * From WP:Cherrypicking:

I've mentioned before in this talk page, but I fully intended to add the opposition of those opinions. I've previously mentioned that I specifically intended to add Hamza Yusuf's opinion on this particular topic. He constantly speaks on it. In addition, the Algerian cleric, Chemseddine el-Djazairi, listed was added to refute the idea that Jews "descended from apes and pigs". An entire sect of Islam, Ahmadi Islam, would vigorously refute the antisemitic perspectives made by the mentioned clerics. RebSmith (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Compare this article with Christianity and antisemitism. Here we have notes 113-205, half the text, documenting specific instances of anti-Semitism and Arabs. In the Christianity and anti-Semitism article, nothing of the sort. No one is fingered. No editor has gone and crammed in dozens of names and instances one can get in two minutes, of evangelical, protestant, catholic etc., pastors and priests making anti-Semitic statements, from readily available sources:


 * Frank E. Eakin,What Price Prejudice?: Christian Antisemitism in America, Paulist Press, 1998
 * Skipp Porteous, Anti-Semitism: Its Prevalence Within the Christian Right, (Great Barrington, MA: Institute for First Amendment Studies, 1994
 * Skipp Porteous Anti-Semitism:Its prevalence within the Christian right
 * The Religious Right: The Assault on Tolerance & Pluralism in America, Anti-Defamation League 1994
 * Names, just a few randomly clipped off the net of people strongly identified with Christianity who have made anti-Semitic remarks or are anti-Semitic.


 * Rev. Dan C. Fore, former head of the Moral Majority in New York
 * Jerry Falwell
 * John Hagee
 * Pat Buchanan (here)
 * Pat Robertson (here)
 * Gerald L. K. Smith founder of the Christian Nationalist Crusade
 * Rev. William Holmes McGuffey
 * McGuffey Readers Since 1982, Mott Media has sold a whopping 100,000 sets of the Readers, which are widely viewed as antisemitic and widsely used by Christian to home-educate their children.
 * Rousas Rushdoony, Presbyterian minister
 * Tim LaHaye, former leader of the Moral Majority
 * Donald Wildmon the Methodist minister who heads the American Family Association (AFA),
 * Pastor Pete Peters
 * Steven Anderson
 * Pastor Arnold Murray
 * The Shepherd's Chapel
 * Bishop Richard Williamson
 * Thomas Robb
 * Surrey priest Reverend Stephen Sizer
 * Father Tadeusz Rydzyk
 * Father Andrey Evstigneeva (Russian orthodox)
 * Lutheran Reverend Mitri Raheb
 * Pastor Herman Otten
 * Robert Grant
 * Methodist antisemitism
 * It's easy to 'frame' the narrative you want to jerryrig. What you and other editors here have done is what anyone could do for Christianity and anti-Semitism. But fortunately, that page is free of this gaming (probably because, the Religious Right is cultivated for its support of Israel, and it is important to lampoon Islam, as the common enemy.)Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, I am not trying to do anything. There is real theological debate within Islam today about the Jews. You can clearly see this raging on with articles like this . Whether it is due to the influence of European anti-Semitism or has its roots in Islam itself or is the product of Israeli occupation of Palestine is contested by orientalists (I would like to add that Bernard Lewis is a Zionist himself and blaming it on European anti-Semitism may be considered a pro-Israel POV). I agree that the notes 113-205 are not very useful to anyone. My thoughts are that if they contain commentary on Islam or Islamic history, they should be incorporated into the appropriate sections, otherwise, they shouldn't be in this article. I'd like to see this article completely reorganized into several sections: Quran, Life of Mohammad, The four rightly guided caliphs, apocalyptic theology, the Dhimmi, Medieval Islamic empires, the Ottoman Empire, Modern-day Sharia governed countries (as defined by the OIC ), roots of Islamic antisemitism. RebSmith (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

RebSmith (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The article is not about Islam, but about anti-Semitism and Islam, and while I agree the article needs extensive work, and while I concur that anti-Semitism is a notable issue in the modern era certainly, an article on Islam (with the vast majority of its adherents outside the West, where we are writing this) should respect the same criteria observed in Christianity and anti-Semitism.


 * I advise the use of the vast scholarship on this because (a) scholars often disagree on fundamentals, (b) authors generally don't get far in that world being a bigot in their books, whereas being a media controversialist is the primrose road to success and accolades, (c) major non-academic financial bodies invest substantially in denigrating Islam and Arabs, and much of what one reads has to be carefully assayed for its integrity to the facts and disinterest in distorting them. (After giving a dry-as-dust lecture on the intricacies of György Lukács's exposition of Hegel, and its relevance to modern nationalist ideologies illustrated by my citation of numerous pseudo-academic scholarly books, a senior scholar ignored the epistemology, and just asked me who paid the people who wrote that stuff. I didn't know. So he told me: 'Just follow the money trail', meaning I was taking seriously ideas that were floated as if they had intrinsic interest. In his view, those 'popular ideas' had no merit, but were produced because it was profitable to support their diffusion in the public mind.)


 * This is true of all prejudice - public hysteria is the aim. A serious scholar will take several years to analyse a problem; in contrast, the 'public intellectual' or controversialist survives by quickie 'analyses', and rarely takes the trouble to master a foreign language, live among its speakers, absorb its complexities, work his or her way into their world-views, and measure the culture in its historic depth. The temptation of Wikipedia editors is to use search machines to come up with evidence to support a preconception they have come across - one that may seem full of verisimilitude. The only barrier against this temptation is to read deeply and broadly. If one does that, even the glamour of controversy fades, as one slowly absorbs the intricacies of understanding other worlds.


 * That is what I aspire to do here. I have no problem in documenting anti-Semitism, wherever it exists. I have very strong objections to any use of anti-Semitic (or anti-Christian/anti-Islamic) accusations for manipulating the public imagination one way or another for political ends. Nishidani (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

ARBPIA
It's my belief that editing of Islam and antisemitism falls under the terms of WP:ARBPIA. The word 'Israel' occurs 63 times in the article, and 'MEMRI' occurs 12 times. Much of the cited material in the article is sourced to MEMRI's translations. Middle East Media Research Institute was founded by Yigal Carmon, a former Israeli army officer, and their activities do not seem to place them as being neutral in the Arab-Israeli dispute. MEMRI's own article carries the ARBPIA banner on its talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I for one would appreciate it if the banner were put on the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS, A reminder of its content for those who cite it without apparently reading it

 * "Wikipedia is not strictly about scholarship and the popular commentary has a place, too,.Bkalafut (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC"

Articles should be based on 'reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. WP:SCHOLARSHIP Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications.

On articles riven by scholarly disagreements, but amply covered by academic work, there is no place for 'popular commentary'. This is particularly true of inferences and deductions drawn from translations of ancient books.Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you must replace or augment the reliable popular sources with reliable academic sources, not write an NPOV article with the material from popular sources removed just because you cannot abide popular sources. This is what appears to be what you propose and is indeed the most charitable description of your earlier uncivil behavior.  It is blatantly in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:RS.  The bit you cite: "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications" argues my point and not yours.  Please stop being obstinately against this.  If you're going to strut about braying like a jackass in accusing somebody of not reading something he cites, you had better read it before you stick it in his face.  I caught you in dishonesty once again.  I get no enjoyment from that. Bkalafut (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, he must not do any such thing, and you really need to chill on calling others uncivil. Referring to others edits as vandalism, calling somebody a jackass, making completely asinine accusations of socking, and generally acting as though you have learned more about the policies of this place in your 656 edits as opposed to Nishidani's nearly 37,000 or Zero's (an admin by the way, one of the reasons it was so foolish for you to call him a sock of Nishidani) 22,000+ is both uncivil, disrespectful, and, to be blunt, foolish. Kindly learn something about the topic you intend to write about instead of searching high and low for the most garbage sources that can be found on google, because the people you are arguing with actually know a thing or two about both the topic and the way this place works. Things that might have passed you by in your 656 edits.  nableezy  - 19:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No matter what my logged-in edit count is (or how many times you've been topic-banned), I was not born yesterday. If somebody cites policy at me when it actually supports my point of view, I'm going to call it as I see it.  You two have been blustering this whole time ("braying like a jackass" in colloquial English--but you read that, in bad faith, as calling you a jackass) and attempting to chase off a new editor by preferring reverts to quick remediation.  And I don't care who an admin is or is not.  If a guy is going to jump in and ratify a bully's actions using the bully's language, it's a sock in spirit if not in substance.  Are you here to build an encyclopedia or not?Bkalafut (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is that the policy doesnt support your point of view. Im sorry that got past you. You dont have high-quality mainstream publications, you have garbage. And I think you should read WP:SOCK, because I have no idea what a sock in spirit is. And I know a thing or two about that policy.  nableezy  - 04:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All I see here is someone who registered a few weeks ago, coming straight to this obscure and difficult article, and in editing it, showing a profound nescience of policy, not to speak of the subject, while exhibiting a profound dislike for one half of the subject. The other who has made 600+edits in over a decade, and just happened to be galvanized into action by my editing this one article. Okay WP:AGF but there is, so far, no evidence of either understanding how to debate policy and the topic. All I hear is a plea for popular sources written by dilettanti, some of whom (Spencer and Geller) are behind organizations classified by the Anti-Defamation League as hate groups. I mean you have to be really off the planet to think there is a skerrick of intelligence in anyone who can seriously campaign to 'Stop the Islamicization of America. That we should have to make an argument about the inappropriateness of input from such sources on a technical article is proof that this place is not run on efficient lines, but demands masochism from the serious.Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you, Nishidani, I think this matter is in need of outside intervention because it doesn't seem like either RebSmith or Bkalafut is going to read the relevant policies and guidelines or cede an inch. I recommend bringing the matter to the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard soon, as this discussion keeps going in circles. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought of that, but, judging by the unfocused argufying here, I expect that one would get more of the same. I regret every minute spent from books, and being tied up in endless procedures. In the real world, the problem is obvious, the solution is simple: encyclopedias require scholarship, not animus, nor opinions. If people really think popular books by dilettanti associated with hate pressure groups trump the work of great scholars like Bernard Lewis or Reuven Firestone, and if wiki has no simpler efficient efforts, to ask such editors to read up on the serious world of scholarship before venturing onto articles that require delicacy of judgement, and humility before the accumulated erudition of the academy, then it's rather a pointless exercise. You're right of course. I just can't stand the prospect of more banter. Enough. I need some humour from Clive James, after wasting a day here.Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's quite clear that you are engaging in censorship on this particular topic and that you seek to misrepresent my position. I've never advocated for not including academic scholarship on this particular subject. Nor will I ever do so. I didn't touch the analysis of the Quran included by Western academics. So, please don't build up a straw man here. It is quite obvious that you are not abiding by Wikipedia's own policies Assume good faith. It is also obvious that you are pushing for a particular point of view under the veil of academic authority, while refusing to include truly relevant material. To have an article on Islam and antisemitism and not include what Muslim clerics (from prestigious Islamic institutions or from leadership positions within Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood or Hezbollah or the Iranian government) say about how the Quran represents Jews is truly the height of censorship. You are bowdlerizing this particular topic. I simply added content that contained sources you find bias or offensive (please note that this is very different than being unreliable). Everyone here has only reaffirmed that MEMRI is considered a reliable source. No one has demonstrated that Robert Spencer isn't a reliable source, merely that he offends. Your claim that he (and others) are dilettanti is ridiculous considering that one can argue the same thing about a Western academic analyzing the Quran. And I'll end this comment with a quote from Edward Said in his book the Orientalist:


 * RebSmith (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are quoting again a source you are unfamiliar with, as is obvious from the silly blooper of citing it as the Orientalist. It's called Orientalism, which states what you quote on p.283.


 * Robert Spencer dismisses Said as a soi-disant scholar who destroyed Western studies of Islam. For how wryly dismissive a deeply competent scholar of Islam Mark LeVine can be of Spencer's ridiculous uses of old texts to describe the contemporary world, see the former's response to one of Spencer's articles here
 * "(it) 'falls into the orientalist trap of trying to use Islamic legal compendiums dating back well over 600 years (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, the author of the source you cite for your analysis of “hudna,” ‘Umdat as-Salik, died in 1386) to define for all times what Muslims think about a particular issue. This is probably not the best way to understand what Muslims think about various issues today; just as basing the opinions of Jews solely on the writings of Maimonides or even Americans based solely on the views of the authors of the Declaration of Independence (or better, the Magna Carta) would likely produce a distorted understanding of contemporary views. But such thinking is among the primary ideological moves in Orientalism and the larger discourse of imperialism (if saying this makes me a “Saidist”–a term I’ve never encountered before. Shouldn’t it be “Saidian”?–then so be it), as evidenced so well in James Mill’s 1817 primer for British imperial rule of India, the History of India, which argued with great fanfare, and just as great error, that the thousands year old “Laws of Manu” were a primary basis for understanding, and so governing, Hindu society. . .Moreover, you seem to think that all you need to do to understand Muslims is read religious texts and look at extremists. The 99.9% of Muslims who don’t engage in violence against the West, the vast majority of whom don’t base their life of the ‘Umdat as-Salik (however important it might be for religious scholars), whose lives are incredibly diverse, complex and conflicted, and whose dreams for their futures and those of their children and their societies are in fact quite close to ours, just don’t seem to count much to you'"
 * Someone who is listed by organizations that document this nonsense as engaged in defamation of Muslims, should not be a source for Wikipedia articles. It is pointless continuing this conversation. The burden is on you to show that the Spencer, Geller and Bostoms of islamophobia are adequate to WP:RS. Go there, and make a case. Any page on an institution that contains very large numbers of adherents must optimally employ high quality sources. See BLPGROUP Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is really rich. Your quote makes my case. To discredit my argument with a minor error rather than face it and address it is ridiculous. You make the fallacy of thinking that because I cite Robert Spencer or Andrew Bostom that I endorse their opinions, and because of this fallacy, you contend that I am unfamiliar with Robert Spencer's take on Said. I was equating all "orientalists". You call one a "dilettanti". I'm saying that they can all be called dilettantis, which is why we should include Muslim sources, but all those sources you wish to brush off as "hillbilly nonsense". The above argument centers on Robert Spencer, and let's actually get into the criticism of him by Mark LeVine: "(Robert Spencer) falls into the orientalist trap of trying to use Islamic legal compendiums dating back well over 600 years (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, the author of the source you cite for your analysis of “hudna,” ‘Umdat as-Salik, died in 1386) to define for all times what Muslims think about a particular issue." and "Moreover, you seem to think that all you need to do to understand Muslims is read religious texts and look at extremists". Clearly, Mark LeVine is not contesting Robert Spencer's reliability on certain interpretations of religious texts, nor is he contesting Robert Spencer's reliability on "extremists" stances. He is contesting Robert Spencer's analysis as representative of the majority of average Muslims. No one is claiming this. Robert Spencer doesn't even claim this. You simply don't want to use Robert Spencer nor Andrew Bostom because they are very critical of one particular orientalist perspective, that European Christianity infected the modern-day Muslim world with antisemitism. But just think about this thesis, it's a classic orientalist perspective on par with "those savages couldn't possible develop any idea, good or bad, on their own". RebSmith (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What I find ridiculous is this: Robert Spencer's book that I cited got favorable reviews from Bat Ye'or who has been used as a source by Bernard Lewis and other scholars. And the conclusion is then that Robert Spencer isn't a reliable source while Bernard Lewis is. Obviously, we can consider all of these sources as reliable in the field of Orientalism. Bernard Lewis's thesis should be mentioned in the body, but so should the criticism of it provided by both Robert Spencer and Andrew Bostom. What I would like to see with the Quran section is separated into two section: the Orientialists (Academics trained in the Western tradition studying Islam and the Muslim world) and modern-day Muslim sources (here, I don't mean Muslims trained as Western academics. I mean Muslims trained in the Islamic tradition). The Muslim sources section should have two parts: 1) Muslim sources who use the Quran to say negative ideas about the Jews (with their particular arguments) 2) Muslim sources who say that the Quran views Jews positively (with their particular arguments). The Orientalist section should also be divided into two sections similarly as well. In an entirely different section that is not under "The Quran", there should be a discussion about the roots of modern-day Islamic antisemitism with sections divided into the different theories (Israeli occupation, European Christianity, Nazism, Islamic tradition, etc.). RebSmith (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Pagination
When using books as sources, please provide pages. This may necessitate some work in the Koran verses section as not all verses are mentioned in the two books covered. But note that this is reason for improving the article, not reverting it to 2 days ago.Bkalafut (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The list of Koran verses may be unencyclopedic. I would prefer it be removed.  Thoughts?Bkalafut (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, go ahead. RebSmith (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You guys realize now that the Koran verses section unsourced and undocumented, was the germinal cause of the friction? All this fuss for nothing?
 * Please cease dissembling. It was inappropriately documented, and you and your cadre were blanking it instead of fixing the documentation.  Whatever was the "geminal" cause, your deletions were inappropriate.  You cannot justify disruptive POV editing by some provocation.  ("Part Y (the citation style) of the article is bad so I'm going to revert X and Y and Z.")  You were caught red handed.  If you cease making excuses we can move on constructively.  If deletion was the most appropriate action it should be discussed here--as I did.  I put up the "synthesis" warning and brought up whether or not putting citations of each verse was a better option than deleting.  Bkalafut (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This stuff has to be shown to be WP:RS. If it passes, which is unlikely, then it is necessary in each case, when we use a book, to cite the exact page, and provide, optimally, as I did in the lead, a link.
 * Fazlur Rehman Shaikh, Chronology of Prophetic Events, (2001) p. 50 Ta-Ha Publishers


 * Ahmad Hussein Sakr, Understanding the Qurán, Page xii, – 2000
 * Gray Lambert, The Leaders Are Coming!, WestBow Press 2013(Georgia Institute of Technology, Dr. Gray Lambert was awakened to the realities of the Christian faith through materials that emphasized the teachings of Christianity related to the return of Jesus Christ. Dr Lambert has served with distinction in ministry, teaching, and business and is listed in numerous Who's Whos. He received a letter of commendation from the 400-member diaconate at the First Baptist Church of Houston, Texas,)
 * Bostom, Andrew G. The legacy of Islamic antisemitism: from sacred texts to solemn history. Prometheus Books, 2008 (no page ever given)
 * http://www.memri.org/report/en/print754.htm
 * http://www.altafsir.com
 * http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/2042.htm
 * http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/hadeeth/muslim/041.html Sahih Muslim 41:6985
 * Spencer, Robert. A Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't. Regnery Publishing, 2007 (no page ever given).Nishidani (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I must note that it's standard elsewhere on WP to have to argue that something is 'not' a reliable source unless it is obvious that it is not. (For example, it had to be argued that Naomi Klein was not an RS about Milton Friedman.)  I reject the standard you attempt to impose on this discussion.  Bkalafut (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's start with Spencer's book. No reviews found which treat it as unreliable.  Favorable coverage by the Middle East Quarterly.  The author's work (more broadly) is well treated by reputable magazines such as National Review.  He's a popularizer, yes, but popularizers qua popularizers aren't non-RS.  One may say he has an opinion (but don't all working in that field have them?), but I need not remind you that biased sources aren't unreliable by virtue of their bias.  I've done more than is necessary here (the burden is on you, not me!), you prove now that this book is not an RS. Bkalafut (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you know what Middle East Quarterly is? Or National Review for that matter? I cant find a review of this book in any serious source, but of another I can, at least some of which applies to this book as well. Asian American Law Journal published by University of California Press:"Before making an attempt to understand Spencer's arguments, it is necessary to place the book in its larger political context. The Truth About Muhammad is published by Regnery Publishing, a subsidiary of Eagle Publishing, whose website proclaims itself 'the leading conservative publisher in America.' Regnery has also published a series of 'politically incorrect guides,' including The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South (and Why it Will Rise Again) and Robert Spencer's first New York Times bestseller, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades).""Spencer often puts forth grand assertions about Muslims and Islam without providing any substantive or reliable evidence.""Spencer's unfounded statements about Islam reveal a major substantive flaw in his work: his failure to acknowledge the alternative and diverse discourses on Islam and the interpretation active today in Muslim communities."Middle East Quarterly and National Review? Please, that isnt more than enough, thats knowing how to use google and calling it a day.  nableezy  - 04:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So you found an article which itself just blusters but doesn't actually state where and why Spencer or this book has been unreliable. MEQ ran the only serious review of the book--these days MEQ is even peer reviewed (and seemingly better than Asian American Law Journal in what it accepts, in that it requires evidence!)  Spencer is the premier popular historian of Islam in North America, and commentator on Islam as it is practiced by Islamists, in North America.  This is why he is a contributor to National Review (do you know what it is?) and First Things and a frequent radio guest, etc.   But let's get down to brass tacks here.  Books that are as popular as Spencer's yet unreliable typically get their unreliability exposed somewhere.  Consider the work of Naomi Klein, Ian Plimer, or Bjorn Lomborg, for starters.  If the best you can do when asked to show Spencer to be unreliable is to say that somebody else, also without providing any evidence, says so, you fail, and you are in the wrong in this discussion.  "I do not like Robert Spencer" is not the same as "Robert Spencer's book A is unreliable because X, Y, and Z".Bkalafut (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please do tell how Deepika Bains (B.A. Berkeley in whatever) and Aziza Ahmed (M.S. Harvard School of Public Health) in an opinion piece in an Asian American Law Journal are reliable sources for a review of a book on Islam, while Andrew C. McCarthy (former assistant U.S. attorney who has prosecuted terrorist) and Bat Ye'or (a prolific writer on Islam for decades and has been used as a source by the likes of Bernard Lewis) are not? If reliable sources simply mean those that comply with a specific point of view, then Wikipedia is a failure. RebSmith (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A law review journal is peer-reviewed and published by a university press. Bat Yeor lol, wow.  nableezy  - 14:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are confusing authority and reliability. Please adhere to WP:RS or get out. You are deliberately disrupting the discussion and your "lol" contributes nothing except incivility.  What is your agenda here?  You are not here to build an encyclopedia.Bkalafut (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ, can you please for the love of anything you hold holy actually read WP:RS?"*Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper.  When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves.   See No original research and Neutral point of view. * Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."Peer-reviewed works published by a world renowned academic press is presumptively reliable. Im getting a bit tired of asking you to read the basic policies of this website. And you got some nerve telling anybody to get out. And then telling somebody else that they are the one being uncivil.  nableezy  - 19:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of the above sources were derived from Quran article. It was an attempt to let the reader know what the Quran actually was. I think the contention that "Muslims believe the Quran was verbally revealed by God to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel (Jibril)", which was sourced to Gray Lambert, was never in dispute. Nor "They consider the Quran to be the only revealed book that has been protected by God from distortion or corruption." (which sourced to Ahmad Hussein Sakr). The http://www.altafsir.com was simply a link to the relevant text of the hadith mentioned by a cleric. This is what the website says: "ALTAFSIR.COM is a completely free, non-profit website providing access to the largest and greatest online collection of Qur’anic Commentary (tafsir or tafseer), translation, recitation and essential resources in the world." MEMRI has been used by major news organizations and academic articles (see above for in prior section for examples) as a source - but here the secondary source isn't MEMRI, it was the Cleric. MEMRI is simply the translation of the cleric, and the publisher of that translation. This source http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/hadeeth/muslim/041.html simply links to the text of a relevant hadith (Sahih Muslim 41:6985). RebSmith (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The point you miss is that the Qur'an (and anti-Semitism) has been subject to extensive analysis, philological and historical, by competent specialists, thoroughly trained in the necessary tools and languages. Therefore it is quite pointless, given the abundance of scholarly work on all of these passages, to use inferior, popular, secondary sources, or primary sources, mugged up or indexed or referred to by authors, controversialists who have no peer-reviewed competence in the topics. Altafir.com

again is a primary source: primary sources mean nothing unless interpreted competently, since, esp. in Hebrew, Christian, and Islamic contexts, they are swathed in exegetical notes, glosses and commentary. To ignore this is to verge on WP:OR. Memri is not a reliable source. See our article:
 * "Critics charge that it aims to portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, through the production and dissemination of inaccurate translations and by selectively translating views of extremists while deemphasizing or ignoring mainstream opinions. . .Several critics have accused MEMRI of selectivity. They state that MEMRI consistently picks for translation and dissemination the most extreme views, which portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, while ignoring moderate views that are often found in the same media outlets.'"
 * I don't question many of the things Memri translates. I do question editors who use its minute scrutiny of Arab discourse to pick out the worst, and present it as a representative opinion (it may be, case by case, but you can do the same 'job' on Israeli or Western sources, and the effect is the same: to skew perspectives towards a unilateral focus on hatred, while ignoring contrary evidence, which is abundant. I'm all in favour of letting it all hang out, as long as WP:NPOV is scrupulously adhered to, and the only way to do that is by careful use of scholarship, attentiveness to source bias, elimination of agenda-driven islamophobic editorialists and writers. I see no evidence of this sensitivity in the editing here.Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not know who has a phobia of islam. But supposing we substitute for that word "opposed to Islamism", what you propose is starkly against both WP:NPOV and WP:RS.  WP is not an encyclopedia which draws only on scholarly sources.  Please stop appealing to WP policy if you have no intent to follow it.  And you acknowledge yourself that MEMRI is an RS, so it is done, MEMRI will be treated as an RS and not cut out because you prefer only other sources.Bkalafut (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In what planet did he acknowledge MEMRI is a reliable source? Ive already shown a reliable source demonstrating their distortion. Heres another example I dealt with myself in the past.  nableezy  - 04:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, do you not see the title of this article? It is labeled "Islam and antisemitism". So, it needs to identify what that antisemitism is. As for sources, let's get this straight. Primary source - Quran. Secondary source - Muslim cleric. Publisher of translation - MEMRI. If you have a problem with the source, you should tell us why a particular cleric shouldn't be included or why they aren't relevant to the discussion or why the particular cleric is unreliable or why MEMRI translation of them is unreliable. Of course there should be a discussion on the scholarship surrounding where antisemitism in the Muslim world derives. I never suggested taking any of that content out of the article. But to completely censor material that identifies the actual antisemitic content, even when its from scholars of highly regarded institutions or from clerics associated with the leadership of Hamas, is ridiculous. RebSmith (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like nobody took the case
See (will post permalink when available.)  Maybe this time cooler heads will prevail.Bkalafut (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Original research: "Islam and Judeophobia"
According to Google, the phrase "Islam and Judeophobia" occurs five times on the internet, and four of them are on Wikipedia! Its use in the lead is original research. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) The lead of this article: "Islam and antisemitism, or Islam and Judeophobia"
 * 2) Dashboard/Requested moves
 * 3) Requested moves/Current discussions
 * 4) Dashboard
 * 5) A footnote in the book Social Identities Between the Sacred and the Secular
 * It is used in No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam, which is a #1 Bestseller.Scientus (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, according to Google Books the word Judeophobia never appears in it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoops! How to Win a Cosmic War / Beyond Fundamentalism by the same author: . Scientus (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Leon Pinsker, who was a very early Zionist, is widely cited Scientus (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So it's one person's neologism. --Neil N  <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 06:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Now compare it with this. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Malik Shabazz, I think you should not do this. When discussion was already going on talk page regarding this term then there was no need to add in main article word "Original research" in front of "Islam and Judeophobia". You should have write this in your comments on this talk page. You could have added term "OR" after this discussion gets locked and result goes in favour of current title. -- Human 3015  Say Hey!! • 04:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We will wait for the discussion.Scientus (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not contested that antisemitism is the WP:COMMONNAME, but it violates WP:PRECISE. Judeophobia, even in the context of Islam, is not OR.Scientus (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Judeophobia is an obscure term which doesn't even appear in Webster, Cambridge, or Oxford, unlike antisemitism, which has a precise definition. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your Merriam-Webster source contradicts you as it is confused about whether Judaism is a "religious, ethnic, or racial group". Even the Nazi's used Judaism as a religious identify from the 1933 census http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/ (and then going up 2 generations).Scientus (talk) 05:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The only one who seems to be confused about these definitions is you. "The Jews, also known as the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious and ethno-cultural group..." --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The nazi's surveyed as "religion and language" . Pictures on p. 19. Scientus (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * whether by intention or not you are being disingenuous . In your quoting: Webster, Cambridge, or Oxford, you present "antisemitism" as having "a precise definition" yet your "Now compare it with this." search was for "Islam and anti-semitism" and all of the dictionary definitions similarly present "Anti-Semitism".  Scientus is right to point out that "The term antisemitism has its origins in German eugenics" but even though it originated within the middle of europe and even though the common designations related to Jewish people and religion are typically comprised using "Jew.." or "Judeo..", the use of misnomer terminology with disconnect with the actual subject matter has been pushed far and wide.  All forms of prejudice need to be addressed but no other description of prejudice presents this type of disconnect.  Consider, for instance, the content of Category:Anti-national sentiment.  In every other case Albanians are called Albanians, Arabs are called Arabs, Armenians are called Armenians.  I fully agree that we should use a most commonly recognisable name which constitutes a strong argument for the use of Judeophobia.  We should cut the pov pushing and use of smokescreens and call things as they are.  Either that or we should at least use the terms as they are used in the dictionary.  GregKaye 07:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC) struck following review of contributions to previous discussions.  Re: response below.  Its more about the presentation of "Semitic references" as "semitic references".  GregKaye 16:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, your complaint is over a dash? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 07:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My complaint is over the use of a misnomer that no other article uses and the manipulation of language that occurs within Wikipedia and editing practice to preserve and support the use of the misnomer. There is an identity of Semites which, I think, you and many other people ignore.  GregKaye 07:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you have that backwards. It's Judeophobia which is the obscure neologism. Anti-semitism (or antisemitism) is commonly used by a vast number of sources. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 07:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Presenting a commonly recognisable "Judeo.." prefix as first and foremost in a terminology is by no means getting things backwards. If you do want to go beyond the issue of the clear recognisability of "Judeophobia" then, at the very least, "Anti-Semitism" should be clearly and relatively honestly used.  GregKaye 08:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Many words are spelled (or should that be spelt?) in various ways, that does not make them different words. Whatever colour or color they are, my descendents will still be the same as my descendants. Paul B (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "my descendents will still be the same as my descendants"--this doesn't make any sense.Scientus (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at the spelling. The point is about spelling. Paul B (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That dash you speak of led antisemitism to be move protected.Scientus (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Lots and lots of verbiage from GregKaye in the move review, with very little support for his position or behavior. This observation from  is worth highlighting: 'Most reasonable people would agree that there is no real major difference between the two terms "Antisemitism" and "Anti-Semitism" however some people feel that they must create big waves to get one way over the other that only disrupts WP and wastes time on useless discussions' --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 11:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

With a consistently high level of civilly I argued reasonable points on the basis of:
 * WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia ... prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject" and time and again this was proven to be "anti-Semitism"


 * WP:SOAPBOX: "Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise." which shows that there is no rationale to go against commonly used form of presentation


 * WP:CRITERIA: "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." (Selection of Categories related to Antisemitism and Category:Antisemitism: such as See: Anti-communism, Anti-homelessness, Anti-intellectualism, Anti-left handedness and Anti-Masonry, also Anti-Armenianism, Anti-Bihari sentiment, Anti-Canadianism, Anti-Catalanism, Anti-fat bias, Anti-Filipino sentiment, Anti-Hinduism, Anti-Igbo sentiment, Anti-Italianism, Anti-Quebec sentiment, Anti-Romanian discrimination, Anti-Slavic sentiment.  This is the way that the presentation of such topics (inclusive of "anti-Semitism") are regularly made.  Please do not WP:CANVASS.
 * There should have been no big waves. These are basic issues of policy.
 * Beyond presentations of commonly used spellings I think that it is also fair to argue that a far clearer description of the form or prejudice currently being discussed would be something along the lines of Anti-Jewish sentiment. A commonly used description in relation to Jewish people is "Jewish".  GregKaye 13:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support clear, non-contradictory, and does not confuse Judaism as a eugenic race, along to pick nits it should be anti-Jewish sentiment. Scientus (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, there's no reason to single out this particular article. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reason as ever. We use the most common term, which is antisemitism (with or without hyphen). Paul B (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment people perpetually, to my mind, obsess about the hyphen. The Jews are just one member of the capital "S" Semitic peoples.  This is the wider identity that is misrepresented.  GregKaye 15:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What's all the ruckus about? is an excellent editor and admin, and he is usually right on the money about most things either relating to article content/s and Wikipedia policies. Can someone please explain in one clear sentence what the real problem or core issue is here. Otherwise let's just drop the subject and move on. Thanks so much, IZAK (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Malik's call was impeccable formally and substantively.Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)