Talk:Persecution of Jews/Archive 1

mergeto anti-Semitism?
What is the reason for this article's existence when there is anti-Semitism? ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Conversely, if there is to be a broad article on treatment of Jews by Gentiles, the very title of this precludes balance, and it would be really silly to have an article called Benevolence toward Jews or some such. In many countries, the story is a very complex one of Jews being actively invited in under one ruler, then persecuted under another. Can someone suggest a possible refactoring of this material? - Jmabel | Talk 06:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There are various articles on Wikipedia titled "persecution of A-ists by B-ians", etc.&mdash;Christians by polytheists, Protestants by Catholics, Catholics by Protestants, Muslims by Christians, Christians by Muslims, etc. This is just another of those.  Should ALL of them be refactored? Michael Hardy 19:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, look at this template:

Michael Hardy 19:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracies
Lots of this article is simply wrong. For example "The Mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husayni staged a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq and organized the Farhud pogrom" - in fact he did neither. --McKay 03:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced
I recently tagged this article with unreferenced because there were not any footnotes or citations within this article. It seems to be highly WP:OR.--Sefringle 04:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a large difference between failure to cite and original research. The latter implies introduction of material for which it would not be possible to cite. If you believe there are examples of the latter, please be specific, so those can be addressed rapidly. - Jmabel | Talk 19:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions numerous "massacres" of Jews by Christians but provides no references for these.

Ridiculous article
Just in editing the first paragraph, you find total inaccuracies.

I changed the first paragraph to be more accurate. The original paragraph stated:


 * Christianity, which has its roots in Jewish teachings about a messiah, has often had a contentious relationship with Judaism, giving rise to antisemitism. Some Christians have opposed the Jews' claim to being God's chosen people. Other Christians considered Jews to be instrumental in the biblical betrayal of Jesus, whom Christians consider to be the Messiah. Another historical source of Christian antagonism towards Jews is rooted in their rejection of the divinity of Jesus. In Judaism, the divinity of Jesus is regarded as a serious heresy that negates the absolute unity, non-corporality and invisibility of God according to the Torah.

I changed it to read:


 * Christianity, which has its roots in Jewish teachings about a messiah, has often had a contentious relationship with Judaism, giving rise to antisemitism. Some fringe Christians have opposed the Jews' claim to being God's chosen people. Most Christians consider Jews to be instrumental in the biblical betrayal of Jesus, whom Christians consider to be the Messiah, since Judas Iscariot and the Pharisees were all Jews. In Judaism, the divinity of Jesus is regarded as a serious heresy that negates the absolute unity, non-corporality and invisibility of God according to the Torah.


 * "Some Christians" is too broad to describe what only fringe Christians believe to be true. This is only typical of "Christian Identity" movements and no serious mainline church believes that nonsense.


 * Since all the people trying to get Jesus crucified were Jews, obviously most Christians would believe that Jews had a hand in the death of Jesus. The Romans didn't know or care anything about Jesus, and especially did not want to crucify Him. Jesus never preached against the Roman Empire and the lies of the Pharisees were dishonest attempts to have Jesus killed.


 * There is no "Christian antagonism" against Jews simply because they don't believe Jesus to be the Messiah. Christians don't care and certainly no such antagonism exists except perhaps among some "kook" Christians.

The rest of the article needs to be cleaned up and the obvious "Christophobia" needs to be cleaned out. Jtpaladin 23:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is not only about the current situation. Please see History of antisemitism and/or read a good thick book on the subject. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I see some of your points, Jtpaladin, but Jewish rejection of Christ's divinity is a historical source of antagonism and reason for persecution of them. In no way does that mean Christians in general want to persecute Jews because of that; it's merely been a past justification and I don't think you can easily deny that. Also, considering Jews to be instrumental in Christ's betrayal because of their nature as Jews is also a historical reason for their persecution. Simply believing they were major players in the story, as "most Christians do", is not, and is not really relevant to the article. Believe me, if you had problems with the first paragraph now, you should have seen it before. I reverted. Thanks Twalls 09:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of this article is an anti-Christian, anti-Islam hate spew (in violation of WP Policy). Unless these allegations are sourced I will boldly delete them. (or someone else please do it - don't wait for me) Fourtildas (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Was just wandering by, saw your post, and thought I might inquire what you're referring to? - CheshireKatz (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, since when is the truth anti-anything? Except anti-falsehood, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.115.153 (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent article, well done everyone!!!!
How do I nominate this article for the feature page, this article is both topical, newsworthy and reads truthfully and smoothly as well as being almost long enough to cover the subject matter, well done to all!!!!211.28.41.32 (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Persecution"
I wanted to remind everyone of this. Unless an action, or view, or law (etc.) is specifically labeled as "persecution" (by a reliable source), it should not be in this article. This article is about persecution of Jews, not unfair acts against them, or anything that is not persecution.

To be "persecution" it must be called "persecution" by a reliable source (preferably multiple ones).

This is an accordance with consensus on Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_34. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal
Per the above notice I'm going to remove material on the Qur'an and the prophet Muhammad here since neither calls for the persecution of Jews.Bless sins (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I restored it. It is well sourced, and this censorship is unacceptable.  Yahel  Guhan  20:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What's unacceptable is WP:NOR. The source (Esposito) doesn't accuse the prophet of persecuting Jews. To say that the prophet persecuted Jews is ridiculous since he had a Jewish wife. Please keep such nonsense to your self.Bless sins (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh ha. Now you are providing your own original research as justifaction for your censorship. Mind WP:CIVIL.  Yahel  Guhan  06:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yahel, Esposito is simply saying what happened and is not putting it under the context of "persecution" against Jews. Please read it for yourself if you do not believe me.--Be happy!! (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If Yahel wants to stick to his position, then he'll have to provide the full quotation. I'd expect something like this to come from Spencer's book. But Esposito? No way.Bless sins (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the full quote:

"After each major battle, one of the Jewish tribes was accused and punished for such acts. Muslim perception of distrust, intrigue, and rejection on the part of the Jews led first to exile and later to warfare. After Badr. the Banu Qainuqa tribe and after the Battle of Uhud, the Banu Nadir, with their families and possessions, were expelled from Medina. After the Battle of the Ditch in 627, the Jews of the Banu Qurayza were denounced as traitors who had consorted with the Meccans. As was common in Arab (and, indeed, Semitic) practice, the men were massacred; the women and children were spared but enslaved."

Massacures are persecutions. It is relevant.  Yahel  Guhan  01:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's on page 15. Jayjg (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can not see Esposito calling it persecution. Strictly speaking a common punishment of traitors in a culture referred to massacre does not by itself add up to persecution, IMO. Let's get the facts straight: In the opinion of a person, this might be persecution and in the opinion of another this may not. I can understand that. I can also imagine one may find an scholar who calls this persecution, but please do find such a scholar and attribute it to the scholar. Also in fairness, please find another scholar who does not call this persecution and we will be all happy :)--Be happy!! (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How about:
 * "'The first encounters between Muslims and Jews, at the dawn of Islam, resulted in persecution when Muhammad expelled or massacred the Jewish tribes of Medina.' Mark R. Cohen, Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages, Princeton University Press, 1994, p. 163. ISBN 069101082X"
 * That should do. Jayjg (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good! Cohen is calling it persecution. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, in that case we include the information, attributing it to Cohen.Bless sins (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the sentence that follows says "this encounter turned out to be the exception rather than the rule".Bless sins (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Fundamentalism
I am going to fix the part that says "The Nazis were Catholic fundamentalists (After Hitler came to power he signed a document with the Pope to make Catholicism the official and only religion of Nazi Germany), so they naturally blamed Jews for the murder of Jesus, deicide." This was unsourced and completely differs from sourced statements given on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_religion such as "According to historian Michael Rissmann young Adolf was influenced in school by Pan-Germanism and Darwinism and began to reject the Church and Catholicism, receiving Confirmation only unwillingly. A boyhood friend reports that after Hitler had left home, he never attended Mass or received the Sacraments.[3]" and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs#Private_statements and In 1941 the Nazi authorities decreed the dissolution of all monasteries and abbeys in the German Reich, many of them effectively being occupied and secularized by the Allgemeine SS under Himmler. However on July 30, 1941 the Aktion Klostersturm (Operation Monastery Sacking) was put to an end by a decree of Hitler, who feared the increasing protests by the Catholic part of German population might result in passive rebellions and thereby harm the Nazi war effort at the eastern front.[12]

The Christian Churches were amongst the first victims of Nazi war crimes in the rise to power of the Nazis, and detailed plans were made to eliminate them after power was secured.[13], from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Kerrl "'In 1935 Kerrl scored some initial successes in reconciling the differing parties in the Church Struggle. However, by the second half of 1936, his position was clearly undermined by NSDAP hostility, and by the refusal of the churches to work with a government body which they regarded as a captive or stooge of the Nazi Party. Hitler gradually adopted a more uncompromising and intolerant stance, probably under the growing influence of ideologues such as Bormann, Rosenberg and Himmler, who were loathe to entertain any idea of the new Germany having a Christian foundation even in a token form.' (Munro, Gregory: 'The Reich Church Ministry in Nazi Germany 1935-1938', paper given at the Australian Conference of European Historians, July 1997)." and so on (I can provide much more if needed.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Driveanddrinkv8 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Driveanddrinkv8 (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I also took out the parenthesized: "(After Hitler came to power he signed a document with the Pope to make Catholicism the official and only religion of Nazi Germany)" which was  too vague and obviously inaccurate. I assume this was talking about the Reichskonkordat (although it avoids giving any kind of source at all) which | said none of that. And obviously the Nazis themselves worked to begin a different  religion. Driveanddrinkv8 (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg
The image Image:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --10:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone tell me...
Why that two sentence blip about the "Hit a jew" day in a St. Louis Middle School is apparently in equal proportion with the holocaust? They both get a chapter... Bubsty (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Persecution of Jews in USA
I just had a terrible argument with my son (I am 85, he 38) about his insistence that "Jews are persecuted in the US". I have always understood the term "persecution" to apply to attitude and practice of a state or an administration or an organization that had been given or acquired an important degree of power in a country (NSDAP)or administrative unit within one (Hamas in Gaza), or perhaps in a region (persecution of one tribe ny another in various parts of Africa). The dictionary definition of "persecution" (incl. the one in the Wikipedia article "Persecution") does not limit the use of the term in this way (it speaks only of "a group"). So my son would be lexically right, because of course there are anti-semitic groups in the USA, including, say, in New York City; but would many people, or perhaps many Jewish fellow-citizens agree that "Jews are persecuted in New York?" Probably here and there discriminated against (that was certainly the case before WWII), but "persecuted"? I apologize if my questions stem from a family-relationship problem; but at my age I am also wondering if my refusal to say "yes" could be a sign of declining cognitive ability, or if my usage is obsolete. I don't know where else to ask.Svato (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This really isn't the place to discuss these issues, but no, Jews are not persecuted in the United States. Far from it, while there is antisemitism in the United States, it is rarely a serious impediment or danger to American Jews today. I'm sorry you've had such a distressing family argument. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And mazal tov for having a child at such an age! :) Tomertalk 10:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree that this is not the place to discuss the definition of persecution, which is primarily what the original question is about. No definition is given or referred to in the article, but in another section of this discussion page ("Removal") a definition is invoked to determine whether an event should or should not be included in this article. The conclusion there is that it is persecution when some scholar says it is, even when others disagree. Now I don't think that this definition is very satisfactory or objective or even consistent with wikipedia policy ("reliable sources" and "scholars" are not the same thing), but it seems to be the only one available in this context and the response that was given by Jayjg fails to be based on it (making the response irrelevant).
 * What sort of definition is being used is clearly as relevant for the article as it is for any discussions about persecution. And without agreeing on one for the sake of a discussion (or an article) the question of whether "X is persecuted by Y in Z" cannot be answered properly, except maybe in extreme cases. AlexFekken (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Why nothing prior to Christian antisemitism?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the earliest Biblical persecution of Jews (albeit not called "Jews" for centuries later), long predates the Romans, to say nothing of Roman Christianity. Tomertalk


 * Exactly! Ive just posed that query below. :) ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ (Ταλκ ) 15:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of tag
I am considering removing the cite tag. The article is well sourced with links to the main articles were appropriate. The tag has been there since 2007. I would like to know what other editors think. Thanks.Tamsier (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What about Ancient Egypt and Babylon and Assyria and pre-christian Rome??
All these ancient civilisations persecuted the Jews; also nowhere in this article or any other article regarding this issue seems to answer the question that should be burning in everyones mind...Why? Why have the Jews been consistantly persecuted since Ancient Mesopotamian times, I'd certainly be interested in understanding that. :) ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ (Ταλκ ) 15:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * My guess, and it is just a guess, is that this is mainly a combination of two related factors:


 * The first is what statisticians call selection bias. Groups of people were (and are) constantly terrorising each other, so it is very likely that many other groups have existed that have suffered the same sort of fate. This would be especially true, or at least more obvious, for groups that have tried to retain a distinct identity. Of course most of these groups went the way of the dodo without anybody caring.


 * The second is that persecution, like terrorism, is a strongly loaded term. Rather than being defined and applied objectively in terms of what is being done, these terms are typically applied only for certain groups of perpetrators and/or victims and not for others. AlexFekken (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Atheists persecuting Christians?
Speaking as an atheist: don't we get &lt;irony>"credit"&lt;/irony> for persecuting Christians during the French Revolution and in various Communist countries? - Jmabel | Talk 20:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

+The french de-christianization was politically driven. And they became pagan-like theists later on, so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.215.191.192 (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

New section
I think there should be a section about Jewish persecution that was carried out by Jewish groups such as the Yevsektsiya. I will borrow some quotes from that article: "The sections were staffed mostly by Jewish ex-members of the Bund" and their mission was "destruction of traditional Jewish life, the Zionist movement, and Hebrew culture". Caseeart (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Persecution of Jews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070429065613/http://www.holocaustcenterpgh.net:80/2-3.html to http://www.holocaustcenterpgh.net/2-3.html
 * Added tag to http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-jews-in-the-soviet-union-since-1917--by-nora-levin--the-jews-of-the-soviet-union--by-benjamin-pinkus-7646nska4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Persecution of Jews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.holocaustcenterpgh.net/2-3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116181349/http://digital.unam.na/handle/11070.1/4288 to http://digital.unam.na/handle/11070.1/4288

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

South Africa
Fact: Jews were never persecuted in South Africa. Why then is the section "Apartheid South Africa" included under "Persecution of Jews"? Fact: There were groups in South Africa, like Ossewabrandwag (OB), that supported Nazi Germany during the 1930's. Antisemitic sentiments were part and parcel of the OB. However, their main focus and raison d'etre was opposition against Britain for destroying the two independent Afrikaner republics, Transvaal and Orange Free State, and causing the death of thousands of Afrikaner women and children in concentration camps during the second Anglo-Boer war (see Wikipedia: "Ossewabrandwag"). Fact: Many Afrikaners fought with the Allied forces during WW2 (See Wikipedia: "Military history of South Africa during World War II"). Fact: South Africa was one of the very first countries to acknowledge the state of Israel and had strong economic and military relations with Israel during the apartheid era (see Wikipedia: "Israel - South Africa relations"). Fact: Hendrik Verwoerd did not obtain any degrees at German universities, as it is wrongly stated in this article. He finished his doctorate at Stellenbosch in SA and attended classes for three semesters at three different German universities under William Stern (a Jew), Wolfgang Kohler, Otto Lipmann (a Jew) and Felix Krueger. The first three were not allowed to teach after the Nazis came to power. Verwoerd's interests were in fields related to his concerns about poor Afrikaners back home and not in any kind of racial theories (see Wikipedia: "Hendrik Verwoerd" and Marx, C. (2013). "Hendrik Verwoerd and the Leipzig School of Psychology". Historia, 58 (2). 91 - 118.) Are we seekers of the truth, or mere propagandists of anti-Afrikanerism (a minority group who's future in South Africa is looking more bleak every day due to, among other things, reversed racial policies and open threats from racist political parties like the EFF?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soeker5 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to edit the article if you are familiar with the rules here, in particular: no expression of your personal opinion or analysis, give reliable sources for all stated facts, and give cited attributions for opinions. I checked what you wrote about Verwoerd in Germany and you are right. He had a PhD already when he went there and he took some courses but didn't get a degree. In general, the article should only go into the relationship between Nazism and Apartheid on the basis of reliable sources that connect it to the persecution of Jews. Stuff that is not about persecution of Jews does not belong here at all. Zerotalk 12:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The list of "pogroms" is not reliable
The list of "pogroms" cited to Bodansky is stolen almost verbatim from Lewis, The Jews of Islam, p158. The problem is, Lewis says it is a list of blood libels, not a list of pogroms. Now I don't think that anything published by The Ariel Center for Policy Research should be treated as reliable, so I'm hardly surprised. I'm betting that only a handful of items in this long list of "pogroms" can be confirmed with details. For example, there was indeed a blood libel in Jerusalem in 1847, but the local authorities obeyed the Sultan's ban on such accusations and there was no pogrom (see Montefiore's history of Jerusalem). The case of Aleppo 1850 is even more revealing. There was a major attack on the Christian quarter but none on the Jewish quarter. See Yaron Harel, Jewish-Christian Relations in Aleppo as Background for the Jewish Response to the Events of October 1850, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Feb., 1998), pp. 77-96. Incidentally Harel mentions a blood-libel by Christians in Aleppo 1853 that was ruled a libellous falsehood by the Islamic court. It is easy to make lists and paint black and white pictures of imagined history, but the real facts of history are always more nuanced. Zerotalk 10:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Banu Qurayza.png