User talk:Doright/Archiveof/Category talk:Anti-Semitic people/Archive 2

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Personal attack commentary removed. Netscott 02:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That was the broadest violation of Civility I have ever seen. But, if you really beleive it why not add Category:Anti-Semitic people to all their user pages? // Liftarn

Isaac, he definitely belongs in this category but the objection to his categorization would seem to have some validity. That is, there is no mention in the article itself of his being anti-Semitic. Clearly he is anti-Semitic and I have certainly read enough on that. Why not simply add verified examples of his anti-Semitism to the article itself? I have not followed the issue too closely, but surely those who have can do so.

I would do so myself but that is not my area of expertise. However, I will certainly support you if you do so, and I certainly hope that some of our other friends here, including some not enthused about this category, will join in to see to it that this individual is listed in the categroy and that the article is complete in that regard. --Mantanmoreland 11:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If anybody can come up with a reliable source I would also like to have him in the category, but so far it has only been WP:OR from individual editors so it has to be removed. // Liftarn 16:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The allegations concerning anti-Semitism have been mentioned many times in reliable news accounts. I counted 81 in Google News alone, many more on the web. I found a bunch but did not save. I can go back but where shall I cite these links. Here? On the article itself? The Senate resolution itself is obtainable from the Thomas website, as well as mentioned in news accounts. --Mantanmoreland 19:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment on article talk page
Well, I did a little googling and found a veritable mountain of material on the subject. Given the "controversial" template on the top of the talk page, I did not make any changes to the article but instead posted a little comment at the bottom of the talk page, and would encourage others to take a look and weigh in if so inclined.

After reading through the google stuff, I was really quite astonished why the anti-Semitic character of his statements is not mentioned in the underlying piece. I think that omission skews the POV of the article, frankly.--Mantanmoreland 12:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Got any links? // Liftarn 16:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, actually I do, to the Senate resolution, adopted unanimously, specifically condemning him for anti-Semitism and also to a resolution of 28 NGOs doing the same thing and citing the Canadian parliament. Do you want me to put them on the page itself? --Mantanmoreland 19:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As per below, a section has been added. Incidentally, this subject is being discussed in perhaps two or three different locations in two separate discussion pages. I wonder if it might be best to centralize the discussion.--Mantanmoreland 02:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Section: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and antisemitism
I added a new section: "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] and antisemitism" and made one other edit regarding the "translation" issue. Please see [here] and [here]. Someone (Mantanmoreland????) may want to add references to this sentence: "Many sources have referred to the current Iranian regime and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in particular as antisemtic." Regards,Doright 17:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I renamed the section to "Alleged antisemitism" to avoid repeting his name and it was more describing. "Many sources" also sounds a bit weasly so something better should be added. // Liftarn
 * You may be right that it may sound a bit weasly. However, unless one believes that, for example, "the Western media empire" is controlled by one central Zionist source, "the Western media empire" must refer to "many sources."  Regarding the addition of the qualifier "alleged" to the section heading:  What needs to be cited in order for you to agree to remove it and return it to the original section heading?Doright 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I reworked the section slightly and added cites. Still a work in progress obviously, but getting better with each edit I think. Certainly this section can and should be expanded. --Mantanmoreland 00:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack commentary removed. Netscott 02:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make comments concerning individual editors. --Mantanmoreland 02:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, there is an active discussion concerning the newly added section and the categorization issue on the talk page of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. --Mantanmoreland 12:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky, Anti-Semite, et al
What can be done about people that are clearly anti-semites, such as Noam Chomsky, but which are have their anti-semite tag deleted from their page due to ardent ideological partisanship? Thanks.
 * MSTCrow 05:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting. Do you have any sources supporting your contention that Chomsky is anti-semitic?  I don't see any in the article on him.  I do, however, see plenty of sources indicating that Chomsky is, himself, a Jew and a semite by any definition of the term.  Kasreyn 07:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A quick look at this section of the Chomsky article shows the following link [] that includes antisemitism. Kasreyn, could you please provide a link to the "plenty of sources indicating that Chomsky is" a semite?  Along with a link to that plethora of sources, could you please explain what bearing this has on his potential inclusion in this category?Doright 18:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The same issue has just arisen concerning the president of Iran. I think the resolution lies in verifiable sources one way or the other. However, I don't believe that one's ethnic background has any bearing on that determination.--Mantanmoreland 13:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Several sources that provide evidence for Chomsky's anti-semitism include "The Anti-Chomsky Reader," which provides a good deal of quotes from Chomsky himself and his own works which are overtly ant-semitic. I also offer these paragraphs, from http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1232:


 * In "Israel and the Art of Disinformation," Paul Bogdanor discusses the "astonishing displays of polemical rage and vindictiveness" in Chomsky's long hate affair with Israel, a country he regards as playing the role of Little Satan to the American Great Satan and functioning strategically as an "offshore military and technology base for the United States." The animus toward Israel is so great—Chomsky sees it as a terror state "with points of similarity" to the Third Reich—that it seems to call for a psychological explanation, especially given the fact that his father, an immigrant from the Ukraine, was a Hebrew teacher; his mother wrote children's stories about the heroism of Jews trying to form a new country in the face of Arab hatred; and Chomsky himself was once a member of a pro-Israel youth group.


 * Even more bizarre is Chomsky's involvement with neo-Nazis and holocaust revisionism. This strange and disturbing saga began in 1980 with Chomsky's support of a French crank named Robert Faurisson, a rancorous anti-Semite who was fired by the University of Lyon for his hate-filled screeds. ("The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie.") Chomsky defended Faurisson as an "apolitical liberal" whose work was based on "extensive historical research" and said that he saw "no hint of anti-Semitic implications" at all in his work. In his carefully documented "Partners in Hate," Werner Cohn follows Chomsky into this murky world, locating him at the intersection where his loathing of Israel and his "paroxysm of self-hatred" meet Faurisson and the neo-Nazi groups Chomsky allowed to print his books and to promote them alongside the works of Joseph Goebbels.


 * Mantanmoreland is completely correct. I have certainly known at least one Jew who were strong supporters of Nazi Germany and their policies.  Does it make sense?  No, at least not to me, but there is no inherent exclusionary relationship between a Jew and an anti-semite.  To say otherwise is a diversionary canard.
 * MSTCrow 18:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled as to why you mix opposition to Israel in with support for Naziism, as if the two charges were of equivalent importance. What have they to do with one another?  There is a difference between opposition - even violent opposition - to a political movement, and hatred and contempt for a race of people.  Whether Chomsky is or is not an anti-semite, his position regarding Israel, when stated on political grounds, surely cannot be considered relevant.  Anti-zionism does not an anti-semite make.  Best wishes, Kasreyn 01:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Anti-zionism is anti-semitic. Opposition to Israeli policy X does not necessarily make on an anti-semite.  Calling oneself an "anti-zionist" instead of "anti-semitic" doesn't change the face of the beast, as their favored outcome, the destruction of Israel, would still end up killing 6 million Jews, so hiding behind another label for anti-semite doesn't work.


 * Even assuming that your position is correct, you would have to admit that Chomsky is an anti-semite due to his neo-Nazi and Holacaust revionism past.
 * MSTCrow 02:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I offer this link to Dennis Prager's essay Explaining Jews Part VII: Why anti-Zionism is anti-semitism, which helps to dispell the racist canard that anti-Zionism is somehow different than anti-Semitism.
 * MSTCrow 03:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * When did anti-zionism come to mean only "favoring the destruction of Israel"? I always thought it meant "politically opposed to the concept of a Jewish homeland in Palestine", and it was upon this second definition I based my argument.
 * Let's see... according to Anti-Zionism, the term is more controversial than I was aware, however (according to Wikipedia) the "diversity in terms of motivation and expression (of Anti-Zionists) is so great that anti-Zionism cannot be seen as a single phenomenon."  So, I learn more every day.
 * For whatever it's worth, I disagree with both you and Mr. Prager. The term "anti-zionist" is not as cut-and-dried as you make it out to be.  How can opposition to a policy - the goal of building a Jewish homeland in Palestine - be 100% equivalent to hatred of a race?  I'm sure that many, for all I know a majority, of anti-zionists are anti-semites.  I'm sure that many, for all I know a majority, of those who oppose Israel do so due to hatred of Jews.  But there is certainly ideological and logical room for a distinct minority that oppose Zionism without animosity towards Jews.  Whether Chomsky falls within that minority, I have no idea.
 * Allow me to amend myself, therefore: anti-zionism does not necessarily an anti-semite make.  As to Chomsky, I must say I'm disappointed in him.  I had never read some of these things by him before, and he had always seemed fairly rational and sane to me.  I have serious doubts about the sanity of anyone who can make such comments about, essentially, himself.  Mantanmoreland is right; once one stops assuming sanity on a particular person's part, it then becomes sensible that they could express racial hatred against their own race.  I was operating on an assumption that Noam Chomsky was sane.  I'm now reassessing that notion.  Cheers, Kasreyn 03:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your position that anti-Zionism isn't anti-Semitism, but I can see how one could come to such a conclusion. In the meantime, do you agree that Chomsky could be classified as an anti-Semite?
 * MSTCrow 19:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I will have to do more research and get back to you on that. If I find that he has made statements supporting or defending Nazi policies or goals (such as Holocaust denial or apologism), or otherwise expressed hatred for Jews as a race, that would definitely fit with what I understand anti-semitism to be.  Kasreyn 02:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the several nice references to myself (I was getting so battered on another talk page it was harming my self-esteem!). One wee point on this -- prior to the establishment of Israel in particular, a fairly large portion of both Jewish and non-Jewish public opinion was non- or evem anti-Zionist. Therefore one could not say then that anti-Zionist=anti-Semitic. Today, however, the two are more likely to be equivalent. I think it must be examined on a case by case basis. Unfortunately, some people refuse to describe any anti-Zionist as anti-Semitic.--Mantanmoreland 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky isn't an anti-Semite. He's just one of those fringe leftists that take their dislike of Israel to hyperbolic extremes when describing their anger at the government. (That's not to say that some of those guys aren’t anti-Semitic because they end up misconstruing their loathing of the Israeli government and then associating that hatred with Jews, but I think it's fair to argue that Chomsky, though a bit "out there", isn't one of those idiots who is incapable of distinguishing between the two groups.) He's also one of those people with enough common sense to defend people's rights to hate speech, even if it's directed at his own heritage. All in all, his attitudes toward an free speech and vitriolic dislike of the Israeli government has absolutely no bearing on whether he hates Jews (or even Israelis) as a people. Give some solid evidence (i.e. him actually saying something negative about Jews as a whole as a people) and then you have a case. Until then, you're just being foolish. 66.229.182.113 09:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've done some more research since my above discussion with Mantanmoreland and Doright, which I conceded out of an awareness of my own ignorance. Since then I've read the sources cited at Noam Chomsky and the matter appears to be highly subjective.  From one point of view, Chomsky was merely defending a holocaust denier's right to freedom of speech; from another point of view, he was defending the holocaust denier's actual views as such, and thus is tarred with the same brush.  I would personally tend to hold with those who feel Chomsky was merely defending an extremely unpopular kind of speech.  In fact, the most damning quote his critics in the Faurisson affair seem to be able to find is his describing the holocaust denier as "a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort", along with a disclaimer that Chomsky had not thoroughly read the man's work.  To me, this does not equate to hating Jews.  And he raises a good point that it is precisely in the cases of the most unpopular speech that freedom of speech must be most vigorously defended.


 * Chomsky is quoted as saying "...even denial of the Holocaust would not prove that a person is an anti-Semite.", his reasoning being that "...if a person ignorant of modern history were told of the Holocaust and refused to believe that humans are capable of such monstrous acts, we would not conclude that he is an anti-Semite." Thus he appears to be making the point I have occasionally made on Wikipedia, that allegations of anti-semitism depend not so much on what a person says or does (because in some cases the same things could be said or done for non-anti-semitic reasons), but what they intend by it, which is a largely subjective matter, except in those rare cases where a person recognizes himself as hateful and admits to it.  Chomsky is essentially saying, "Who are we to judge another's motives?", and I'm inclined to agree, particularly from the standpoint of Wikipedia's policies concerning verifiability and original research.  He has certainly been cited as anti-semitic by some, but the question is, what is the balance of opinion - and I say opinion because as I have illustrated, this is a subjective matter - what is the balance of opinion on whether Chomsky is in fact anti-semitic?  Because Wikipedia should attempt to reflect that balance, whatever it is.  I haven't yet seen any compelling evidence that Chomsky's critics have proved their point.  Cheers, Kasreyn 12:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Need for disclaimer, sources?
This category's current introduction reaks of original research and self referencing. Where are the sources to back up the statements made in the intro? Where is the non-self referential defintion of an Anti-Semite? Also much like Category:Terrorists this category should have a disclaimer stating that it is possible that those found in it are falsely there. Netscott 19:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag
Who are the "certain people" disputed? If it is just one or two, this tag is not necessary. MA alone is insufficient.--Mantanmoreland 19:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the primary one... please respond to my earlier talk above. Netscott 19:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed Isabella of Castile and Martin Luther from this category until they can be nailed down either way. It seems that historical persons can be very problematic since they should be judged through some sort of historical perspective it seems?? Anyways....--Tom 18:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have restored Martin Luther. I think that this discussion has already been settled. As for this question of judging someone in the context of the times they lived in, I do not think it applies in the case of Luther. It would be reasonable to suggest that someone who joined an anti-semitic organization because that's what people did at the time might not be an anti-semite (see the current Pope for instance), but Luther did not just remain silent about anti-semitism, he went out of his way to advocate persecution of the Jews in his pamphlet On the Jews and Their Lies, to say that Luthor did not engage in "hostility to or prejudice against Jews", the very definition of anti-semitism is completely absurd. GabrielF 19:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, maybe we should also remove Adolph Hitler from this category "until he can be nailed down etiher way." After all, "it seems that historical persons can be very problematic since they should be judged through some sort of historical perspective it seems."  By the way, GabrielF, Thetruthbelow has removed the tag again.

Here's Luther's plan for the Jews:
 * 1) "First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. ..."
 * 2) "Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. ..."
 * 3) "Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. ..."
 * 4) "Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. ..."
 * 5) "Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. ..."
 * 6) "Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them. ... Such money should now be used in ... the following [way]... Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed [a certain amount]..."
 * 7) "Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow... For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants."
 * 8) "If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews' blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country" and "we must drive them out like mad dogs."

--Doright 03:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that Luther didn't think much about the things he wrote. He only liked his De servo arbitrio and his catechisms. It should be noted too that the above is a translation of the original German. All this FYI, folks.--Drboisclair 04:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's nice. So what's your point, FYI? --Doright 04:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Really, now. Luther may not have "thought" about what he wrote but I trust that his readers did so. I think that Martin Luther's anti-Semitism is a settled point and cannot be seriously disputed. Actually I am surprised it is still being discussed. --Mantanmoreland 13:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Jean-Marie Le Pen may also be disputed. He probably is at least borderline anti-Semitic, but no hard facts are available. Personally I think he deserves anything he gets, but from a Wikipedia standpoint we should perhaps look into it. The inclusion of Henry Ford is also a bit troublesome, but then he's dead so he can't complain. The inclusion of Prussian Blue (duo) is also perhaps wrong since it's a duo and not a person. // Liftarn


 * I don't have an opinion on Le Pen, but Prussian Blue are "people". Does the category limit itself to single individuals with no affiliations?  If any individual included could be seen as a member of a duo with another included individual, does that mean they are excused?  We don't have individual articles on Lynx and Lamb Gaede, because they're not notable except in their affiliation as the band.  I think Prussian Blue should be included.  Cheers, Kasreyn 20:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * All organisations consists of people, but organisations seems to be listed at Category:Anti-Semitism. Still disputed are Jean-Marie Le Pen (missing evidence). Several people should be listed in Category:Nazis instead. Amin al-Husseini/anti-semitism (temporary) seems to be disputed. Even Osama bin Laden seems to lack sources. // Liftarn

Category renaming
To my fellow editors, please see this category for renaming talk and add you view on renaming this category. Thanks. Netscott 20:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Incidentally I think your removal of the disputed tag was commendable and I would implore other editors to cease reverting it.--Mantanmoreland 19:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The tag has to stay as it's obviously still in dispute. The fact that the removal gets reverted should be proof enough. // Liftarn


 * No, there is no serious dispute on any person listed. Incidentally, my edit summary was incorrect. I meant to say, "revert tag" not "revert tag removal" (double negative). --Mantanmoreland 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually it is. Examples are Prussian Blue (duo) (they are a duo, not a person) and Jean-Marie Le Pen (missing evidence). Several people should be listed in Category:Nazis instead. Amin al-Husseini/anti-semitism (temporary) seems to be disputed. Even Osama bin Laden seems to lack sources. // Liftarn


 * Liftarn, please don't write inaccurate edit summaries. Reverting the "dispute" tag on this category is not "rv vandalism." See WP:Vandalism. Falsely accusing editors of vandalism, particularly in edit summaries, is a serious violation of WP:NPA. Please stop.--Mantanmoreland 20:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Removing it once is a misstake, doing it several times is vandalism. // Liftarn


 * I'm not going to educate you on Wikipedia policies. That is your responsibility and I request you to read up on them and also to cease your endless edit warring and POV-pushing edits.--Mantanmoreland 20:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I also ask you to cease your endless edit warring and POV-pushing edits. // Liftarn


 * So I trust your reverts are at an end? Good.--Mantanmoreland 21:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I will continue to make articles NPOV whenever I find faults, but there is limited time and too many POV-pushers and quite frankly I have better things to do with my time. For now all I ask is that you do not remove tags without talking it over in the talk page and attempt to reach a consensus. // Liftarn


 * It's interesting that you've begun calling for a conversation and consensus only after exhausting your revert limit and realizing you will not be able to push your POV simply by outreverting others. Pecher Talk 21:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I see that you are still doing the POV-pushing. // Liftarn


 * Liftam -- so in other words you will continue to make articles NPOV such as by, for example, calling the government of Israel a "regime." This is the kind of "NPOV" Wikipedia can do without. Calling something "NPOV" and "rv vandalism" does not excuse POV-pushing, and must stop. Please pay attention to the warnings concerning your edits here and on the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talk page--Mantanmoreland 21:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I was using his words, but you haven't exactly been helpfull in coming up with better words. I utterly reject your idea that my edits can be called "POV-pushing". Removing POV is not the same as POV-pushing and you should know that. I reccomend that you read WP:NPOV and WP:OR. // Liftarn


 * Obviously the editors in the underlying articles believe the tag is appropriate. Don't undercut their decision by adding a misleading tag.--Mantanmoreland 22:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Some editors obviously do a bit too much WP:OR an add the category to articles where it doesn't really belong. That's why the tag is so important. // Liftarn

Category deleting
While I run the risk of substantiating a discussion by responding to it, the fact is that this category is POV. And even though it may have less controversial or even non-controverisal uses, its nevertheless misused and is therefore problematic. Further, it invites similar relativistic-subjective pejorative categories - some of which would apply directly to people who would (by equivalent criteria) apply no less than the above categorization. A simply solution would have been to limit its usage to dead people, as they cant argue, but even this limit was not supported and therefore enforced. Failing the designation of a reasonably agreeable spectrum of anti-Semitism (1/2 anti-Semitic, 1/4 anti-Semitic from patriarchal lineage, etc.) then there is no need to have this category other than to lable people according to the definition of a particular POV. I agree it could be nice to find a categorical way to use it, but its usage has been too... liberal. -Ste|vertigo 20:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is why I argued the category should be deleted. However, the result of the recent discussion was that there was no consensus for deletion.  Kasreyn 23:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, there is no consensus period. Theres a big difference IMHO between lacking consensus to delete, and having consensus to keep. Consensus is simply a factor of convincing people of your argument. Silence is often an indicator of capitulation, and we could simply interpret "consensus" in that way as well. Another CFD might prove useful, though that forum is not really conducive to rational discussion.All we have left is argumentum ad absurdum via something like Category:Anti-Swiss people, Category:Anti-French people etc. -Ste|vertigo 00:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not true. There was no consensus to rename but there was a consensus for it exist. See summary of discussion by User:Conscious. --Mantanmoreland 12:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just curious. How many votes are needed for either keeping or deleting to be enough to have a consensus?--Drboisclair 14:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no hard and fast rule. You might want to query User:Conscious, the impartial administrator who closed out the discussion, to ask him to explain how he concluded that there is, and I quote, a "consensus for the category to exist." --Mantanmoreland 14:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Mantan, there are reasonbly solid rules. Your "see summary" points only to a terse note, which is not definitive. Your claim that the user who closed it is "impartial" also cant be taken on its face value. You invited us here to discuss. Please now discuss the issues, and not simply point to someone else's claim. Our argument for changing how this cat is used rests entirely in NPOV, which is the "non-negotiable" policy by which this site has developed. See also WP:NPOVT if you like. -Ste|vertigo 15:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I realize that some editors don't like it, but there is a consensus for the category to exist just as there was no category to rename. NPOV arguments have been rejected. Any further efforts to beat this dead horse would be disruptive IMHO.WP:POINT. As for your "please discuss the issues" request, I am flattered that you want to hear from me, but that is about all I have to say for the moment, unless somone raises an issue which I want to address. I'm sure that others will respond, if that is any consolation.--Mantanmoreland 15:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What the....???
I just found this category through reading the Ezra Pound article (not a fan, just wanted to know more about him). Do I have my head in the sand or is being an "anti-Semite" so notable as to deserve a category in an encyclopedia? I know this was referred to above as "argumentum ad naseum" but if this category is acceptable, why don't we have Category:Anti-American people or Category:Anti-Caucasian people? I could legitimately populate these two categories with dozens, if not hundreds, of people. Ahmadinajad has made the same threats toward America and Western Culture in general that he has made toward the Jews, why do we categorize his views on the Jews but not on Americans? What's notable is that the man's a lunatic, not that he has anti-"whatever" views, same for Hitler, Stalin, etc. What about Malcolm X and Louis Farakhan (maybe even Ray Nagin) in the Anti-Caucasian category? What's wrong with that? We need to stop worrying about being Politically correct and just be consistent and truthful. Oooohhh, here's one that will have folks running to the CfD page:Category:Anti-Christianity people. I could easily populate that one with dozens of names as well. And, for the record, this isn't WP:POINT (check my edit history, I'm a serious, peace making Wikipedian), I'd seriously like to know what the differnce is between this category and my suggested categories.--WilliamThweatt 16:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think they are good ideas for categories. Why not create them? I don't think doing so would be disruptive. Incidentally, now that you mention it, Louis Farrakhan belongs in the anti-Semitic people category and I think I will correct that oversight myself unless the Farrakan Talk page shows a consensus against that. --Mantanmoreland 16:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I'll get to work on Category:Evil-doers. &#0151; JEREMY 09:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Tag removal
Some people seems to dislike the tagging of this category. However, until a consensus is reached the tag stays. // Liftarn


 * Tag should be at the article not at the +cat, incorrect tags should be removed. List of marijuana slang terms 19:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, read what it says in the tag "The inclusion of certain people in this category is disputed.". The tag belongs in the category, not the articles themselves. Now, please stop removing the tag. It should be there. // Liftarn


 * Please list here the "certain people" that are currently disputed.--Doright 02:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again!? Ok, here are some Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (lacks citation), Amin al-Husseini/anti-semitism (temporary) (obviously), Osama bin Laden (surprisingly lacks citation), Louis Farrakhan (disputed in article), Prussian Blue (duo) (not a person), Joseph Goebbels (should be in Category:Nazi leaders instead), Jack Chick (see the talk page of the article), Vladimir Zhirinovsky (lacks citation, only mentiones that he has been accused of it) and so on. Quite frankly I'm getting too tired and it's too hot to bother any more. I just hope no one sues Wikipedia over it. Now, I'm going to the beach... // Liftarn


 * Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is one. BhaiSaab talk 07:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * BhaiSaab, who never edited this category before, has wikistalked me from Islam-related articles. Pecher Talk 07:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I followed Liftarn here. BhaiSaab talk 07:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyway, it's good that you admit to wikistalking. Pecher Talk 07:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That I followed Liftarn here does not match the definition of wikistalking. See Harassment. BhaiSaab talk 07:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see Harassment. I think you're being too free with accusations.  Wikistalking is more than following someone around from article to article.  There is also a required component of intent to annoy, disrupt, attack, or otherwise harass that person.  That is, stalking is a modification and worsening of harassment; without harassment, stalking isn't happening.  First you accuse BhaiSaab of stalking you, then when he claims to have followed Liftarn here, you claim this is evidence of stalking.  What?  You think BhaiSaab is stalking Liftarn?  Please try to assume good faith.  Kasreyn 07:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've created a subsection below for each article that has an editor that denies the category is appropriately applied. Hopefully someone will address the editors' claims and work for resolution.--Doright 08:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've again removed that disputed tag, added again by Liftarn, as the critera for inclusion are well specified. Four CfDiscussions. That's enough.
 * --William Allen Simpson 14:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have again added the disputed tag since the inclusion of some people still is controversial. The criteria for inclusion are often ignored. As it says on the label "The inclusion of certain people in this category is disputed.". Note: Deleting the tag will not make the controvery go away. // Liftarn

DISCUSS AT THE ARTICLE NOT HERE
Why do you insist on discussing here, go to the articles talk page ! List of marijuana slang terms 21:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Denier: Liftarn Claim: "lacks citation"

Denier: BhaiSaab Claim: none

Denier: User:Jeremygbyrne Claim: Categorisation clearly motivated by political differences, denied by individual and his government's media; evidence challenged by various reliable commentators (other than the "holocaust denial = antisemitism" cant); debate subject of significant media attention, obvious differences of opinion amongst reasonable people not adequately reflected in the ambit claim of the article-taggers

Amin al-Husseini/anti-semitism (temporary)
Denier: Liftarn Claim: "obviously"
 * Nonsensical claim for a person who advocated implementing the final solution in the Middle East. Pecher Talk 22:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden
Denier: Liftarn Claim: "lacks citation"

Louis Farrakhan
Denier: Liftarn Claim: "disputed in article"
 * Rubbish. "Admitted in article" would be more correct. Sure, there was a denial he called Judaism a "gutter religion" and an admission he called it a "dirty religion." He admitted to making vile anti-Semitic statements. This is typical of the frivolous character of this "disputed" label. Only the most tortured, POV-pushing interpretation (the POV being "there is no such thing as anti-Semitism") would call the Farrakhan entry seriously "disputed."--Mantanmoreland 00:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Prussian Blue (duo)
Denier: Liftarn Claim: "not a person"
 * Concur. Prussian Blue is a band.  If we had articles on Lamb and Lynx Gaede, they would certainly qualify for this category.  But Prussian Blue is not a person.  Definite miscategorization.  Kasreyn 20:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a little uncertain here. This category is not named Anti-Semitic person.  It's named "Anti-Semitic people." Are they not people? The article refers to two people and the article name explicitly includes the word "duo," which I take to mean two people.  When you say "definite miscategorization," you seem to know something that I don't.  Please cite the text that states or implies that a duo may not be categorized as people. Are you suggesting that we need a separate category for Anti-Semitic duos?--Doright 21:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of nomenclature, that's all. If there were a category for "anti-semitic bands", I'd be the first to put Prussian Blue in it.  "Prussian Blue" does not refer to people per se, but to an organization (of the subtype "band") which happens to be made up of people, two of whom we definitely know are anti-semitic.  They would fit better under a category referring to "Anti-semitic groups" (or "organizations"), if we had one.  "Anti-semitic duos" would probably be too specific, since there are probably very few such duos.  Should such a category be created, do you think?  Kasreyn 21:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't know if these people are antisemites or not. And, I understand that your point relates to nomenclature.  But, I don't yet see this as a violation of WP nomenclature.  I was hoping you could provide me the WP guideline text which suggests that it is.  I don't know if other categories should be created.  However, I don't think it makes sense to make a special category for antisemitic musical groups, nor do I think they belong in the category of organizations.  I think it's better to just include them in this category.--Doright 21:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Goebbels
Denier: Liftarn Claim: "should be in Category:Nazi leaders instead"
 * I don't get that. Why not both?  Kasreyn 20:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Category:Nazis is a subcat of Category:Anti-Semitic people. If the article is already listed in a subcat there is no need to list it in a higher cat. // Liftarn


 * That's completely insane. Have you ever read anything Goebels wrote or said? I don't even think its possible to be MORE of an anti-semite. GabrielF 02:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This is typical of the kind of frivolous objection that is made to people in this category. --Mantanmoreland 14:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jack Chick
Denier: Liftarn Claim: "see the talk page of the article"
 * Had a look at the article and its sources. While I wouldn't put anything, including anti-semitism, past an utter slimeball like Chick, I don't think the article has a reliable source on his anti-semitism yet.  The "interesting ideas" site seems to be a definite anti-Chick website.  I personally feel his "Rabbi Waxman" tract is disgusting as well as anti-semitic, but we need an outside source to call it such; remember, no original research.  Kasreyn 20:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Vladimir Zhirinovsky
Denier: Liftarn Claim: ”lacks citation, only mentions that he has been accused of it"
 * Agree. He is a paid clown, not a genuine anti-Semite. Pecher Talk 22:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wendy Campbell
Denier: Liftarn Claim: "lacks citation, only mentions that she has been accused of it"


 * Perhaps you should spend 10 minute on her website? Campbell wrote articles for the National Vanguard, and participated in rallies for the IHR. She was accused of anti-semitism by the person who started the academic boycott of Israel in the UK! She has advocated a number of positions which are generally considered anti-semitic such as:
 * Holocaust denial
 * The Jews control the media and the culture
 * Jews run the American government
 * "I believe there is quite a bit of evidence that points to the truthfulness of his (Kevin B. MacDonald's) theory of Judaism as a group-evolutionary strategy to enhance their own agenda and exploit, and even in some cases, enslave others, via proxy.
 * She has written articles with titles like:
 * "Zionization of Miami"
 * "The Myth of Jewish Tolerance"
 * In addition she has posted articles on her website with titles like
 * "The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution"
 * "Is the New World Order 'Jewish'?"
 * That took about 10 minutes. Still think she's not an anti-semite? GabrielF 00:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what you or I think, thats WP:OR. // Liftarn

Pat Buchanan
Denier: JChap2007 Claim: "calling Buchanan anti-Semitic is POV (even though I happen to agree); if the category were people accused of anti-Semitism that would be different)"
 * Denier: Drboisclair 16:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC). This is POV. Wikipedia should be concerned about actionable lawsuits for libel on the part of persons whose reputations are tarnished by this profiling.
 * "Actionable lawsuits"? I wonder if New York Times Co. v. Sullivan applies? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * He is certainly a public figure, so it would apply.--Mantanmoreland 03:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope so--Drboisclair 03:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)