Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Antisemitism

Jossi's outside view
I would like to explain why this issue is not a content dispute. The issue brought here is clear rejection of reliable sources like Bernard Lewis, Claude Cahen, scientific encyclopedias like Encyclopedia of Islam, etc etc. Such rejection is furthermore done by a group of experienced wikipedian. It is not a content dispute but rather timewasting attempts to trash sound academic research. --Aminz 07:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the very definition of a content dispute. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it is not. When user:Humus sapiens rejects reliability of Encyclopedia of Islam because "After that quote it doesn't seem trustworthy", and then doesn't allow others to use that source, it is violation of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. It is not a content dispute. --Aminz 05:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow's outside view
Thanks for your comment. User:Humus sapeins was asked to read the article on Encyclopedia of Islam (edit by BhaiSaab on 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC); antisemitism talk page) Humus sapeins replied :"After that quote it doesn't seem trustworthy." Humus sapiens argues that evidences like Shiraz blood libel are antisemitism but only a reliable source is required to make such connections. Antisemitism is a theological hostility towards Jews.

I believe Paul Johnson (journalist) is not a reliable source on Islam, for the reasons stated in the RfC page. He has only a second-lower class degree in Jesuit studies and more importantly, his work is not published in a university press in which blind peer-review is practiced. Rijwan is not a minority view. Claude Cahen in the Encyclopedia of Islam says that "There is nothing in mediaeval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism." Bernard Lewis says that "Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism". --Aminz 01:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been looking over some of the blood libel articles. I think decisions on sourcing necessarily have to be made there. I lean toward inclusion, subject to due weight, article length, and good writing - pages should stay on topic, and topics should be spun off to their own pages and summarized. Beyond that I can't say much, having really not much expertise in the area. I am surprised to hear Antisemitism described as theological hostility. I thougt it was based on ethnicity, but maybe the pretext for ill treatment has varied with time and place. Tom Harrison Talk 02:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion states (and has only to say the following on Islam):

"In the Muslim world, antisemitism developments were far less overt, except in periods of religous extremism. There was little specific antisemitism, and Jews were treated (or ill-treated) like other infidels."

Therefore the discriminative nature of the persecution is very important. --Aminz 02:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Islam states: "there had been scarcely any difference in the treatment accorded to Christians and Jews (at most they were distinguished by prescribed differences in dress); but it later came about that some categories of d̲h̲immī s were looked on as friends of foreign powers and were worse treated, and naturally some Christians were in this respect more of a target than the Jews. There is nothing in mediaeval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism." --Aminz 02:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I provided a lot of academic evidences here Talk:Antisemitism But User:Humus sapiens's reply to all of these evidence was :"No quote in the world can remove historical facts. By now you should remember the list: dhimmi, mellah, etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)"


 * BTW, the articles on Shiraz blood libel etc etc are all written based on the works of Bat Ye'or or Littman. --Aminz 02:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Shiraz blood libel' references Littman, but the others in Category:Blood libel seem not to. I found Rhodes blood libel an interesting read. Tom Harrison Talk 02:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)