Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 25

Reversion war in the See Also section

It seems that there has been a reversion war going on today over whether or not the article Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism belongs in the also see section of this article. Is there a consensus or wikipedia policy about referencing articles listed on Wikipedia:VFD? Also I would like to know why Circumcision and Anti-semitism is not involved. It is another relevant but disputed article listed on Wikipedia:VFD. I do not care which is decided one way or the other, but I believe to be logically consistent we must list both articles or neither. Sirkumsize 02:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. It is prudent to wait until the VfD period has expired. This encyclopedia is live and we don't want our readers directed to an article that may not be up to par (the VfD). El_C 02:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Right. Especially when the vote is going so strongly against certain articles. Jayjg (talk) 03:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
El C, where does it say that an article should not be mentioned in other articles as soon as it's nominated for deletion? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:47, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
In my comment above it does (i.e. it is my opinion, I'm uncertain about applicable policy, if any, nor was formal policy a consideration, to be honest). Fact is that the two new articles went on VfD virtually as soon as they were created, and I don't consider them to be stable enough for our readers to be linked to them through stable articles until the VfD period has expired. Again, this is my opinion, and whether it's noted in policy or not, I find it reasonable to exercize such caution. El_C 01:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shahak quote

Why is a Shahak quote included in this article? He is not notable. Jayjg (talk) 16:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How so? Sounds like you've heard of him. (I don't care one way or another, but it seems to me that if you can refer to a person unambiguously by their last name and expect that people know who you mean, they might be notable.) --FOo 18:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Months ago I was asked by another Wikipedia editor to help referee a debate at the article about Shahak, and, as a result, I did some reading; my familiarity with him is thus no accident, but not particularly representative. Jayjg (talk) 18:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • We've only heard of him because he's been discussed around here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think Fubar is applying an unrealistic standard. Given the nature of WIkipedia it is likely that someone here has already heard of anyone that could be mentioned in an article. That an editor has "heard of him" is an absurd standard for evaluating the appropriateness of a source. Shahak was a chemistry teacher who became a dilettant in history. He had no training in history, and as far as I can tell did not publish any books through academic presses or articles in peer-reviewed journals. We have to reject him as an authority on Jewish/Zionist/Israeli history. Nor was he an important political figure. If we quote him on Israeli or Jewish history, we might as well quote my neighbor's gardener. I am not trying to silence a voice from the Israeli left, but surely there are established historians, politicians, and human rights activists who are more established than Shahak (e.g. Betzelem, the Israeli chapters of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, Shalom Achshav, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, politicians in Shinui). Slrubenstein | Talk 18:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shahak is basically quoted by the antiZionists because he is famous because he is quoted by the antiZionists. If he were publishing a proZionist point of view he would be unknown; which perhaps is why he is not. I assume that, as you suggest, there are folks on the antiZionist side who have some sort of independent reason to pay attention to their writings. Gzuckier 14:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think it is reasonable to quote him in certain contexts. He has some notoriety as a Jewish author of anti-Zionist and anti-Orthodox tracts, and in that context he might be worth mentioning, but I don't see why he would be particularly notable here. Jayjg (talk) 18:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Shahak is clearly not an authority on the history of anti-Semitism and can't be quoted as such. But the entire section where the quote occurs is flawed. It's supposed to be about "Anti-Semitism and modernity", but only the first paragraph is on topic. Apparently someone has confused different uses of the word modern. Denis Diderot 19:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Some people have equated anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism. If it is notable to quote Shahak on anti-Zionism then it is notable to quote Shahak on anti-Semitism, especially since it can highlight a possible difference between the two. Conch Shell 09:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The fact that X is an anti-Semite does not make X an authority on the history of anti-Semitism. The fact that Y is an anti-Zionist does not make Y an authority on the history of anti-Zionism. (Not even on contemporary anti-Zionism for that matter.) On the other hand, if Y is a well-known anti-Zionist and has a certain reputation in that area, then quotes by Y may be useful as examples of anti-Zionist views. Denis Diderot 11:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I thought this section was trying to provide a definition of modern anti-Semitism, not give an account of its history? Conch Shell 12:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it's trying to do more. But in any event, the issue here is whether or not Shahak's views on the subject are notable, and thus worthy of quoting in the article. So far I see no indication that they are. Jayjg (talk) 18:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Werner Cohn, a noted Jewish academic, has described Shahak as, "the world's most conspicuous Jewish anti-Semite." Rabbi Immanuel Jakobavits, the former Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth, has also accused Shahak of anti-Semitism in "A Modern Blood Libel - L' Affaire Shahak". If Shahak has been criticised by such eminent people as these (and in this respect) then the inclusion of his definition of modern anti-Semitism seems notable. Conch Shell 09:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(1) To say what characterizes "modern anti-Semitism" is to make a statement about the history of anti-Semitism. It is not a 'definition' of anti-Semitism. It is a statement about historical facts. (This would be an example of a definition: "By the term 'modern anti-Semitism', I mean anti-Semitism wholly or partially supported by a secular ideology." (2) Even if Shahak is interesting as an example of an anti-Semitic jew, that neither (a) make his views on anti-Semitism authoritative, nor (b) make his views on anti-Semitism notable. As for (2)(b): If his views on anti-Semitism were to be viewed as notable but not authoritative, then they should be quoted as such. (Clearly spelling ou the reason for their inclusion and in a section devoted to, for example, notable anti-Semites.) (3) As I have previously argued, the section should be either about "anti-Semitism and modernity" or about "modern anti-Semitism". Discussing both together becomes very confusing for the reader. Denis Diderot 10:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
RE (1) To say what characterizes modern anti-Semitism is at least to partly define it, any statements about its history can only be infered.
RE (2b) If his views on anti-Semitism were to be viewed as notable but not authoritative, then they should be quoted as such. What wording would you suggest please? If Shahak's writings can elicit a written response from the Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth then he is at least noteworthy.
(NB I dispute claims that Shahak is anti-Semitic, but that's another matter) Conch Shell 12:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Let me put it this way, Conch Shell; David Duke has been described as an anti-Semite by many, but that doesn't make Duke an expert on anti-Semitism, or his views of what anti-Semitism is worth quoting. If I don't see more support for quoting Shahak on the topic soon, I'm going to remove the quote. And by they way, almost all people accused of anti-Semitism dispute that they are anti-Semites, as do their fans. Jayjg (talk)
Werner Kohn's article contains inaccuracies and at least one falsehood, he doesn't seem to be a notable character in other respects so I shouldn't have mentioned him with regard to Shahak. However Shahak's quote was from a book which has received written criticism from Immanuel Jakobavits, which makes its contents at least noteworthy. Conch Shell 13:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've seen no evidence of Kohn's article containing a "falsehood", and he seems about as notable as Shahak. As for Jakobovitz, the fact that he refuted a story Shahak told in no way indicates that Shahak's general views on anti-Semitism are notable. I haven't seen anyone else support the notability of Shahak's view, and a number of people who have said it is not notable, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to take out the quote. Jayjg (talk) 17:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removing indentation

I've seen no evidence of Kohn's article containing a "falsehood"
Kohn states "His prime example are the Chmielnicki massacres of 17th century Ukraine, which he wants us to celebrate as a progressive uprising"
Shahak doesn't ask us to 'celebrate' this nor does he describe it as 'progressive', though he does refer to its 'horrendous atrocities'. Then there's the 'Jews worship Satan' copyedit which we've already discussed.
Lord Immanuel Jakobovitz would have at least read Shahak's book before criticizing it, unlike some of his other critics. Jakobovitz did not attack Shahak's definition of modern anti-Semitism and so would appear to tacitly endorse it. However this is not good enough for Wikipedia. Conch Shell 09:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Shahak does indeed view the Chmielnicki massacres as an entirely reasonable Ukranian peasant uprising against their Jewish oppressors, even if he doesn't use the specific words "celebrate" and "progressive". And Shahak did indeed say the Jews worship Satan, and the quote given quite perfectly captures Shahak's claim, as we've already discussed. As for Jakobovitz, he debunked Shahak's claim regarding a specific incident which Shahak made up. He did not respond to the book as a whole, and your argument is a famous logical fallacy known as an "Argument from silence". Jayjg (talk) 04:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Shahak does indeed view the Chmielnicki massacres as an entirely reasonable Ukranian peasant uprising against their Jewish oppressors — He does?(!) Wow. Source? El_C 04:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the most outstanding example is the great massacre of Jews during the Chmielnicki revolt in the Ukraine (1648), which started as a mutiny of Cossack officers but soon turned into a widespread popular movement of the oppressed serfs: 'The unprivileged, the subjects, the Ukrainians, the Orthodox [persecuted by the Polish Catholic church] were rising against their Catholic Polish masters, particularly against their masters' bailiffs, clergy and Jews. This typical peasant uprising against extreme oppression, an uprising accompanied not only by massacres committed by the rebels but also by even more horrible atrocities and 'counter-terror' of the Polish magnates' private armies, has remained emblazoned in the consciousness of east-European Jews to this very day - not, however, as a peasant uprising, a revolt of the oppressed, of the real wretched of the earth, nor even as a vengeance visited upon all the servants of the Polish nobility, but as an act of gratuitous antisemitism directed against Jews as such. In Jewish History, Jewish Religion, Chapter 4, section "Anti-Jewish Persecutions". Jayjg (talk) 05:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow. It's interesting how much of his abovecited analysis follows a sound basis:

For centuries after the creation of the Commonwealth, the Orthodox people of Ruthenia had felt oppressed by the Polish szlachta, Catholic priests and Jewish traders. Although Ruthenian nobility enjoyed full rights, they quickly absorbed Polish culture and therefore were alienated from the common people; the advent of the Counter-Reformation worsened the relationship between the Orthodox and Catholic churches. Unwilling to attend to the details of administration themselves, Polish magnates often made Jewish traders their go-betweens in transactions with the peasants of Ukraine. The magnates sold and leased certain privileges to the Jews for a lump sum and, while enjoying themselves at their courts, left it to the Jewish leaseholders and collectors to become objects of hatred to the oppressed and long-suffering peasants.

But then bizzarely falls very short, whereas the Wikipedia article continues with:

Khmelnytsky told the people that the Poles had sold them as slaves "into the hands of the accursed Jews." With this as their battle-cry, the Cossacks killed a huge number of Jews during the years 1648–1649. The precise number of dead may never be known, but estimates range from a minimum 100,000 to well over 1,000,000 Jews killed.

This typical peasant uprising against extreme oppression (!) Wow, he seems to have serious issues. El_C 07:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's easier to see now why some view him as a polemicist, and others simply as an anti-Semite. Jayjg (talk) 07:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'm surprised he could say such a thing. About as subtle as playing Wagner from loudspeakers. I hate using the term self-hatred (though I hate more that such viewes be associated with the Left), but he seems quite caught up in it, pathologically so. Eep. El_C 08:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This still remains a peasant revolt against all feudal agents and not an act of gratuitous anti-Semitism. The article states all agents of the Polish nobility were attacked: 'Wherever they found the szlachta, royal officials or Jews, they killed them all, sparing neither women nor children. They pillaged the estates of the Jews and nobles, burned churches and killed their priests, leaving nothing whole.'
Does this also make the peasants anti-Catholic bigots? And how do you infer Shahak's 'self-hatred' from the above? Conch Shell 14:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was not a typical one in that the number of Jewish casualties was very high. It is unecessary to remark that not only the Jews were targeted and killed, that's a given. And, yes, there was strong anti-Catholic animosity, that's also a given. I infer Shahak's 'self-hatred' from him calling it a typical peasant revolt. The massacare of the same name makes it atypical. El_C 23:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I got the impression that 'typical' refered to the reasons not the consequeneces. In any case Shahak's point in JHJR was that the Jews massacred during the Chmielnicki revolt were not murdered because of their religious beliefs or perceived racial characteristics but because of their social role. Perhaps this is why he doesn't seem to identify with them. Conch Shell 14:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At the event, the two are inextricably tied, while your suggestion, intimating that 'typical' is left to the subtext and open to interpertation, rests on rather loose foundation. Again, I return to the question of scale: he could have easily written that initially this took the form of a typical peasent revolt, but then... Instead, he jumps ahead: This typical peasant uprising against extreme oppression, an [typical] uprising accompanied not only by... This oversight is too easily fixable, an omission which stands out, and yes, that's how I read it. I wonder, though, which sources he uses for that example. All this notwithstanding the hypothetical reasons behind self-indentification (or lack thereof), but rather, what is being depicted, and how. El_C 23:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I still can't see how using the word 'typical' implies hatred of the victims let alone himself. Conch Shell 12:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hum, well once again, because it was not typical, thus, his (purported) 'demystification' fails to avoid a strong bias, rather than a careful, detached analysis which takes all of the above into account. El_C 20:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The word 'typical' implies indifference not hatred. If you look at the massacres from an ethnocentric perspective then the fact that a Jew is indifferent to the plight of other Jews may seem surprising. However if you view them from a universal perspective then a man being indifferent to the plight of the agents of a brutal feudal regime is less surprising. Many younger Germans are indifferent to the bombing of their country during WWII (in which hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed) for a similar reason. Conch Shell 10:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RE: 'And Shahak did indeed say the Jews worship Satan

Cohn wrote:

''He [Shahak] also tells us (p. 34) that "both before and after a meal, a pious Jew ritually washes his hands....On one of these two occasions he is worshiping God... but on the other he is worshiping Satan..."

but fails to include the remainder of the line

who likes Jewish prayers and ritual acts so much that when he is offered a few of them it keeps him busy for a while and he forgets to pester the divine daughter.

which gives the false impression that Shahak claims Jews offer acts of worship to Satan as an act of reverence and not appeasement. Conch Shell 08:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You keep repeating that, as if the alleged reason makes a difference. It doesn't. Jayjg (talk) 15:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Offering acts of worship to Satan (should such a being exist) as a form of appeasement can be morally justified, doing so out of reverence cannot. Conch Shell 11:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
He didn't present it as a "morally justifiable" act; that's your apologetic. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
He just included a reason that implied this, which Cohn chose to omit. Conch Shell 12:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
LOL! So he did accuse Jews of worshipping Satan, but in your opinion "included a reason that implied this [was morally justified], which Cohn chose to omit"; that's a mighty thin twig on which to rest the weight of your accusation against Cohn. See Apologetics#Colloquial_usage.

Jayjg (talk) 17:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please see the 'RE: Satan Worshiping Allegations' paragraph below. Conch Shell 11:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To a leftist, its morality or lack thereof isn't particularly pertinent or significant one way or the other. I'm not certain what he is driving at (with such a heavily sarcastic tone) wrt this practice. At any rate, it seems to cross the line and standard set by Marx's On the Jewish Question: against the admonishment of religious particularities viz. economic-historic legacy (and for Marx, this was a minor footnote, whereas for Shahak it seems to be a life work). To what end, I'm still not certain. Obviously Jewish doctrine has some issues which are a product of its age and time of origin (the concept of Kharma in Hinduism is more reactionary than that of Buddhism, for ex.). I'm wondering, does he actually have a significant point to any and all of this? El_C 00:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's part of an explanation of the Kabbalah, which Shahak claims influences the belief systems of some contemporary religious politicians. Conch Shell 12:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I see. While the existence (and rise of) fascistic tendencies in Israel is a frightening reality (as it is wrt to Christian fascists in the United States, Islamic fascists in Saudi Arabia, Buddhist facsists in Sri Lanka, etc.), reading it in isolation, I fail to see how his explanation sheds light on any of this. And I am worried that, by virtue of his tone, it encourages some forms of extremism as the cost of exposing others. Which is utterly unecessary, undialectical, and wrong. El_C 20:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
From a progressive standpoint, other religions may have rituals that correspond in similar ways to the the dark side —all uniformally absrud (though this is one does have great health benefits), as they are otherwise— but I don't know what point he is trying to make, so I'm at a disadvantage in this polemic. El_C 23:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Offering acts of worship to Satan has nothing to do with Kabbalah; far from it, such acts are antithetical to Kabbalah. Anyone who suggests otherwise is either deliberately slandering Judaism, or misinformed. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In this case, it appears to involve, at best, a combination of both. El_C 20:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RE: Satan Worshiping Allegations

Shahak doesn't accuse Jews of worshiping Satan he claims, "Other prayers or religious acts, as interpreted by the cabbalists, are designed to deceive various angels (imagined as minor deities with a measure of independence) or to propitiate Satan." He also specifically mentions the hand-washing ritual with regard to propitiating Satan. (click here and search for 'propitiating Satan').

I am not defending these claims. My point in raising them was that Werner Cohn copy-edited a quote to give the false impresssion that Shahak claimed Jews worship Satan out of reverence. Conch Shell 11:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cohn gives no such impression; you've inserted the word "reverence". You can't put meaning into Cohn's article that isn't actually there, and then claim he is misleading as a result. Jayjg (talk) 19:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
People usually worship deities out of reverence, not appeasement. Shahak stresses the latter in the case of Satan though Cohn copyedits the sentence so people assume the more usual meaning. Conch Shell 08:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Your apologetic is unconvincing at best. Jayjg (talk) 15:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't have to provide the apologetic, you do if you want to defend Cohn's copyedit. Conch Shell 08:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shahak false and misleading

As far as I can determine, having only a very limited knowledge of Jewish religion and customs, Shahak's writings are filled with false or misleading statements. Many of his statements seem to be simply variations of age-old anti-Semitic accusations.
For example, Shahak discusses the commands to "go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass" [1] and to "kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him"[2]. Then he says that these commands and other similar examples

are much used and generally approved of -- and this includes in recent years -- by most of the intellectuals and many of the leaders of the Zionist "left"

He proceeds to claim that an "education officer" regularly preaches to the new recruits in the IDF and tells them that the Palestinians in the occupied territories are like the ancient Amelekites.( The "Historical Right" and the Other Holocaust in Journal of Palestine Studies, Spring 1981). Surely not even Conch Shell believes that to be true? Denis Diderot 21:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't blindly believe everything that I read in Shahak's books (or anyone else's) and I have no knowledge of contemporary IDF training. Conch Shell 11:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Where did he say this, please? Conch Shell 10:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
On page 33 --Denis Diderot 11:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I couldn't find the paper to which you refer but on page 91 of Jewish History, Jewish Religion Shahak states that rabbinical pronouncements "which do in fact state correctly the position of the Halakhah - are rarely contested by the Zionist 'left'." On page 92 he states "In fact, it is not uncommon for reserve soldiers called up to do a tour of duty in the Gaza Strip to be given an 'educational lecture' in which they are told that the Palestinians of Gaza are 'like the Amalekites'." Although he doesn't give references for these claims their formulation is more mundane (and therefore more reasonable) than that stated in the Journal of Palestine Studies.
However he does give a reference (p77) for a rabbinical equation of Palestinians with Amalekites in an exchange of letters between a religious soldier and a rabbi, which was quoted from R. Shim'on Weiser, 'Purity of weapons - an exchange of letters' in Niv Hammidrashiyyah Yearbook of Midrashiyyat No'am, 1974, pp. 29-31. He stresses that the quoted material is in the Hebrew version of the yearbook but not the English or French. Conch Shell 08:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nazi use of the term

Did the Nazis use the term antisemitismus much when referring to their own ideology? — Helpful Dave 15:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not that much. But they did use it. Here is a significant example:
"Der Antisemitismus aus rein gefühlsmäßigen Gründen wird seinen letzten Ausdruck finden in der Form von Progromen. Der Antisemitismus der Vernunft jedoch muß führen zur planmäßigen gesetzlichen Bekämpfung und Beseitigung der Vorrechte der Juden, die er zum Unterschied der anderen zwischen uns lebenden Fremden besitzt (Fremdengesetzgebung). Sein letztes Ziel aber muß unverrückbar die Entfernung der Juden überhaupt sein." (Hitler's letter to Adolf Gemlich Sept 16, 1919)
English translation: "Anti-Semitism on purely emotional grounds will find its ultimate expression in the form of pogroms. Rational anti-Semitism, however, must entail a disciplined fight against, and removal through legal means, of the privileges Jews have in distinction to other aliens that live among us (Aliens legislation). Its ultimate goal, though, must adamantly be the complete removal of the Jews."
(The "privileges" the Jews had were their normal rights as citizens. Hitler wanted those revoked so that all Jews would have the legal status of aliens.) --Denis Diderot 15:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand the reflexive tendency to revert sensitive materiale, but it makes more sense to actually read it, and edit it for NPOV. The version before was highly inaccurate, and made the awful mistake of appearing to attribute anti-Semitic comment directly to Jesus, without any context or clarification. In fact that meaning depends on an obfuscation of it. It did not explain the distiction between Pharisees and Jews in general, and failing to do so, copies the basis for their historical use as anti-Semitic propaganda. Two flawed interpretations do not make a right one. The section did not even attribute the quotes properly to Jesus, Stephen, John, respectively. Put all of this together, and the reactionary revert looks more like censorship than anyone's good editing. -SV|t|add 19:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I read it, and found it both inaccurate and filled with POV.
  • Can you imagine that phrases like "its not just to say" or "its proper to note" or "a more rational and consistent reexamination" are in any way unbiased?
  • As well, the section defending Jesus as "explicitly disapprov[ing] of condemnation" is an off-topic apologetic, particularly in light of the many condemnations by Jesus listed in the New Testament, and in any event it does not say one shouldn't condemn Jews, it says Jesus doesn't want to call down fire from heaven to destroy a town.
  • Moreoever, the long section describing attempts at Jewish-Christian reconciliation belong in the article on that topic; this section, however, was about passages in the New Testament that have been considered to be or used as a justification for anti-Semitism.
  • As well, it has a specifically Catholic orientation, ignoring the other half of Christianity.
  • It is also simply false; for example it claims "In the New Testament Jesus does not in fact refer to "the Jews" in his condemnations, but rather to the Pharisees and Saducees" In fact, in the passage quoted from John, the text is explicit that it refers to the Jews: John 8:31 "Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him etc." John is full of references to "the Jews". What's more, it's not particularly relevant, nor are the specific speakers; the section is not discussing sayings of Jesus which are considered anti-Semitic, but statements in the New Testament which are considered anti-Semitic; Jesus, John, Stephen, Paul, whoever, it doesn't really matter, they're all "holy writ".
  • The fact that the section does not distinguish between the Jews and the Pharisees is precisely the point; for most of Christian history the church didn't either, and as a result these passages were interpreted this way. Many Christians still do interpret them this way. For someone to come along now and say "well, they interpreted it all wrong, this is what they really meant, so it's not anti-Semitism at all" is not only a historical anachronism, but the height of POV.
  • And finally, it's not my responsibility to NPOV fatally flawed insertions, but rather the editor's responsibility to enter reasonable material in the first place. My reversion was considered and measured, just the opposite of "reflexive". Jayjg (talk) 20:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See my response to Jayjg-SV|t|add 22:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's insulting enough to use rollback to revert me once, but to use it twice, and without even responding to my comments? That is completely out of the bounds of acceptable behaviour, Stevertigo. Jayjg (talk) 21:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If Jayjg was as sensitive about reverting and rolling back the edits of other editors as he expects others to be towards him, then he wouldn't be as widely despised as he is. Jayjg defines the bounds of acceptable behavior but he doesn't abide by it himself, repulsive hypocrite that he is. He could learn something from the Golden Rule, but judging from his long history of malicious and prejudiced editing, that isn't likely to happen any time soon. --Patrick Reynolds 21:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I dislike highly the namecalling Patrick. I dont care what others think, he raises some common and valid objections, which require addressing. Of course I agree that blanket reverting is a bad habit but hes certainly not the only one. -SV|t|add 22:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The anonymous edits were entered without a single edit summary, much less a Talk: page comment. I at least used edit summaries to explain my actions, followed by lengthier explanations here. As for you, please do not engage in personal attacks. Jayjg (talk) 21:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Apologies for being late with a comment on the talk page. -SV|t|add 22:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Would an admin please ban this offensive user immediately? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:11, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I just blocked him for one week, although I am pretty sure he will just create a sock-puppet. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Though since his contributions show he's a sockpuppet created solely for the purpose of being offensive and disruptive, it seems there is reason enough to block this account at least indefinitely. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:20, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
If not longer. ;-) Jayjg (talk) 22:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
LOL! Ok, I typed that fast, the "at least" was supposed to modify "this account", but that's pretty funny! --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:37, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Patrick Reynolds, at first I was going to say that I do not see how a personal attack is appropriate or necessary. Jayjg is pretty well-respected (and I speak as someone who has disagreed with him in the past, including brief revert battles). Now I see you are an anti-Semite, there is no point. But for everyone else, let's stick to the purpose of this page, which is to improve the article. The thrust of Jayjg's last comment is that although Jayjg has spelled out his views to explain why he reverted SV's, SV did not respond to that explanation, or provide one of his own, for reverting. Compromise and collaboration are impossible if people won't respond to one another's comments.

As for the article itself, SV, I think I agree with Jayjg, at least on some points. Christian anti-Semitism is a tricky topic and I think your edits were motivated by a desire to be even-handed. That is a worthy goal, but I don't think the particular changes you made effectively accomplish that. First of all, some of what you wrote is inaccurate -- Jesus and his apostles did not just criticize Saducees and Pharisees, they did speak of Jews in general. Moreover, all Jews today are heirs of the Pharisees, and in retrospect, an attack on Pharisees is an attack on all Jews today. Indeed, some have suggested that the NT attacks against the Pharisees were inserted after Jesus was murdered, at the time that the Pharisees had emerged as the hegemonic form of Judaism and especially the form of Judaism directly competing with early Christians for Jewish supporters. Now, I do not think that any of what I just said belongs in the article. But it does show how tricky it is to talk about these things, and why there is a need to be as accurate as possible. Second, I just disagree completely with your use of the phrase "true" or "truth." Everyone thinks their religion or their version of their religion or their politics is "true." For an article to affirm that a particular view of Christianity is the "true" version is a flagrant violation of NPOV. Yes, there are different interpretations of the NT, but no one here has the right or authority to say which one's are true and which one's are false. Yes, Christianity has changed over the years -- Vatican II being one example. But again, it is not for us to say which version is right.

This article is not on Christianity, it is on anti-Semitism. The section on anti-Semitism in the NT should not list statements any of us think are anti-Semetic (which only invites someone else to explain why they are not anti-Semitic, which is an equally inappropriate thing to do). Wikipedia articles never express the views of their authors. They provide an account of other peoples views. So let's try to find out which passages in the NT have actually been used to promote anti-Semitism, and which verses Jews believe are anti-Semitic, and provide that information (even if we do not agree, personally). Then we should have a very brief statement that some Christians interpret these verses differently and a link to another article that can go into detail. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's an article listing various verses that have been understood by some as anti-Semitic: [3] Jayjg (talk) 22:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Slr and Jayjg. Im going to do other stuff while I take a break. -SV|t|add 23:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

JayJG writes: "The fact that the section does not distinguish between the Jews and the Pharisees is precisely the point; for most of Christian history the church didn't either, and as a result these passages were interpreted this way. Many Christians still do interpret them this way. For someone to come along now and say "well, they interpreted it all wrong, this is what they really meant, so it's not anti-Semitism at all" is not only a historical anachronism, but the height of POV."

Well, JayJG has a really good point. The argument that Stevertigo tried to insert here has been attempted by others here as well. It is historically inaccurate, and essentially tries to whitewash away anti-Semitism with the No true Scotsman logical fallacy. RK

My long response to Jayjg' original comment is at /SV. The basic point is only two groups view the Gospels as containing any anti-Semitism: Anti-Semites and anti-Christians. -SV|t|add 18:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm jumping in here without reading everything up to this point to differ with your statement that only anti-semites and anti-Christians view the Gospels as containing any anti-Semitism. I have a book by a Christian scholar, William Nichols, called Christian Antisemitism. He's one of several Christian scholars who have examined the anti-semitic element in the New Testament. Here is one of his comments: "But the Gospels in their finished form set the tone for future Christian attitudes toward Jews. They have imprinted on Christian history the stereotype of the Jews as determined but hypocritical opponents of Jesus and in the last analysis Christ-killers. No uncriticial reader of the New Testament could easily come away with any but the most negative opinion of Jews." He also says, "Christian anti-Judaism is not a later distortion of an originally pure religion. It is embedded in the foundation documents of the faith. By the completion of the New Testament, the basis for later anti-Judaism and antisemitism had already been firmly established." (p. 168). --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 16:40, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Good quote; you should put it in the article. Jayjg (talk) 17:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree. At least that approach has some balance and substance, rather than simply loose speculation without overall context or even personal attribution. I may even agree with most of the conclusions in Christian Antisemitism, [4] but note that by saying "No uncriticial reader of the New Testament could easily come away with any but the most negative opinion of Jews" he's simply covering all his bases: He correctly points to (as this article should) the huge difference between the interpretation of the "uncritical reader" and the (implied) "critical" one. There are equally "uncritical" interpretations in the article section, and that is precisely my point: IMHO it's simply banal to mirror the uncritical (ie. popular, dominant) view, and its far more relevant to reflect the critical (and accurate) one. -SV|t|add 19:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Bohdan Khmelnytsky massacres

I question validity of including Khmelnytsky uprising massacres of Jews and Poles in this page. The uprising was a result of the political/economical oppression of Cossacks by Polish nobles and economical by Jews. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia: The uprising of the peasants in the Ukraine has been ascribed by most historians to their oppression by Jewish leaseholders, as well as to the privileges granted to the latter by the kings and nobles of Poland [5]. Therefore, the Bohdan Khmelnytsky massacres section belongs to Chmielnicki Uprising, List of massacres, History of Cossacks, and History of the Jews in Poland pages. Any thoughts? --Ttyre 16:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your quoting from the Jewish Encyclopedia is misleading and deceptive. Here are the very next sentences:
"Recent historical research, however, indicates that the Jews living in the cities, particularly in those of the Ukraine, were not afforded the protection enjoyed by other citizens, and moreover were excluded from the privileges granted to the Christian merchants and burghers (Antonovich, "Monografii po Istorii Zapadnoi i Yugo-Zapadnoi Rossii," i. 188). Notwithstanding this, the Jews managed to gain control of the commerce of the country, as is evidenced by the complaints of the Christian merchants of Lemberg, Kamenetz, Kiev, and many other cities, shortly before the Cossack uprising ("Archiv Yugo-Zapadnoi Rossii," v., part i., xxxiv. 134, xl. 156, cxxi. 323; "Starozytna Polska," 11, 1023, 1369; "Sbornik Mukhanova," p. 192; Antonovich, l.c. p. 189). It was the combined opposition to the Jews of the urban and the peasant populations that made it possible for Chmielnicki to arm the entire country against them within so short a time." HKT 23:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HKT, I don't see anything misleading and deceptive in the quote, especially since I had provided link to the rest of the article. Is this worth discussing? --Ttyre 08:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's see if I understand your argument correctly. A period of pogroms when perhaps more than 100,000 jews were murdered has little to do with anti-Semitism? And the basis for this is the opinions of some 19th century historians that some of the peasants initially revolted against Jewish leaseholders? Assuming that these historians were right, wouldn't that at best be a partial explanation of the peasants' anti-Semitism? How could it possibly be a disproof of anti-Semitism? Note also that this picture of the Jews as privileged leaseholders has been disputed by modern historians. (It was also partly diputed by the source you quote.) The problem is that there are few reliable sources for this period, and therefore it's difficult to say anything about the motives with certainty. (Frank E. Sysyn. "The Jewish Factor in the Khmelnytsky uprising" in Ukrainian-Jewish Relations in Historical Perspective 2nd ed. (1990) p 43-56)[6][7] For a review of the literature until the 1980s, see Joel Raba: Between Remembrance and Denial(1996). It should also be added that studies of later periods of Ukraine history have shown very little correlation between the actual privileges of the Jewish population and the peasants' beliefs about such privileges. --Denis Diderot 20:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
First of all, Jewish Encyclopedia is not just ...opinions of some 19th century historians... its page on wiki has 350 links to it and plenty of verbatim, and in some cases lengthy, re-prints e.g. History of the Jews in France, History of the Jews in Italy, etc.
My point is better verbalized by Bohdan Wytwycky article in Encyclopedia of Ukraine, University of Toronto Press, 1984, Vol. I, pp. 81-83:
"...The first major outbreak of violence directed against the Jews of Ukraine occurred during the popular rebellion led by B. Khmelnytsky (1648). In discussions about anti-Semitism (A-S) some writers, eg, E. Wiesel in Jews of Silence, have tried to draw a parallel between the 17th-century massacres of Jews and Poles by the Ukrainians during the Khmelnytsky rebellion and the mass killings of Jews by the German Nazis. Such attempts at analogy have typically obscured more than illuminated, and they seem to originate in an inability to recognize a fundamental distinction, a shortcoming common to many writings about A-S, between hostile acts or sentiments directed at Jews that derive from prejudice (A-S) and such acts or sentiments that derive from other sources (eg, real and significant socio-economic or political conflicts rather than imagined or invented ones).
G. Allport's classic definition of ethnic prejudice, of which A-S is a species, defines it as antipathy based on faulty and inflexible generalizations. Whereas Nazi attitudes and practices clearly instantiate such antipathy, those of the 17th-century Ukrainian peasant masses do not. Jews were the principal administrators of a system of economic, religious, and national oppression imposed upon the enserfed Ukrainian peasantry by the colonialist Polish nobility. Thus, the mass killings of Jews and Poles during the rebellion, when tens of thousands perished, were prompted by objective conditions of oppression and probably had little to do with ethnic prejudice in the sense defined above. A similar analysis applies to the killing of Jews during the bloody Haidamaka uprisings of the 18th century.
Though more terrible in outcome than the expulsions and most other acts of persecution that Jews have had to endure over the centuries in, eg, Western Europe or Russia, the massacres of Jews and Poles by Ukrainians during the rebellions of the 17th and 18th centuries stand in important contrast to the many practices of persecution against Jews in the lands referred to above. The reason for this is that Jews constituted but a beleaguered and oppressed minority in Western Europe or Russia, while in Ukraine they were, vis-a-vis the Ukrainians, part of the ruling classes."
Additionally, Jewish economic oppression of Cossacks is described in this quote from Columbia Encyclopedia [8]:
"...Forbidden to own land, but allowed to lease it, Jews often became leaseholders. Thus, on the vast lands of the Ostrorog family, for example, there were about 4,000 Jewish leaseholders, and in 1616, over half the crown lands in Ukraine were leased out to Jewish entrepreneurs. Because they had to make good their investment in a relatively short period of two or three years, they exploited the properties and peasants mercilessly, without regard for future consequences. It was not uncommon for a leaseholder to demand six or seven days of labor from the peasants and, with the help of the magnates' minions, to drive them into the fields. Another form of leaseholding was the leasing out of an estate's monopoly on the production and sale of alcohol and tobacco to a leaseholder, who then charged the peasants whatever price he wished for these prized commodities. Needless to say, such practices did not make Jews popular with the Ukrainian population..." (Emphases added)
--Ttyre 23:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there something in the definition of anti-Semitism that excludes hatred of Jews for rational (as opposed to irrational) reasons? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • No more than the hatred of any large group of people on some group basis. Collective guilt, that kind of thing. The assertion that Barbara Streisand, Paul Wolfowitz, Albert Einstein, and some 2 year old kid in Tel Aviv all have some trait in common that makes them hateable is no more or less silly than the notion that Osama bin Laden, Salman Rushdie, Omar Sharif, and some 2 year old kid in Tikrit do. Gzuckier 14:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • As prejudice A-S may well fall under Gordon Allport's definition (The Nature of Prejudice, 1954 p. 9). But as jpgordon suggests, A-S is also Jew-hatred pure and simple. (Although most people would argue that this form of A-S also falls under Allport's definition, but that's a different issue.) Therefore your arguments are beside the point. Perhaps I should also mention that the second quote isn't from the Columbia Encyclopedia as you claim. It's from Orest Subtelny: Ukraine: A History(1st ed 1988) (though I haven't verified its accuracy). As I've already made clear, Subtelny's views are disputed. The reference to "19th century historians" highlighted a certain carelessness regarding sources which normally characterizes apologists. (I don't say that you are one.) After all, most modern scholars, especially those who have specifically studied the Jewish factor, have arrived at different conclusions.--Denis Diderot 06:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On closer inspection, it wasn't vandalism, just an anon putting in the Hebrew letters to transliterate "antisemite" in Hebrew. The diffs at first looked like someone just entered in some random numbers and letters. Sorry. However, the Hebrew shouldn't be in there anyway, since the word anti-semitism isn't derived from Hebrew. But it wasn't vandalism. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:36, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

It didn't look like random numbers and letters; it looked like Hebrew in the article and Unicode HTML entities in the source code. — Helpful Dave 08:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yeah but you have that big all-seeing eye, while both my eyes were blurry and tired :) --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 09:26, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

SectNPOV - "Misnomer"

This section asserts one side of this debate rather than fairly presenting both sides and letting the readers come to their own conclusions. It needs to be retitled and reworked. --Blackcats 17:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • There is no debate. There is only the actual meaning and use of the word, and those who are either confused by it or bothered by it. But perhaps the title needs to be changed to "Etymology and usage"; it is a misnomer, but it's the Jew-haters who came up with the term, and there's no reason to change it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No. There is the commoner usage of the word, and the minority usage of the word. Wikipedia has no business presenting the latter as wrong; merely as minority usage. The opening paragraph of that section appears mostly OK in this context; however, the one following it borders on polemic. - Mustafaa 18:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree, and encyclopedias have no business making judgments like "there would seem to be little need for a word to describe such a prejudice" in that second paragraph you mentioned. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:13, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
I made an attempt on that first sentence of the second paragraph, maybe someone can do better. The "Some" is ambiguous, I know, but then it's followed by a quote by Lewis. The paragraph is still not quite satisfactory, IMO. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:31, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. This is certainly an improvement. For a fairly cogent argument that hostility to Jews and Arabs does in fact share a common nature, Zogby is worth a look, as would some of the old 19th century "scientific" racists be. - Mustafaa 21:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I added a paragraph on Zogby's views. It won't hurt my feelings if someone tweaks it to make it flow better. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 23:34, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
I'm comfortable with these changes. I'm ambivalent about Zogby's position, but big deal. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Good changes MPerel. Jayjg (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

symbolism

Could someone maybe explain the symbolism in "The Eternal Jew" pictured at the top, specifically the objects in his hands, etc.? Thanks! Dewet 17:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe he has money in one hand, and a whip in the other. I think the picture is supposed to imply that Jews love money and rule non-Jews. Jayjg (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you sure those aren't Oreos? (Or maybe Hydrox, they're kosher) And a microphone?Gzuckier 20:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oreos are kosher too, but not when this poster was made. Jayjg (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Didn't know that. I learned to prefer Hydrox, anyway. Gzuckier 20:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I think they only became kosher around 5 years ago. Microphones have always been kosher, except on the Sabbath. Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, the oreos guess is correct. The allusion is to the "knout and cookies" say, similar to that of carrot and stick (what, a red link?...). mikka (t) 05:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A funny thing, when I tried to find out whether there is a closer expression with cookies and knouts in English, the top google search result for "cookies and whip" gave "Oreo cookies and whip cream". mikka (t) 06:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
...and oh, almost forgot, it is "Politik von Zuckerbrot und Peitsche" in German. mikka (t) 06:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
...And for the last time, I put all this into the image description. Please check my Englisch. mikka (t) 06:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK, I copied it into the caption here too. Gzuckier 15:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism in Poland

This section needs serious cleaning and NPOVing. Recent edits are basically repeating myths, propaganda etc with ridiculous statements like "desiring to emerge as power from Dark ages Poland took notice of Jews". It does not mention that Jews had it much better than anyone else in RP except the nobility, and that their privileges and authonomy were enormous. It has errors which would be funny if not so silly (haidamak uprising in 1648? WTF? Not to mention that 200.000 killed Jews is agreed by all to be vast exxageration not confirmed by any demographic study. Even on the same article few lines earlier there is more correct number of 10.000 to 100.000 killed Jews. Szopen 07:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Few more comments: why invented story of Walentyn Potocki is mentioned? And why there is separate chapter on anti-semitism in Poland, while it was arguably far less anti-semitic that many other contemporary countries? Why there are no similar chapter on anti-semitism in Prussia, anti-semitism in France, anti-semitism in England? Some kind of obsession or what? Szopen 07:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that section is very POVed, and I edited it recently towards NPOV. As I wrote elswhere, I do think the quote selection is POVed, and I generally agree with you that it is strange to single out a country that was, arguably, a haven for much of the Europan Jewry (pre-19th centiury). But I don't think the Polish section is too large - only that it shows how much expantion other section need.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree (see my #6 below). HKT 00:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(1.) When "Jews had it much better," this was only because of their capabilities (aside from the fact that your statement is a gross and misleading overgeneralization, given that many Jews lived in "appalling poverty" (Polish Jews, Roman Vishniac, 1973)). Additionally, you are only speaking of "much better" financially, while societal factors must be considered: The Jews were "isolated among an ignorant, hostile, and unlettered peasantry, protected only by autocratic whim" (Triumph of Survival, Berel Wein, 1990). By the way, this is an interesting quote:
"Recent historical research... indicates that the Jews living in the cities, particularly in those of the Ukraine, were not afforded the protection enjoyed by other citizens, and moreover were excluded from the privileges granted to the Christian merchants and burghers (Antonovich, "Monografii po Istorii Zapadnoi i Yugo-Zapadnoi Rossii," i. 188). Notwithstanding this, the Jews managed to gain control of the commerce of the country, as is evidenced by the complaints of the Christian merchants of Lemberg, Kamenetz, Kiev, and many other cities, shortly before the Cossack uprising ("Archiv Yugo-Zapadnoi Rossii," v., part i., xxxiv. 134, xl. 156, cxxi. 323; "Starozytna Polska," 11, 1023, 1369; "Sbornik Mukhanova," p. 192; Antonovich, l.c. p. 189). It was the combined opposition to the Jews of the urban and the peasant populations that made it possible for Chmielnicki to arm the entire country against them within so short a time." [9]
Just noting that most people in that time lived in appalling poverty, so there is nothing strange that many Jews shared this problem. And when sb broughts up Chmielnicki Uprising, plz remember it was an uprising AGAINST POLES, not BY POLES, so it is not very relevant here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(A.) True that Jewish poverty was nothing exceptional. I was only pointing out that they weren't filthy rich usurers out to provoke the peasants (as many think). (B.) You might say that it was an uprising by Ukrainians and Greek-Orthodox Poles against Polish nobles, Roman-Catholics, and Jews. To be fair, it was the Greek-Orthodox Poles that helped massacre Jews at Nemirov (though it was Roman-Catholic soldiers who betrayed the Jews at Tulchin). HKT 00:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(2.) 200,000 is a number occasionally cited by historians. "[I]n which as many as 200,000 Jews were slaughtered," is a perfectly appropriate quote, as it is true that numbers are cited between 10,000 - 200,000; the 200,000 estimate comes from sources no less authoritative than the 10,000 estimate. However, if you'd prefer, the text could be changed to "in which around 100,000 Jews were murdered," that being the most commonly cited figure in academic texts. By the way, you said "Even on the same article few lines earlier there is more correct number of 10.000 to 100.000 killed Jews." Actually the article stated that "estimates range from 10,000 to well over 100,000." (3.) Arkadiusz: You deny that the Ukrainian Cossacks (Haidamaks) waged war against the szlachta of the PLC?! (4.) "[T]heir privileges and autonomy were enormous." I addressed this in the article: "Boleslaus granted the Jews rights that were impressive in post-Crusades Europe. These included recognition of legal testimony of Jews, fines for harming Jews or Jewish property, prohibition of blood libels, and equal commercial rights." But please don't tell me that they were treated almost like nobility! (5.) "[W]hy invented story of Walentyn Potocki is mentioned?" If you'll note, I called the story "legendary." However, if you are interested in the validity of the story, please see Walentyn Potocki and the ensuing talk page. (6.) I don't know why there is a seperate chapter for Poland and not some other countries, but when I saw the following I couldn't leave it as it was:
The reign of Casimir III, the Great (1333 - 1370) made Poland a safe asylum for Jews. The Jewish population of Poland played a very prominent role and their position was comparable with the status of nobles. After the partitions of Poland, and the final defeat of the January Uprising (1863-1864), Polish nationalists and Jews began to diverge on many issues.
It is always hard to estimate historical numbers. Yes, we may change it as you suggest, but I wouldn't be suprised if Jewish death tall was 200,000. Before Chmielnicki and The Deluge, Commonwealth had 10 million inhabitans. Afterwards, it lost ~1/3 of its population - read: 3 million people perished in those and related events. So I can definetly see 200,000 Jews in there. Of course Jews were underpriviliged comapred to nobilit (szlachta), this is not disputable, and you are right the above sentence was erroneus. Jewish position in PLC was quite good compared to Jewish position on other European countries, but to say they were close to nobility is plain wrong. Calling Potocki legendary seems sufficient to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree to all points (but it should be added that Poland was only quite good for Jews compared to other European countries until the mid-seventeenth century, after which the Netherlands and England became better and several other countries became fairly equivalent to the PLC with regard to Jews). HKT 00:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Comprable with the status of nobles?!" "[B]egan to diverge on many issues?!!!" Anyway, please feel free to add information or sections on anti-Semitism in other countries. (7.) You've accused me of POV and propagandizing. Would a propagandist add this section that I wrote?:
"Due to the attractive opportunities Poland offered for Jews at the time, as well as extreme persecution and summary expulsion of Jewry from Spain, a burgeoning Jewish population developed in Poland. Jews were allowed to open Yeshivas and had a measure of independence regarding judging religious legal cases."
Arkadiusz, why are you so defensive about the behavior of Poles generations ago, that you have to slander a perfectly accurate and appropriate article? "Some kind of obsession or what?" Yes, "what" indeed? HKT 17:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BEcause Jews had it much better than peasants. First, peasants couldn't move out of their villages. Jews could. Jews had it better econimically, they paid less taxes, and they could act as lease-holders who managed whole villages (And charge for privileges of using churches, for example). As for role of the nobles, well, before counterreformation some Jews were wearing the sabres. Some were used in government. No other social class could just convert to became nobles (as Jews could).
As for haidamaks, pleease read artciel about Haidamaks. Haidamaks is a phenomenon from later times. And they are not the same as Cossacks.The use of the word is anachronism here, not the fact itself. One have to note however that to present the issues as single Jew atrocity is false, since POLAND AS A WHOLE LOST (precentage-wise) more population than during world war ii. During the deluge some periods lost half of population. NO wonder that a lot of Jews perished also. Szopen 07:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Szopen. But I don't recall the article compares Jews to peasantry? Hmm, half population? IIRC it was one third. Need to check my sources. Still, it was a huge loss. As Sienkiewicz wrote "after the Deluge, wild dogs howled in the ruins of the cities...".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Argh, not :"some periods". Some parts. Parts. In total 1/3, some parts close to half. Szopen 07:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I propose to delete completely current content of this section and replace it with a sentence pointing readers to relevant pages which deal with the individual cases of Anti-Semitism or in-depth with the issues mentioned in the section. My reasoning is as follows:

  • All of the section's topics have already relevant wiki articles: newly updated History of the Jews in Poland, History of the Jews in Poland Chronology, History_of_anti-Semitism, Abraham ben Abraham, Chmielnicki Uprising, History_of_Poland. Wikipedia is using hyperlink language for a purpose - to eliminate duplications. If the original author feels that these articles inadequately reflect his intended message, he should contribute to them first.
  • IMHO Anti-Semitism article attempts to present a big picture of this phenomenon rather than to dwell on histories of Anti-Semitism in the individual countries. Yet, the Anti-Semitism in Poland section constitutes 14.5% of the whole article, almost as much as Anti-Semitism in Russia/Soviet Union, Germany, France/England/Spain combined. More interestingly, this section deals with the period of Polish history (until 1795) during which the country was a relative "save heaven" for European Jews. Talking about Some kind of obsession...".

On a person note, I encourage the author to spend some time reading online Jewish Encyclopedia and balance it with: Ivo Cyprian Pogonowski, Jews in Poland. A Documentary History, Hippocrene Books, Inc., 1998, ISBN 0781806046 and Norman Davies, God's Playground. A History of Poland. Vol. 1: The Origins to 1795, Vol. 2: 1795 to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199253390 / ISBN 0199253404, to see the issue of historical European Anti-Semitism in more balanced and reasonable way. --Ttyre 05:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ttyre, I've spent plenty of time reading from the Jewish Encyclopedia, and I'm glad that we're in agreement regarding its validity as a source. I'd encourage you to balance your information with Simon Dubnow's History of the Jews...; Oxford University Press Publication The Jew in the Modern World (ISBN 019507453X); and Jacob Marcus' The Jew in the Medieval World: A Source Book: 315-1791 (ISBN 878202099). HKT 00:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Some eurocents to add here:
1. Ditto, Piotrus. Also, the statement that Jews had it much better only because of their capabilities is also a huge POV - only to the other side.
Actually, it is based on the Jewish Encyclopedia. HKT 23:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. And how about preparing a small table with names of historians and death toll estimates they cite? I made a similar box of the Massacre of Poles in Volhynia article and it ended a quarrel there. Perhaps such a solution would do here as well..?
I agree. I think it's a good idea. HKT 23:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. There is a difference between the Haidamaks and the Cossacks. It is usually believed that the Chmielnicki Uprising was waged by the latter. At the same time the major Haidamak unrests started roughly a century afterwards, during the Koliwszczyzna unrest of 1768.
O.K. Thanks for the correction. HKT 23:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. The privileges granted by Boleslaus were not the only ones granted to Polish Jewry. Also, there were lots of specific privileges granted to local Jewish communities by local authorities - up to almost complete self-governance (see the case of Kazimierz, for instance).
(1.) True that they were not the only rights. (2.) There was a downside to the local authorities as some of them treated Jews particularly harshly. (3.) A measure of self-governance was required for Jewish communities with customs so foreign to Poland, especially considering the social isolation of the Jewish community. However, the Jews were additionally bound by Polish law. HKT 23:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5 The legend deserves a mention, although the term "legendary" might be a tad ambiguous here. How about something along the lines of alleged?
In my opinion, alleged implies that their is no substantial basis for something (which you probably think is true here). However, in my opinion, legendary seems more NPOV. HKT 23:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
6 As to the Jewish rights - they most certainly had more rights and privileges than the serfs and their situation was in most cases identical to the legal status of other burghers, whatever their ethnicity or culture. And the decline in (mostly economical) freedom must be described together with the decline of rights of other burghers, conflicted with the szlachta.
Technically, the Jews were, for the most part, protected more than most serfs, but less than burghers. Again, see the Jewish Encyclopedia article. This protection was granted by the royalty because Jews were considered a dependable source of income for the Crown; often damaging Jews was punishable with lashes, because it was legally considered as damaging royal property. Furthermore, the article isn't really about declines in royally decreed rights as much as it is about overt manifestations of anti-Semitism by the Polish people. HKT 23:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Technically, Jews were probably more protected than burghers. If I will had time, I will bring some quotes. Remember that jews very often came to cities, settled there by starostas and under protection of starostas, while refusing to pay city taxes and participate in city dwellers duties. But, after reading yesterday my books I think it's wrong to say "Jews had it better" or "worse" since situation in every century was different. BTW in article it is said that Jews were accused of aiding the Swedes. Well, sometimes tbey were. In at least one city they were defending city together with Swedes. Szopen 07:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
7 Error. After the expulsion of Jews from Spain barely any of the Sefardim arrived to Poland. Most of them migrated to Northern Africa, modern Greece and Turkey. The Jews in Poland were mostly Ashkenazim, that is exiles from France and Germany, persecuted there since the Middle Ages up to 19th century.
You're right. Thanks for the correction. (By the way, many Sefardim also immigrated to the Netherlands). HKT 23:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BTW, if you have any specific questions I'd be happy to help. Halibutt 22:31, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  1. ...which doesn't make it any more or less NPOV...
  2. Ok, so let's start right away. I will post a table below, feel free to add historians and data there
  3. np
  4. Then mentioning only those is a tad strange, because it might suggest that the decline in Jewish privileges started in 13th century. Also, the Jews living in Poland were of course bound by the Polish law, just like any other inhabitants of the state. The only difference was that they were subject to their own law as well (executed by the Kahal). I guess you can hardly call that a sign of anti-Semitism.
  5. Well, the term legendary in this context might be interpreted as famous or notable, which is not what the article should say.
  6. We'd have to focus on specific issues here since the matter is apparently disputable. How about preparing a list of differences?
  7. Yup, and some of them also migrated to Poland, but they quickly melted into the Ashkenazim, a thing uncommon in other Jewish communities. Also, I've read a work some time ago about the interactions between the Sefardim and the Armenians in Southern Poland. The author stated that both cultures were also mixing. Poland was a very strange country back then and many uncommoin things happened here. Halibutt 07:33, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Ad. 4: It's not a sign of anti-Semitism or lack thereof. Self-governance was practical for all parties involved. HKT 18:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, the above discussion and the changes to A-S in Poland prove my point that such a detailed section about A-S by country shouldn't be included in Anti-Semitism article. This is synthesized article about this phenomenon! Please don't diminish its quality by including detailed accounts of individual cases of A-S - they belong to the relevant articles such as History of the Jews in Poland, History of the Jews in Poland Chronology, History_of_anti-Semitism, Abraham ben Abraham, Chmielnicki Uprising, History_of_Poland, etc. How about either removing this section completely or replace it with a couple of well-written and balanced sentences about both history of tolerance toward Jews and A-S in Poland in line with the references to A-S in other European countries? --Ttyre 09:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Remove the section. We don't have individual sections on "Anti-Semitism in Spain", "Anti-Semitism in France", "Anti-Semitism in Germany" so why Poland here ? The content belongs to History of the Jews in Poland. Lysy 09:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The article is badly structured - way too many lv1 subsections. Several sections before the Polish one discuss 20th century events as well (Anti-Semitism and modernity, The Dreyfus affair, Modern passion plays) and then there is a section dedicated to 20th century. Note there is also a Anti-Semitism#The_Bohdan_Khmelnytsky_massacres section, adding to the confusion and mostly being duplicate of old Polish section. Besides Poland, only 'Anti-Semitism in Imperial Russia and in the Soviet Union' has its own section, and then there is a section entitled 'Germany' in the '20th century' section. It is a mess. The article is 56kb long, which is almsot twice the recommeneded 32kb. Thus I think it should be a) restructured with 2-level subsections (chronological history, features/discussion) b) info on Poland should be moved to History of the Jews in Poland (it can has a separate section on anti-semitism) c) unless there is a good reason why only Poland and Russia should have a separate sections in this article I think they should be removed entirely (linked in see also) or merged into a section 'national anti-semitisms' or sth like this, discussing briefly important events by country. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Piotrus. This article is inconsistant, and it would be indiscriminate to target only this section for removal. HKT 18:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Removal is bad. Moving is good. Any objection to moving Polish and Russian sections to their respective articles (History of Jews in...)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think anything should be moved until all sections detailing specifics and countries are moved. This means sections: 5,6,10-15. All of them. Either this article should be expanded and plenty of information should be added about specifics detailing the whole spectrum of historical anti-Semitism, or all of the above mentioned articles should be moved. As it stands, Joe-six-pack who is researching "A-S" on google will find the wikipedia article among the first ten hits (the 4th, I think). He may notice the major focus on Poland. However, as it stands, if he reads that section he will see two things: (1.) He will see that Poland was more benign than the rest of Europe for a good part of the past millenium, and certainly had no monopoly on anti-Semitism! (2.) He will see a prominent template at the top of the section, indicating that the section is contested and directing him to the talk page. If he reads the talk page, he will better understand how he should view the article. For these two reasons, I don't see any urgency in moving the spoken of sections, if it would otherwise be considered a better idea to expand the article. Nevertheless, as I wrote above, I am not averse to entirely moving 5,6,10-15 (including all subsections in 15), but I think that moving only the Polish and Russian sections is inappropriate. HKT 07:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
HKT, you have created most of the A-S in Poland - why don't you start moving process with relocating this section to appropriate existing articles? --Ttyre 22:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ttyre, for the sake of being redundant, I don't support moving this section per-se. I prefer adding sections on other countries, and expanding this section to encompass modern times, as well. Hopefully, the various sections will eventually become comprehensive enough for their own articles. I think it's worthwhile to eventually have seperate articles specifically devoted to detailing anti-Semitism in particular countries. There's no dearth of information for these potential sections/articles, and the topics are definately noteworthy. However, to repeat myself, "I am not averse to entirely moving 5,6,10-15 (including all subsections in 15), but I think that moving only the Polish and Russian sections is inappropriate." HKT 05:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cossacks and the massacre of Jews

Historian Death toll estimate Remarks
Norman Davies

1399 events in Poznan

I wonder how credible is the source that lead to this edit: However, the Polish population and the Church did not always respect the charter. One such incident occurred in Poznan in 1399, when the local rabbi and thirteen other members of the Jewish community were tortured and burned at the stake after being accused of stealing Church property. I looked at [10] and found there that: "Poland became Christian very late, only at the turn of the 11th century, and only then did it join the European community of nations (so to speak). After that, it took a couple of hundred years before Poland started to emerge as a nation-state with strong development potential.". After reading that I'd rather remove the previous comment from the article unless it is confirmed by a less dubious source. Lysy 17:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You know, Lysy, you might be right about the source being inaccurate. See the Jewish Encyclopedia for information that the 14 Jews were burned for "Host desecration." I'll fix it. HKT 22:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Holocaust needs help

Responding to an idiotic comment on the discussion page of Black supremacy, I found myself at The Holocaust. Mindful that this article is an overview of the subject with numerous other, related articles elsewhere on this web site, I still think this piece could use some major additions, major work. The subject is not a primary interest of mine, so I don't foresee myself contributing much more beyond that which I already have. But this is a general solicitation (I haven't done so on the wiki page set aside specifically for that purpose; I figured this was more direct) for contributors to converge upon the page and improve the piece. I've made some suggestions in talk -- take 'em or leave 'em. But do contribute. The article seems to have been nominated for featured article status, and that effort (understandably) failed. The next time it's nominated, such a thing shouldn't happen again. Peace. deeceevoice 13:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just visited that article. As a gay man I have to say I'm delighted that the article boldly talks about the number of gays, disabled and other groups persecuted in the event. In fact I only now learned that 5 to 6 million was the number of Jews that died in the holocaust and that this only accounted for about half of the total. The way the media would present it, its as if gays were loved by the Nazis. This is obviously wrong. I would had suffered the same fate as the Jews if I'd lived in Nazi Germany as well as many other points in history where I would had been persecuted like this. It could even happen again since no one cares about it. I am not saying that the current version is perfect but I do want to stand up in defense for the important information that this article provides that seems to be overlooked by everyone else. Sirkumsize 03:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am tired of your bullshit

Yes I use the word bullshit. I am tired of being professional with you assholes. I'm the one that's POV? What the fuck is your problem with the word "circumcision" being in the article? Do you really want me to go through and point out every line and paragraph in this article that is uncited? Do you guys really think that what I put in is invalid? And why is the onus on me to explain myself when u can just revert my good work for no reason? Was it JayJG himself that suggested that banning circumcision is genocide against Jews? I guess he must be wrong since its not going into the article. You people have a serious problem here and I want an explaination as to what you have against the circumcision issue!!!! Sirkumsize 03:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exactly where did I suggest that "banning circumcision is genocide against Jews"? Please provide evidence. Jayjg (talk) 04:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mind your language, Sirkumsize. You have obviously been defending the same edit for too long, and now - even though it sounds pretty unbiased - it won't go down anymore.
It should be mentioned that some Jews apply "anti-Semitism" to government laws prohibiting circumcision and kosher slaughter. As we know, Switzerland has no kosher slaughter, yet without clear antisemitic motives. I know of no country that has banned circumcision, and perhaps this is why your edit is not accepted by some editors. The Seleucid Greeks banned circumcion, and that's quite a while ago. JFW | T@lk 03:45, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Was the USSR not criticized with antisemitism for banning circumcision? Here is a link to back up this claim] - Sirkumsize 03:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That link, authored by Igor is utterly laughable. El_C 04:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sirk, your link is not only not worth mentioning as backup for any WP article, it fails to prove your point, and certainly to support your unsourced edit. The Soviet ban on circumcision was enacted in an effort to suppress Islam, see [11]. We've already long since had this discussion, and you have yet to bring forth a shred of reliable evidence to support your POV. And no, it was SlRubenstein who made that assertion. While I can speak only for myself, I don't think anyone has anything "against the circumcision issue", just against you inventing an issue and going around inserting this (IMHO warped) POV OR into various articles. Tomer TALK 04:08, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

If this carries on, there may be grounds for a WP:RFC on the matter of Sirkumsize. JFW | T@lk 04:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The link by igor was simply to illustrate that indeed a ban on circumcision has happened in recent times. Are you arguing that the link written by Igor is laughable because the soviet Union did not ban circumcision? I think that a handful of people in this community are utterly biased here. I've taken a look at some of the articles that support the current antisemitism article and they are not very scholarly. Of course this argument means nothing. This is not because the links are not unscholarly. It is because the wikipedia community has decided that whatever JayJG, Tomer and a handful of other people considers scholarly is scholarly. The things that Sirkumsize considers scholarly is laughable. Why? There is no why. The reason is simply because if the validity in the links I provided in the article on Circumcision and Antisemitism etc were recognized for what they were -- copious and scholary -- wikipedia would be forced to acknowledge that indeed circumcision is has been banned in recent times, and that it causes the Jews and other groups a great deal of trouble. That's something that certain members of wikipedia will not accept. It is also why I could care less about JayJG's ascertion that my work is POV, uncited etc. I have tried before to please him and come to see that it isn't about wikipedia policy. It is about him. So I will continue to revert the article until such a time as someone can give me a clear and compelling argument as to why all of the things I have already provided in the past are wrong, not just a silly song and dance or statements that like "Sirkumsize, everyone knows that the only people that bring up the circumcision issue have an abnormal growth in their cerebelum, therefore you must have that growth too, but since its so obviously true I don't need to provide a citation, but you obviously would if you made that claim about me" which is about as valid as the arguments I've heard so far. As for RFC, a fair one would come out in my favour, so I think you see where I'm going with that point. Sirkumsize 01:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have now reintroduced the concept of legal anti-Semitism, but I'm reluctant to make specific mention of circumcision, because legislations have banned various Jewish practices in history (e.g. keeping Shabbat, celebrating the new moon, saying Shema on time) and mentioning circumcision would throw this off-balance.

Sirkumsize: if you just relent about this tiny little point, things will not need to come a head. Your inflammatory strawman-oriented language just exacerbates things (nobody has suggesting cerebral growths).

I've had a few interesting fights with pro- and anti-circumcisionists lately (see e.g. cervical cancer). The arguments on either sides (apart from the religious ones) are thin and fought over with much snarling, name-calling and abuse. Clearly this subject is heavily loaded, and moving the campaign to articles like the present one really don't help your cause. JFW | T@lk 02:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jfdwolff. Not only do we need better sources than Igor, but also these need to be placed within a representative historical context. El_C 02:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some better sources exist -- I'm prepared to say at this point that it very much looks like the Soviets or perhaps the Russians or both banned circumcision at some time or another. But I haven't found any decent reference quality documentation of it, just passing comments and anecdotes, many only slightly more definitive than Igor. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is not necessary. Circumcision is absolutely not the only mitzvah that was banned by antisemitic governments. To emphasise on it would throw the whole thing off-balance. Let's just leave it alone. Please. Really. With or without Igor. JFW | T@lk 07:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Indeed; the banning of kosher slaughter in pre-war Poland would be a much more relevant example. Jayjg (talk) 15:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I agree completely. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yay! The community has decided that whatever I decide is "scholarly" is really scholarly! I don't know why nobody bothered to inform me of this community decision, but I'm honored. Meanwhile, Sirkumsize, you very carefully ignored the evidence I presented that the Soviet Union outlawed circumcision specifically in an attempt to squelch Islam, not Judaism, and quite judiciously persecuted muslims who insisted on circumcising (while completely ignoring Jews who continued to circumcise their children). The evidence for this is overwhelming, even on the internet. Igor was not circumcised as an infant most likely because his parents couldn't possibly have cared less about being Jewish, nor their parents before them. It's no big secret that the vast majority of the Soviet Jewish community, especially prior to glasnost, was not only apostatic, but apathetic, and that many Soviet Jews had no idea they were even Jewish (because their parents or grandparents chose to identify as Russian rather than Jewish), while many others who considered themselves Jewish, were, in fact, not (because of the way the Soviet gov't arbitrarily redefined Jewish nationality identity). Tomer TALK 14:19, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry that the community forgot to inform you that they sided with your apathy towards the circumcision issue. I figured that would be clear when the article on Antisemitism and Circumcision was deleted despite dozens of high quality sources to back it up. As for circumcision not being intended to spite Jews, read my edit it. It says that specifically. At least we are making progress in one area. It sounds like some of us are finally coming to terms that circumcision has been banned since the Helenistic period. I was worried that this forum had become too bathed in ignorance about the issue to even accept this. Now that I'm seeing some evidence of growth in the form of some reasonable discussion on the topic, maybe we will see an increased consciousness about the link between circumcision and the strife of the religions that insist on the practicing them -- as you have pointed out -- not exempting Islam. Sirkumsize 03:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sirkumsize, please try to (better) keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a sopabox, and make sure to Cite your (non-Igor) sources. El_C 04:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No. The sources that I cite are adequate. Sirkumsize 13:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, they are very far from adequate. El_C 14:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sirkumsize, what you provided was not "dozens of high quality sources", instead you provided a 1967 opinion piece. It's unclear that that opinion piece even expresses the view you were asserting. You failed to even demonstrate that neo-natal circumcision is strongly linked, in the public mind, with Judaism. Your source is definitely not "high quality", it is, rather, "out of date" and "unencyclopedic". Your claim that I'm "apath[etic] towards (sic) the circumcision issue" is ludicrous. I can't be apathetic since there is no "circumcision issue", at least not wrt anti-semitism. If you have a bone to pick with Jews and/or Judaism because of neo-natal circumcision, as you seem to, that is your issue. There is not, however, any evidence whatsoever that anyone shares your issue. Tomer TALK 20:58, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I grow weary of and confused by these continuing arguments. In an attempt to be constructive, I will just make a few observations that may be constructive. A couple are based on sound historical research, the last one I think almost everyone will agree about, except Sirk.

  1. The commandment to circumcise male children is deep-seated in Judaism, the authors of the Torah as well as the Talmud considered it a critical constitutive act of being in the covenant with God. Individual Jews are welcome to not like it, but there is no doubt that historically it is a central Jewish practice that cuts (no pun intended) to the very core of Judaism
  2. To prevent Jews from circumsising their young is an acto fo anti-Semitism. It may not be the only act of anti-Semitism, and if may not be the most common act of anti-Semitism, but it is nevertheless an anti-Semitic act. This prohibition is one of the things that sparked the Maccabean revolt, and — I am ashamed to say I forget which — either the grea revolt of 70 or the Bar Kozeba revolt.
  3. Jews who chose to comply with any law proscribing circumsision need not view themselves as victims of and-Semitism; they may just be assimilationist (there were many before the Maccabean revolt).
  4. The preceeding two points are not in conflict, because although normative Judaism exists as an idea, expressed in an authoritative body of literature, Jews are heterogeneous and have different attitudes to normative Judaism. For example someone who chooses not to circumcise his son is probably not saying "circumcision is not important to Jews," he is instead saying "I don't really care about normative Judaism." He can thus still recognize that most Jews do not share his feelings.
  5. Any claim that the Jewish commandment to circumsize their own sons (which does not compel any non-Jew to do anything) is a cause of anti-Semitism is either an irrational fanatic or anti-Semitic him/herself, and, like all anti-Semitism, blames Jews, and not themselves, for their anxiety concerning, fear of, resentment of, or hatred for, Jews (meaning not just a group of individuals who call themselves "Jewish," but a group of people who identify themselves as Jewish because of some sort of identification with or attachment to Judaism.

I doubt this will help, but I thought I had to give it a try ... Slrubenstein | Talk 01:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Slrubenstein, thank you for admitting that it was shameful that you forget about the said revolt. It must be nice to have a status whereby the community demands no burden of proof from you since there is not a shred of evidence anywhere to back up your claim, especially that the idea that linking anti-semitism to circumcision is in and of itself anti-semitic. You are simply redefining a term that carries a negative connotation is a febble attempt to censor the truth. I don't understand why this community is so afraid of the message I am bringing here that you are afraid even to let me add a three word qualification to the article which no one can really disagree with. I have been successful in providing dozens of scholarly encyclopedic links to back up the idea that such a link exists and that this very sort of censorship -- that I am a victim of right at this instance -- is used to blackmail academic into ignoring the truth that circumcision is a hideous mutilation and sexual assault that any advanced society would otherwise outlaw. Shame on you. Sirkumsize 02:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • the message I am bringing here -- Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The fact that you are trying to bring a message here means you have no understanding whatsoever of NPOV. Meditate upon that concept before wasting our time trying to put your "message" across. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
User:Jpgordon your contined diatribe fails to recognize that my message also happens to be truthful and that censoring the truth is a kind of soapbox. Sirkumsize 02:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • "Continued diatribe"?? I do not think that word means what you think it means. At any rate, of course you think your message is truthful; nobody is accusing you of deceit. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We need reputable, scholarly sources, what your message views as truth is insufficient. El_C 02:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The links I have provided in the past are sufficient for all but a biased forum. Sirkumsize 02:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
From what I've seen thus far, there is no single university on the planet that would find them credible as per your point. El_C 02:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well User:El C you are entitled to your opinion as of course am I. But I really think it would be much more constructive if we work together and come to a compromise. Surely by now you agree that anti-semitism and circumcision are linked in some ways as many users have accused me of anti-semitism for condemning circumcision. You really believe I'm an isolated case? Use your senses and your intelligence and see that the only way to solve this despite is if we work together and stop this silly reversion war. This needs to be in the article and it will be. Either we can do it the easy way and maybe we can both be satisfied or soon any user visiting the talk page of anti-semitism article will find it completely dominated by discussion about circumcision. Now that would be disproportionate. Sirkumsize 03:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
User:Sirkumsize, I am afraid that due to the absence of reputable, scholarly sources on your part, I remain highly skeptical. Perhaps we should try to guage on the opinions of other editors though. El_C 03:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My opinion is that Sirkumsize needs to provide some scholarly sources; I have yet to see even one "scholarly encyclopedic link", much less "dozens". Jayjg (talk) 15:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Compare this article to Anti-Masonry and you'll see that rather than dealing with things from a neutral point of view, this artile has a -massive- bias on it. Jachin 18:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you implying that the Anti-Masonry article doesn't seem to be anti-anti-Masonry? (rising inflection at end, indicative of amazed disbelief)Gzuckier 21:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, Anti-Masonry is a contrary view to Freemasonry, as are most other Anti-* articles, where as this seems to be a fanatically defended article based on the 'evils of anti-semetism'. Jachin 15:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As opposed to the 'benefits of anti-semitism'? Jayjg (talk) 17:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removal by El C

El C., while I do not object your removal of some pieces, I strongly object the way you do it. If you disagree with something, please move the deleted pieces into talk page. Especially whe you are requesting references.

A piece removed by El C with comment: "Remving passage until propper and well-referenced citations are provided."

As articulated by Konstantin Pobedonostsev, a Russian statesman and known anti-Semite, it was designed to "cause one-third of the Jews to emigrate, one-third to accept baptism, and one-third to starve."

I trust you to review your other deletions (if any) and proceed in a similar way. (As a side note: this quotation indeed circulated in Russia; I don't know the attribution, but its existence is notable enough as an evidence of attitudes, but unfortunately it is unclear which ones: either the display of a-S, or of attempts to stygmatize someone. )mikka (t) 17:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't as sinister as you make it sound, It just slipped my mind because I was doing a lot of different things at the time. Had you checked my talk page, you would have seen the pertinent discussion and would have been able to refractor it here as I will do bellow. El_C 07:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Konstantin Pobedonostsev passage

Moved from my talk page. El_C 07:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi El_C, it's a well known quote. See [12] for some refs. I don't know the original source, though. Will try some Russian history books/sites. Regards. Humus sapiensTalk 09:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, and I also see it on jewishhistory.org, but it's always nice to have a print source. :) Thanks. Yours, El_C 09:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pobedonostsev's quote

"Articulated by Konstantin Pobedonostsev, a Russian statesman, the head of the Russian Holy Synod and a known anti-Semite, the policy was designed to "cause one-third of the Jews to emigrate, one-third to accept baptism, and one-third to starve". ("Jewish History of the Russian Federation: From Ancient Times to the Second World War." Heritage Films, Par.13)"

This part of article is not based on reliable sources. There is no evidence that Pobedonostsev said this phrase. "Jewish History of the Russian Federation: From Ancient Times to the Second World War." does not name person, who heard and reported this phrase. Attributing this phrase to Pobedonostsev needs HARD evidence. Otherwise it is libel.

If you search the web, you will find that the phrase has no exact form

"cause one-third of the Jews to emigrate, one-third to accept baptism, and one-third to starve" wiki variant

"one-third of Russian Jews should convert to Orthodoxy, one-third should emigrate and one-third should be killed." www.ncsj.org/AuxPages/051601Choral.shtml

"one-third of the Jews will convert, one-third will die, and one-third will flee the country" www.iona.edu/faculty/dwilliams/130/barnett.htm

Moreover http://www.srpska-mreza.com/History/ww2/gallery.html

Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations, Europe, edition 1995, page 91, entry: Croatia Quote: Slavko Kvaternik [the second in command to the Croatian WWII fuehrer, Dr Ante Pavelic] explained [on the day of formation of the WWII "Independent State of Croatia", on April 10, 1941] how pure Croatia should be built - by forcing one third of the Serbs to leave Croatia, one third to convert to Catholicism, and one third to be exterminated. Soon Ustasha bands initiated a bloody orgy of mass murder of Serbs unfortunate enough not to have converted or left Croatia on time. The enormity of such criminal behavior shocked even the conscience of German commanders... End quote

http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Ustashe

The Usta?e embraced the Nazi ideology of the time. They aimed at an ethnically "pure" Croatia, and saw the Serbs that lived in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina as the their biggest obstacle. Thus, Usta?e ministers Mile Budak, Mirko Puk and Milovan ?ani? declared in May 1941 that the goal of the Usta?e was: One third of the Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia (ISC) to be catholicized One third of the Serbs to be expelled out of ISC One third of the Serbs in the ISC to be liquidated

So phrase in various forms is attributed to different people without any evidence. It is surely a libel.

Please remove this phrase from wikipedia article. 217.117.80.2 06:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in light of your above explanation, I definitely wish to see a well-referenced print source now, consensus version or no consensus version. Until HS produces one, I will remove it. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, 217.117.80.2. El_C 11:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The difference in wording could well be an artifact of translation. Secretlondon 11:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Very true, but at the moment I'm limiting myself to seeking a well-referenced citation that demonstrates he stated this. At any event, I am confident HS will be able to provide us with something definitive, which draws from the historiographical consensus. El_C 11:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It will be fair to remove the passage about Pobedonostsev from other articles Such as May_Laws and Konstantin Pobedonostsev (Pobedonostsev defender) 217.117.80.2 11:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, until the source is provided, it would be. Though it may prove short-lived. By all means, go ahead. El_C 11:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have found possible source of this "quotation"!!!

It is "The Melting Pot" play written by Israel Zangwill in 1908.

http://www.vdare.com/fulford/melting_pot.htm The wicked Baron shares his program for the Jews of Russia: "One-third will be baptized, one-third massacred, the other third emigrated here." His American interlocutor says: "We're going to stop all alien immigration." The wicked Baron: "To stop all alien?? But that is barbarous!"

http://beatl.barnard.columbia.edu/wsharpe/citylit/Melting3.htm (Pobedonostsev defender) --217.117.80.2 13:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Could it be that Pobedonostsev recited that? I am afraid I'm rather ignorant about prerevolutionary Russia. I wish to hear what other editors have to say. I'm going to move most of the above to the article's talk page to guage on other editors' thoughts (which, as was rightly noted, I should have done the first time – but I thought at the time that finding a propper source would be a relatively brief affair). El_C 07:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Copied from Humus_sapiens' talk page. El_C 08:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) As a person responsible for most of the article on Pobedonostsev, I support the removal. It's hardly in Pobedonostsev's character to say things like these. -Ghirlandajo 07:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please see May Laws and Talk:May Laws. I've included an exact quote from a book, and also provided a bunch of Russian links containing reference to the same passage. As can be seen from the article, the problem was much larger than a lone antisemite in the tsarist court. The fact that a similar phrase was reused in a drama years later or by a Nazi later yet, proves nothing. Do they compete for a patent? Humus sapiensTalk 09:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As, in that sense, the 1908 reference. Sorry, I can't follow it because I am not fluent in Russian. Is there an actual print source that you can cite in English (work, author, publisher, page no., reference they use). Thank you in advance, El_C 11:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The article May Laws contains an English-language printed book with author & page number. Humus sapiensTalk 18:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For that quote? Sorry, I could'nt find it on a brief glance. Since we already discussed the issue at length here, can you just provide it in your next comment? Then we can note it in other pertinent articles. Thanks, El_C 23:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Here is the quote: "Alexander III did not simply seek to make life more difficult for Jews in his domain; he intended to make it impossible. Konstantin Pobedonostsev would one day candidly admit to a Jewish delelgation hoping for relief that the regime expected one-third of Russia's Jews to emigrate, one-third to accept baptism, and one-third to perish. Since Pobedonostsev was the tsar's mentor, friend, and most respected adviser, apart from his official post as procurator-general of the Holy Synod, he and his sovereign were of one mind. As the 1880s progressed, the legislation prohibiting Jews from moving to villages — inside as well as outside the Pale — assured the slow death of shtetl existence." (Source: Elliot Rosenberg, "But Were They Good for the Jews?", p.182). Humus sapiensTalk 00:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Rosenberg doesn't name original source. Please take in consideration this version of this "quote" www.ncsj.org/AuxPages/OSCE199.shtml "In fact, his statement in the letter that Jews should either emigrate, assimilate or live as Jews pledging sole allegiance to Russia echoes a statement made by Tsar Nicholas II 100 years ago that one-third of Jews should be killed, one-third should emigrate, and the last third convert to Orthodoxy."

This "quote" is attributed to Pobedonostsev, Nicholas II, Alexander III, anonymous czar adviser, Ante Pavelic (modification with Serbs), Mile Budak, Mirko Puk( modification with Serbs), Baron ("The Melting Pot"). Original source of this "quote" is never cited.

Most likely it was some dirty gossip libelling Pobedonostsev, whish was spreaded by his political enemies. This rumours were reproduced by various authors without proper checking it's source. --DonaldDuck 02:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your "most likely" is original research, keep it out of WP. Forced russification and baptism were official policies of Russian Tsars, and especially of Alexander III. I brought a dozen or so links in support, and not mentioning this policy would be lying by omission. The result of these policies were pogroms (the word entered other languages after 1881), Jewish mass emigration, disenfranchisement and impoverishing of Russian Jews who natrally turned to revolutionary activities and Zionism. That included Congress Poland BTW. Humus sapiensTalk 02:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Let's discuss only "quotation". Czarist policy is much broader field. --DonaldDuck 02:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why, not? It is related a little bit, isn't it? So far, I quoted a book and brought many links in support. And you...? Humus sapiensTalk 02:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"So far, I quoted a book and brought many links in support. And you...?". I have shown that your book doesn't give original source of the "quote", thus it is irrelevant to discussion of it. Also I have gave dozen of links attributing "quote" not to Pobedonostsev but to Nicholas II, Alexander III, anonymous czar adviser, Ante Pavelic (modification with Serbs), Mile Budak, Mirko Puk( modification with Serbs), Baron ("The Melting Pot"). --DonaldDuck 03:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
None of the sources you brought is particularly conclusive either, on the question, PD. El_C 03:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes this sources are not conclusive, I brought this links to display that there are a lot of contradicting versions, which are not based on reliable original sources. I suppose that there are no such sources. --DonaldDuck 04:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That remains to be seen, PD. El_C 04:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To verify, Humus, we need a primary source attributed to the quote —or, some sort of scholarly historiographical debate on it or its absence— in one of the history books or articles that cite this. And, of course, just because you have yet to locate it, dosen't mean it's not out there. El_C 03:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not claiming that I have an exact quote, that is why I do not put it in '"' quotes in May Laws. I merely quoted an important book and brought a dozen of links (one is Russian Committeee in Defense of Human Rights) in support. Please explain why this particular quote from this particular book isn't good. BTW, I don't even claim that Pobedonostsev has coined the phrase, so my condolences to Mirko Puk & Co. Here are a few more links (in addition to the list in May Laws and its talk):
  • In his 19 may 1887 letter to tsar A.III [13] Pobedonostsev calls to cleanse some regions of Poles and Jews, (the latter he calls "Другая язва" - "Another ulcer"). In a letter dated 11 jan 1889 he writes: "О евреях,— великой нашей язве, которая проникла всюду..." - "About the Jews - our great ulcer that has spread everywhere...")
  • In his letter to Nikolas II [14] he uses offensive ethnic slur "жидов".
  • Here is a chapter "Evangelical Church in Tsarist Russia" from 2002 Gerhard Simon's book "K.P. Pobedonostsev and Holy Sinod's Policies Concerning the Church, 1880-1905" - in two words: xenophobia and repressions. Humus sapiensTalk 06:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In fairness, Humus, the passage read "[a]s articulated by Konstantin Pobedonostsev," and did not qualify this ambiguity, which isn't to deny or discount any of what you say above (though, of course, I'm limited to your translation for all of these). El_C 08:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

El_C, you are referring to an old diff. I compromised and instead of that phrase added exact quote from Rosenberg's book - but DDuck keeps erasing it from May Laws. Humus sapiensTalk 08:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I didn't realize we were passed that. Thanks for clarifying, Humus. El_C 23:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pobedonostsev quotation (Part 2)

  • Humus_sapiens "In his 19 may 1887 letter to tsar A.III Pobedonostsev calls to cleanse some regions of Poles and Jews" [15] - there is NO call to kill, baptise, or force to emigrate in this letter. --DonaldDuck 07:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Have I ever said that KPP's quote in question comes from this particular letter? My quote comes from a book with author and page number provided. Humus sapiensTalk 08:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pobedonostsev writes about his impressions after visiting Smolensk Gubernia. He writes that "polish colonisation" is a problem. There are only two sentences about Jews. In English it is: "Another problem is Jews, which have moved to this region in great numbers and grasped all the money matters. Some of them register as first guild merchants (this is not difficult), buy large estates and become landowners." - no calls to cleanse some regions. --DonaldDuck 07:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "only two sentences about Jews" is a good example of his attitudes. See May Laws for the legislation that followed. Humus sapiensTalk 08:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One more excerpt from Pobedonostsev letter to Nicolas II (let him speak for himself) Rough translation to English:

"Envy and intrigue are common at the court. People, which constituted the society of Anichkov Palace did not know me, had no contacts with me, heard only rumors and anecdotes about me, and as they reproduced this rumours, they used their influence not only on Empress Maria Fedorovna but , partially, on Tsar himself . I continued to fulfil his orders, but felt that I was libeled. I didn?t interfere in business of other departments, lived in solitude, still in Russia and abroad I was considered all-powerful. All government decrees were attributed to me, even those I did not know at all. From various parts of Russia, from Europe, from America I have received malicious, threatening letters from Nihilists, Anarhists, Liberals of different types and Jews, attributing to me personally all restrictions, all deportation orders e.t.c." --DonaldDuck 07:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spoken like true humanitarian: "Nihilists, Anarhists, Liberals of different types and Jews". Humus sapiensTalk 08:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, certainly he is not humanitarian. Still letters display no plans to kill one third of Russian Jews attributed to him in your passage. --DonaldDuck 10:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An serious expert Leon Poliakov (Léon Poliakov) in his well-documented History of Anti-semitism writes about this phrase cautiously: "According to the famous formula, originated in the circles of Alexander III...", i.e., not attributing it to some person. mikka (t) 08:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fine, we can use this quotation. Sorry I don't have Poliakov nor Dubnow handy now. Humus sapiensTalk 08:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Caution: this is my translation; from Russian text; so I'd rather look for a Fr-En translation. mikka (t) 09:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"According to the famous formula, originated in the circles of Alexander III..." - it proves that it is not a "quote" but a gossip. Poliakov attributes formula to some anonymous "circles".--DonaldDuck 10:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Poliakov is not an authority anymore becase DDuck didn't like him. Next! Humus sapiensTalk 10:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why do you think I don't like Polyakov?? I don't understand. Citation from Polyakov states that authorship of the "famous formula" is unclear, thus it proves that it was not articulated by Pobedonostsev.--DonaldDuck 10:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please see Talk:May_Laws#Pobedonostsev for 22 (twenty two) English-lang books containing this quote. I must note that this particular quote is translated in a slightly different ways in various books. We can (and should) cite any of the books. Another note: usually controversial or suspicious quotes are challenged by scholars. 120 years have passed but I didn't find any dispute about this particular one. Humus sapiensTalk 10:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Still, Humus you have failed to find original source. By original source I mean transcript of speech by Pobedonostsev, article by Pobedonostsev, letter written by Pobedonostsev, article written by Pobedonostsev, statement by someone, who heard this words from Pobedonostsev.--DonaldDuck 11:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suggest to search for earliest source of this "quotation" to trace its origin. At present oldest source is "The Melting Pot" play written by Israel Zangwill in 1908. It is pure fiction. Play was one of the most successful productions in the history of Broadway.--DonaldDuck 11:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You may believe it to be false, but your original research is not permitted in Wikipedia articles. Please find a respectable source stating this quote is false. Jayjg (talk) 15:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)