Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:01, 10 January 2007

Jewish history Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"non-Judaizing Christians of Hebrew stock"

The article refers to "non-Judaizing Christians of Hebrew stock". What are these? Jayjg 10:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Break occured after Akiva declared Bar Kochba the Messiah

The article asserts that Jewish Christians supported Jews until Akiva declared Bar Kochba the messiah. What support is there for this claim? Akiva's claim was hardly universally accepted to begin with, and was dropped immediately following Bar Kochba's death. Also, didn't the real break happen after the First Jewish revolt and desctruction of the Temple in 70-73CE? Jayjg 10:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Query

I deleted this from the article "including Jewish Christians (also called Judaizers), non-Judaizing Christians of Hebrew stock, and Gentile converts ..." because I don't know who these groups were, particularly "non-Judaizing Christians of Hebrew stock". Pintele Yid 08:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Bizarre, and rather sad story in that vein... My advisor is a Chinese guy from Singapore... From the day I started back at school he hasn't ceased to talk to me about how amazed he is by Tzahal...all about how advisors from tzahal trained the Singaporean army, etc. ... We've been on good terms since the day in my first class in the program, about 3 lectures into the semester, when he said that doing something "just isn't kosher", and then basically freaked out that I might think he'd said something wrong... funny thing was, he used the word "kosher" completely properly in English, and in such a way that there was no way to find fault with it even if the entire statement had been made in Hebrew...albeit with "kasher"... Anyways, he made some comment about a year ago that struck me as just a little bit odd, about how Jews are Jews whereëver they go, so I sent him the link to Kaifeng Jews, and he never said anything about it to me. Then last week, he said something similar about how Jews are Jews, but there aren't any Chinese Jews. So I sent him a couple of links to amishav about some of the remnants of the Kaifeng community reclaiming their Jewishness. So today I went to talk to him about making up the midterm I missed during 8 Atzereth, and he showed very little interest in discussing it, instead the conversation somehow turned to the email I'd sent him, and he was astonished that there could be Chinese Jews...since you had to have "Jewish blood" to be Jewish. He was flabergast that there was such a thing as conversion to Judaism, and even moreso by my assertion that "yes" he could convert to Judaism if he really wanted to. Gawd. What are we doing so horribly wrong about being a light le`olam that they don't even know that they can convert?! Tomer 12:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Intro

IMHO, the intro needs to be carefully rewritten because in the current form it is very confusing and may be misconstrued in the sense that hostility to Jews on religious grounds is merely anti-Judaism. Reputable references would help. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see if this intro works. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to work on it a bit. Jayjg 17:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It's much better now. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 20:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam and Judaism

Having read the page on "criticism of Islam", which pretty much offers all the arguments on why Islam is an evil and false religion, I believe that this page which is its equivalent should justly offer a similar content and not only offer a history of hostility towards jews. I noticed that in the page on criticism of Islam, it is claimed that Islam is clearly a moral regression from the Jewish and Christian traditions. It would be easy to find theological aswell as moral criticism of judaism, including God commanding the Jewish people to commit Genocide and mass murder of women and children. (Torah:(I Samuel 15).http://www.torah.org/learning/pirkei-avos/chapter3-21a.html It is unfair and distasteful to judge entire religious communities both Jewish, Muslim and Christians especially in the times we live in. We must especially not target Islam from the position of a supposedly superior "Judeo-Christian" tradition which, in my opinion, does not exist.--Burgas00 13:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. There are other pages than just "criticism of islam", namely criticism of religion, criticism of Christianity, which contain criticism of these religions. Other pages , such as Criticism of Mormonism, criticism of atheism or this page, offer accounts of criticism, not criticism per se. It seems it's ok to criticize Islam, or religions as a whole, but criticising judaism amounts to anti-semitism, a form of racism. Someone please do something about this ! --Nobel prize 4 peace 22:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Opposition vs. Hostility

I am opposed to the Jewish religion insofar as I believe it is not true. That does not make one an antisemite. The first line should be altered or the last line of the intro should be altered. The opening as it stands tries to use the dictionary to make antijudaism antisemitic by definition. Fine, but only if antijudaism is redefined as hostility or discrimination, not mere opposition, to Judaism. Sarcastic Pillow 22:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that the article as it stands conflates the terms "anti-Judaism" and "anti-Semitism." If the two are synonymns, why have a separate article?

"Anti-Judaism" denotes opposition and hostitlity to Judaism's religious claims, hence to the existence of the faith itself; "anti-Semitism" denotes bigotry against those who identify as Jews, regardless of their subscription to the religious claims of Judaism. Given Christianity's origin as a Jewish sect, anti-Judaism can be traced to sectarian disagreement — more like "anti-mainstream Judaism." The tendency to move from a critique of the faith claims of Judaism vis-a-vis nascent Christianity towards a critique of Jews as Jews is the movement into anti-Semitism, imo, and is a direct result of Christianity's evolution into a gentile movement, and more particularly, into the state religion of the Byzantine Empire to which everyone was expected to conform.

The distinction between the two terms is tricky, since Judaism is both a religion and an ethnic identity. In other words, there is a correspondence between being and doing. Seen in this way, it is perfectly understandable that such a conflation should creep into the article itself. If one opposes the existence of Judaism, perforce one opposes the existence of Jews. Paul of Tarsus' claim that in Christ there is now no longer "Jew or Greek" is a lot less innocent nearly 2000 years on.

In sum, I think there is a more subtle way of bringing out the distinction, but I'm wary of giving it a shot. Fishhead64 20:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

How is the term a "euphemism"? like this article says in the first paragraph.

Futhermore: Shouldn't this page be merged with Criticism of Judaism?--Greasysteve13 09:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OR removed

I have removed the following from the WP:LEAD:

The definition of "antisemitism" in Merriam-Webster Dictionary patently includes anti-Judaism: "is hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group." According to this definition anti-Judaism is a specific form of anti-Semitism.

This is argumentative OR and not suitable for the article, let alone the lead paras. — JEREMY 12:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Merger Proposal?

Please make your case for merger. Otherwise tag will be deleted. --Doright 06:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we discussing merging Criticism of Judaism into this article? If so, I vote yes. SlimVirgin 05:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Last I check there were proposal going both ways, but no discussion. I think merging anti-Jud into Criticism is a very bad idea. I'm not even sure merging Criticism into anti is a good idea, because "Criticism" and "anti" seem to be unique concepts.--Doright 06:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hostility, opposition, and the dictionary

As long as the lead paragraph uses the dictionary to back up equating anti-Judasim and anti-Semitism, it cannot logically define anti-Judaism as mere opposition.

I am opposed to socialism, does that mean I exhibit hostility towards socialists? Hardly, I have socialist friends. I am opposed to a full-going empiricism, but I have no hatred for Hume or Locke (who would have opposed socialism). Opposition doesn't equate with hositility towards, hatred of, or discrimination against. Srnec 17:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Look at the history this language keeps being correctly edited out then reappears. Additionally the cartoon is an Anti-Semitic cartoon which further confuses the reader.

The article is good, the lede paragraph and the first sentence of the second graph "Christian anti-Judaism is a Christian theological position denigrating Jewish belief and practice," are absurd. By these definitoons all relgions are hostile and denegrating to each other, wich maybe true but creates a tuatology in that Judiac "hostility is not similarly explored. The problem is this articel is hihgly POV, and unhelpful unless the intent of its authors is to dilute antisemitism to the point of being a meaninless descriptor. 71.252.99.54 05:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Inevitable breach

The (very brief) section says that the Christian answer of Jesus being God 'made the breach inevitable', but surely it should be pointed out that it was Judaism that insisted that this was a breach; Christians did not leave the Jewish faith; they were thrown out of it. DJ Clayworth 17:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Schisms are a common occurrence in religions. DJ, why do you insist that Judaism should have accomodated a renegade group that threw away some principles that Judaism held important?

"Jewish groups however have made very little effort to seek rapport at the theological level with Christianity." - according to whom?

What you called "unsourced rubbish" is thoroughly documented, please read further. ←Humus sapiens 21:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead

Kendrick, the version you reverted to is a very strange lead. What does the first sentence even mean? "Anti-Judaism is a total or partial opposition to Judaism—and to Jews as adherents of it—by men who accept a competing system of beliefs and practices and consider certain genuine Judaic beliefs and practices as inferior". It is opposition only by men? And how do we know they have anything as solid as a "competing system of beliefs"? If its antisemitism and irrational, there needn't be any other "competing system of beliefs." Also, what are "genuine" Judaic beliefs, as opposed to non-genuine ones?

In addition, the claim that calling Jews "Christ killers" isn't antisemitic is bizarre. We can't repeat bizarre claims in the lead, and particularly not as fact. SlimVirgin 09:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, it seems to be based on one old source, Langmuir (1971) cited by Abulafia. Who are they? SlimVirgin 09:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, I almost changes it from men to people or persons -- I couldn't decide on the right word. I haven't laid eyes on Taxico's sources mind you (though I guess they pre-date Women's lib), but everyone has a set of beliefs, and this seems like a fair definition of anti-Judaism to me. For the definition of Judaism, I imagine the the wikipedia article might be enlightening, though I supposed you mean "genuine" could be a bit of a weasel word.

I initially also had a problem with the source's deliniation you mention, but after some thought I realized it was quite Solomonic. This isn't some "bizzare claim" but a literal reading of Matthew 27; see Blood curse. Though a minority, a sizable segment of Christian sects do adhere to various form of literal interpretation of their Holy Scriptures, and this draws the line. And its only a label, it would be inhumane acts which come about because of such a label which would cross the line into anti-semetism. -- Kendrick7 09:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry SlimVirgin, but you're obviously misunderstanding the definition of anti-Judaism. I don't know why you're making it so complicated.

1. Where it says "by men who accept a competing system of beliefs and practices", it means "by people who accept a competing system of beliefs and practices". Even my 10-year-old brother would understand that "men" in this context does not refer to sex or gender.
2. When it says calling Jews "Christ-killers" is anti-Judaic, that does not mean calling them "Christ-killers" is not antisemitic. I don't know where you're getting that idea, but perhaps the wording was a little confusing and I'm going to fix that. Also see #3 below.
3. The qualifier "by men who accept a competing system of beliefs and practices and consider certain genuine Judaic beliefs and practices as inferior" is there to distinguish between anti-Judaism and antisemitism. So when a 20th century atheist calls Jews "Christ-killers" in an antisemitic rally, that's not anti-Judaism because there's no religious context. It is simply a slur and antisemitic as well. But when Saint Paul (a well-know anti-Judaist who was himself originally a Jew) calls Jews "Christ-killers" he's not being antisemitic.
4. I have in front of me a number of texts and focus specifically on the anti-Judaic rhetoric of Paul, but not a single one of them comes even close to calling Paul antisemitic. This is exactly why the version you're reverting to is so wrong; it portrays anti-Judaism as a form of antisemtism (which is as close to nonsense as one can get): "Anti-Judaism is an aspect of antisemitism, which is the more commonly used umbrella term." There are some texts who call Jesus himself anti-Judaic (see Jesus, Judaism, & Christian Anti-Judaism, for example)--does that mean Jesus was antisemitic??
5. I've spent some hours looking for consistent definition of anti-Judaism and then you just come and revert it to a version that does not even have any sources and is plain original research (I'm being lenient here--this obviously does not deserve to be called "research")??
6. It's not really my job to defend sourced information against removal (especially when no alternatives are being proposed), but Langmuir is a historian of anti-Semitism at Stanford University (). It doesn't really matter who Abulafia is because she's just the editor of the book where Langmuir is being quoted as authority.
7. Your removal of sourced information and their replacement with unsourced nonsense is completely irresponsible and cannot be justified. I'm reverting back. My edits may not have been perfect, but that doesn't justify hair-splitting and then reverting to an earlier version without even justifying the superiority of that former version over mine.

==Taxico 16:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Don't say "men" if you mean "people."
2. Your fix has made no difference and it's a poor example. It also relies on an unknown source.
3. That's your OR.
4. Then find a modern expert on antisemitism who discusses the difference. I'm not saying the current lead shouldn't be improved. I'm saying the version you want is not an improvement, and it relies on one paper from 1971. Also, Langmuir specialized in medieval antisemitism. His opinion can be included, but you can't base a lead on his views as though they are fact. SlimVirgin 17:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to Slimvirgin's version, because I don't think it's valid to draw a distinction between anti-Judaism and antisemitism. To the extent that we're talking about hostility to Jews as adherents of Judaism, it has to amount to antisemitism. --Leifern 17:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any sources saying there's no distinction between antisemitism and anti-Judaism? Maybe you should take a look at WP:OR, specifically the first point: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." So where are your sources? ==Taxico 02:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The very first paragraph here mentions the definition of antisemitism as "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group." Anti-Judaism emphasizes the religious component. ←Humus sapiens 04:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, where are your sources? You can't just take a dictionary definition of "antisemitism" and analyze it come up with a nonexistant defintion for "anti-Judaism". Again, from WP:OR:"Articles may not contain any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position. ==Taxico 17:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this article should be deleted. Please read the general article on Antisemitism about the rationale and pretexts for antisemitism throughout the centuries. Anti-Judaism is a subset of antisemitism and not distinct from it. --Leifern 17:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well if you want to delete this article that's a totally different issue. I might support making this into a disambiguation page (with a link to antisemitism and another to Criticism of Judaism), but if this is going to stay the definition have to be sourced. The version you're reverting to does not have any sources. ==Taxico 21:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it should be deleted, and regardless of the quality of the current lead, the one you inserted wasn't an improvement, because the source's view was idiosyncratic and yet presented as fact. SlimVirgin 21:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

merge to Antisemitism

Since the merge seems to be a possible solution, I am proposing it. Please let's discuss at Talk:Antisemitism. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens 22:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

People there suggested moving it to Religious antisemitism, so I've done that. SlimVirgin 01:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

quote mining?

Not sure how Taxico was quote mining. The person being quoted in the lead provides a good summary of the other sections of the article. -- Kendrick7 05:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The lead can't consist of one source's idiosyncratic view. SlimVirgin 01:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead

We currently have: "Religious antisemitism, sometimes called theological antisemitism or anti-Judaism, is hostility to Judaism and to those who practise it. "

I would change it to: "Religious antisemitism, sometimes called theological antisemitism or anti-Judaism, is prejudice or hostility toward Jews as a religious group. "

This is consistent with the main article on antisemitism, and I think is more accurate.Mackan79 16:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with including Judaism is that it says too much. Hostility toward a religion is very different from hostility toward practitioners of a religion. For instance, see Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris who are considered hostile toward religion generally, but generally not considered bigots generally or antisemites specifically. "Religious antisemitism," however, is by definition a type of bigotry. To say "religious antisemitism" is "hostility toward Judaism," thus, is overbroad.

Also, isn't the main point of religious antisemitism that it's a cover for regular old antisemitism? Otherwise, you'd think "antisemitism" would be the wrong word. Someone who just hates the religion of Judaism more than is normal would presumably have a different label than "antisemitism," if it didn't really didn't stem from any antipathy toward the Jewish people. So for that reason too, I'd think the definition should focus on Jews as a religion, like the definition of anti-semitism, rather than including criticism of the religion itself even when not related to any traditional anti-semitism.Mackan79 18:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's just your personal opinion, Mackan. We go by what the sources say. Richard Dawkins doesn't focus on Judaism. The words "regular old antisemtism" are meaningless; you'll need to be specific and quote sources. There is no "point" to religious antisemitism. Please stick to what your sources say, and if they contradict what's in the article, we can add their views. SlimVirgin 18:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Which part was my personal opinion? The first source, deriving from Encyclopedia Britanica, defines antisemitism as "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group." It doesn't include hostility toward "Judaism." Do you have a source for this other proposition? I think I explained why the two are different. Mackan79 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Mackan, there are hundreds of sources. Please provide a source for your claim that "the two are different." Saying that you explained it is personal opinion. SlimVirgin 19:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If there are hundreds of sources, can't you provide one or two? Can we be reasonable here? I'm not alleging my opinion, I'm alleging facts. I'm alleging that a source for antisemitism = hostility to Jews as a religion can't also be used for antisemitism = hostility to Judaism. Isn't this obvious? If not, then why would we even need to make the distinction, which Britanica doesn't make? If there's no distinction, then "Jews as a religion" makes the entire point. Mackan79 19:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is like something that should be on the nightmare final exam. Please provide a reliable source that apples are not in fact oranges. For the purposes of this exercise the dictionary does not count! -- Kendrick7 20:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC) You have been provided with a razor blade, a piece of gauze, and a bottle of scotch. Remove your appendix. Do not suture until you work has been inspected. You have fifteen minutes.

LOL!!! You might be wishing that's all it was by the time we're through. SlimVirgin 21:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's also somewhat instructive to look at what the lead used to say. -- Kendrick7 20:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Two of the areas I edit a lot in are antisemitism and animal rights. Perhaps it's the same everywhere and I've just not noticed, but these areas seem to attract large number of editors who (a) have read next to nothing on the subject and yet (b) have strong views that they feel they should add to the articles. I'm genuinely puzzled by it. Ought I to go to black hole and just type in any old thing that seems to make sense to me? Mackan and Kendrick, please acknowledge that you haven't read any of the scholarly sources, which is obvious from your edits and comments, and explain why you feel it's okay to edit an encyclopedia article on a subject you know almost nothing about. Not a dig, but a serious question. SlimVirgin 22:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, they asked Jesus the same thing (Jhn 7:15: The Jews were amazed and asked, "How did this man get such learning without having studied?). I have read The Construction of Orthodoxy and Heresy: Neo-Confucian, Islamic, Jewish, and Early Christian Patterns though perhaps eight years ago; I still have my copy. -- Kendrick7 23:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC) now, stop reverting my edits or I'll club this baby seal! Don't think I won't!!

Slim, let me tell you exactly why I came to these articles. About two months ago, I was watching an interview with Rashid Khalidi on Charlie Rose, and thought "Wow, this seems like a smart, interesting guy." So I looked him up on WP. What did I find? An article with about 50% on Khalidi, and about 50% wild propagandistic attacks mislabeled as his politics. I did some research and cleaned up the article. Through that, I found an article on Joseph Massad, in even worse shape. Following that, I found articles on Alexander Cockburn and Folke Bernadotte in similar condition.

With each bio, I found editors immediately reverting my changes for ridiculously POV reasons. To be honest, I found this offensive. Having edited other articles, I was completely impressed with the WP community, and the respect and cooperation. Looking at these Arab-Israeli articles, I found all of this ignored. After that I checked out the Zionism page, and I think you know the rest.

So am I an expert on antisemitism? No. I'm someone who believes in accurate information. I'm someone who believes that POV articles don't help anybody, but as you said, simply makes for terrible articles. Incidentally, here's a question: can you show me an article on WP with a blatantly anti-Israel or antisemitic bias? If you can, I assure you I'd be there supporting your side. So far, for whatever reason, I haven't found any. Thus, you must get the impression that I'm here simply to attack Judaism and Israel. I promise you this isn't the case.

My studies, incidentally, are in religion and politics. This gives me plenty of insight into these articles. I'm not here pretending to be a historian. As someone who has read about religion, though, I know criticizing a religion isn't the same as being bigoted towards its adherents, and I know this isn't a fair characterization for an article lead. This has nothing to do with expertise in antisemitism. Anti-Judaism and anti-semitism are not the same thing.

But here's the thing: If your expertise tells you otherwise, you should be able to explain why. But you don't, instead you spar and obstruct and tell me to go find sources to disprove things you refuse to source. You absolutely refuse to openly represent the basis for your own edits, simply pestering me with ridiculous demands while refusing to answer my questions. So why do you do this? Why do you refuse to be civil and argue in good faith? Is this your response to my blatant ignorance? Personally, I'm pretty sure it doesn't help the encyclopedia. Mackan79 03:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Anti-Semitism

• Unassessed Jewish history-related articles
• Unknown-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles