Talk:Antisemitism in the Arab world

The quotes section

The article Anti-Arabism removed quotes quite some time ago. Shouldn't this article follow suit?Bless sins 17:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the quotations section per Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Quotations that says "Note: This header is largely deprecated. "Bless sins 15:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The quotes need to be incorporated into the text, not simply deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But the setion needs to go. Also, only the quotes sourced relaible sources need to be incorporated into text.Bless sins 12:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lewis as a source

I don't see what's worng with Lewis. He's a reliable source.Bless sins 23:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with Lewis, but his POV doesn't belong in the lead, and certainly not your misquoting his views. Lewis talks about Jews under Muslim rule, and the issues they did or did not face - that's not the same thing as saying Arabs weren't antisemitic. Also, you are inserting your POV take on Lewis into the lead, but removing a direct quote from Lewis from the quotations sections. Oddly enough, the material you are inserting says Arabs weren't antisemitic, but the material you are deleting says that antisemitism is as much a part of modern Arab culture as it was of the culture of Nazi Germany. Go figure. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A couple of things. Lewis does say that Arabs were mostly not antisemitic. Does he not?

My other removal of material in the quotes section is because it was in the quoes section, as I've explained elsewhere. Now that you've brought my attention, I'll incorporate Lewis' views elsewhere.Bless sins 12:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lewis may or may not say that, but he certainly didn't say it in the quote you provided. As for the Lewis material, I think we'll incorporate it into the lead, since you like to have Lewis in the lead, and this quote is specifically about Arabs and antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Are you saying that I have misquoted Lewis? About the lead, sure we can summarise Lewis' position.Bless sins 03:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Lewis talked about Muslims in the quote you provided, not Arabs. As I have explained to you before, they are not the same thing. Regarding the rest, I think we'll need a long quote from Lewis. I've put it in the lead now. Please don't edit till I'm done, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Check Lewis again. He says "Arabs". A-r-a-b-s.Bless sins 23:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources

Hadith literature are primary sources. Please see WP:RS --Aminz 10:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The sources pertain only to the life of the Prophet Muhammad (only 23 years), and thus it is ridiculous to use them for the 1,400 years of Arab history after that. Needless to say that using the sources is an inappropriate use of primary sources, and consitutes a violation of OR.Bless sins 13:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, Lewis is an excellent and scholarly source on the issue. Why he is bieng removed?

Can someone show how "Abdelwahab Meddeb" is a reliable source? A quick google search doesn't give too much information.Bless sins 22:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You've said that Ibn Warraq is not a RS. Can you prove that Lewis is a RS? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, to what are your comments about hadith relevant? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That is an explantion for a removal some time ago. Some users (e.g Humus sapiens) tried inserting those hadith. But that seems to be resolved now.Bless sins 12:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Arab Anti Semitism is an oxymoron

Arab Anti Semitism is an oxymoron doesnt make sense, arabs are semites, an actual anti semite is someone who is against a person who dessended from Abraham. this is stupid, and Al manar is not anti semitic, they dont hate them selves? i am so confused.

What part of

is not clear to you? Gzuckier 15:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

no its not clear, and we dont care about the nonsense and bullshit you wrote against arabs because IT IS REAL ANTI-SEMITISM not the other fake zionist one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Batexyawns (talk • contribs) 20:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Recent article whitewash

Bless sins, could you propose your whitewash here first, explaining your rationale, and get agreement, before unilaterally inserting it? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

But I don't want any whitewash. Why would I propose something I am against? BTW, I have discussed my "recent" (my edits have been there since some time ago) edits in various sections above, and there was no opposition.Bless sins 15:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is poorly sourced. Instead of removing sourced content why don't you add sources? It seems you're more cncerned with advancing a POV then you are with improving the article.Bless sins 15:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that people didn't notice your recent whitewash does not mean they agreed with it. It is actually you who has removed most of the sourced content. The stuff from Lewis is about Muslims, not Arabs - they are not the same thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm, what do I say? Bernard Lewis writes "...during the past 1,400 years, Arabs, for the most part...". I don't know how you can't see the word "Arabs".

Also, you added "Jews were faced with Islamic anti-Judaism from the start, suffering a massacre in Medina led by the Prophet Muhammad himself".[1] Please try not practice doubles standards.Bless sins 03:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, for the last 1,400 years most Arabs have been Muslims, and all Arab governments have been Muslim.Bless sins 03:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess you must have missed the largest Muslim countries, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc. The "Jews faced Islamic anti-Judaism from the start" material was in the article for a long time, not added by me, you deleted it, I restored it. Propose changes here first please. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Lewis's view should be presented in the article if not in the intro. --Aminz 22:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Your argument says that a blanket statement about Arabs doesn't cover all Muslims. However, a blanket statement about "Muslim rule" does cover most Arabs, since almost all Arab governemtns have been Muslim during the past 1,400 years. In any case, you restored "Jews faced Islamic anti-Judiasm from the start", thus showing that you support its inclusion. Please don't practice double standards.Bless sins 01:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Make arguments for each change here first and get consensus. Muslims and Arabs aren't the same thing; most Muslims are not Arab, and many Arabs are not Muslim. Use relevant sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I did make arugmetns for each edit. I made them and edited long before you showed up. You can verify the section above for my arguments. As you can see no one opposed me, thus I had concensus.Bless sins 02:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone ignoring you is not the same as getting consensus. You do go on at length on Talk: pages. Try again now; get consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If people "ignored" me, most likely they had no objection against my edits. I explained all my edits on talk. Now it is your turn to explain edits and get concensus.Bless sins 03:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I've objected to your whitewash, so the article returns to previous consensus. Now, please explain your proposed edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say that I already have explained my edits. It is you who needs to explain your edits before conducting them on the article page.Bless sins 05:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your explanations are not on this Talk: page. Did you explain them somewhere else? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

<reset>My explanations are on this talk page. My explanation about Lewis is under "Lewis as a source" section. My removal of another source is under "Primary sources" section. My removal of quotes is under "The quotes section" section. It's all there. However, I'm beginning to relaize that I may not have explained some of my edits. However, that doesn't justify the reversion of all my edits.Bless sins 20:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This page is on my watchlist, but I mostly follow it only for vandalism. But I have to say, I found it kind of odd to see added "According to Bernard Lewis, during the past 1,400 years, Arabs, for the most part, have not been antisemitic" while another quote by Lewis was removed: "The volume of anti-Semitic books and articles published..." That, and the fact that Jayjg was restoring Aminz' version, makes it hard for me to fully appreciate your position. Maybe you could expand on your explanation under Lewis as a source. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, the removal of the Bat Yeor material isn't there, nor is your moving around and POVing the Cohen material. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bat Ye'or is not a reliable source. Can you be more specific about "POVing" Mark Cohen?Bless sins 12:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bat Ye'or is indeed reliable. An example of POVing of Cohen would be changing "most scholars hold" to "most scholars concede" and adding "relatively recently". 150 years ago is not "relatively recently". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not POVing. But sure, if you have the date for Cohen, feel free to replace it with "relatively recently". And no Bat Ye'or is not relaible. Remember the burden of evidence is upon you to show that she's a relaible source.Bless sins 03:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the burden of evidence is on you to prove she's not. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse not! That's ridiculous. Please see WP:V#Burden_of_evidence.Bless sins 04:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That just says that material must be sourced; it doesn't say the burden of evidence is on the person supporting the material to prove the source is reliable as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It says "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source...". Thus not only should the material be sourced, it also needs a reliable source. Bless sins 23:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Verification problem

Jayjg, I just obtained a copy of Lewis' Semites and Antisemites. However, I couldn't find the following quote:

"The volume of anti-Semitic books and articles published, the size and number of editions..." sourced to Semites and Antisemites New York/London: Norton, 1986, p. 286.

The copy I have is dated to 1986, and published by New York/London by Norton. However it only has 283 pages. Thus "p. 286" doesn't exist. Can you give me the correct page number?Bless sins 02:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Try page 256. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the correct page number.Bless sins 03:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

A note

• Not all Arabs are Muslims.
• Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia etc etc are not Arab countries.
• After Muslim conquest of Syria, Egypt, etc etc, it took many centuries(4-5) for these countries to be gradually Arabized. --Aminz 21:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. Most Muslims are not Arab, and many Arabs are not Muslim. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Article for deletion

I think the material for this article can be covered in "Antisemitism and Islam"& "Antisemitism and Christianity" and "Antisemitism and Paganism". Arabs were either Muslims, or Christians or in ancient times Pagans. I think it is better to categorize this according to religion rather than according to race. So, I suggest we remove this article. Any feedback?--Aminz 04:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Mackan79 04:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I would also agree. Consider the fact that there is no article called "Europeans and antisemitism", despite the fact that antisemitism in Uerope has been far better documented than in Arabia. It seems that articles on antisemitism are related more to religion/ideology and less to race or ethnicity.Bless sins 04:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The sources don't categorize them according to religion, and speak explicitly of Arab antisemitism. As has been pointed out many times, only a minority of Muslims are Arabs; the two terms are not at all synonymous, and antisemitism is particularly prominent in the Arab world. Bernard Lewis points out, "The volume of anti-Semitic books and articles published, the size and number of editions and impressions, the eminence and authority of those who write, publish and sponsor them, their place in school and college curricula, their role in the mass media, would all seem to suggest that classical anti-Semitism is an essential part of Arab intellectual life at the present time-almost as much as happened in Nazi Germany, and considerably more than in late nineteenth and early twentieth century France." This is an Arab phenomenon, not a Muslim one. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Also, Islam and antisemitism focuses on the religious aspect. This article should should describe antisemitism expressed in the secular Arab media for example. There is no reason to conflate the two into one article that would incorrectly confuse Islamist influenced antisemitism with nationalist influenced antisemitism. nadav (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition to what's been said, Europeans and antisemitism is definitely an encyclopedic topic. If reliable sources consistently collocate any entities, we are OK. I'd like to see the same author who wrote "Arabs were either Muslims, or Christians or in ancient times Pagans. I think it is better to categorize this according to religion rather than according to race. So, I suggest we remove this article." to repeat the same in Talk:Arab, Talk:Arab world and Talk:Arab League. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're probably right; the more difficult analogy is if you could have an article on other racial/ethnic groups and antisemitism, though. My uneducated guess is that when Lewis talks of Arabs, he's using it almost as a shorthand for the Arab world, more than the specific ethnicity. Similar to Europeans and Antisemitism, I would think that's ok. It's if you interpret this as speaking of the Arab ethnicity that you have the problem, and possibly why you would want to avoid an article on this if you could, though the sources probably do support it. I'd still think the initial quote is problematic, though, for being so strongly on one side, if people could come up with some more appropriate text. Mackan79 00:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not been around wikipedia for too long, so can't really say too much on this. But, it appears to me that at somepoint there were articles called Europe and antisemitism, Nazis and antisemitism or Russians and antisemitism. It is obvious that antisemitism amongst the above mentioned groups is far more notable than Arabs. Then why don't such articles exist any more? Is there a relevent page (which perhaps organizes the articles on antisemitism), where we can take this discussion?Bless sins 19:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There are other difficulties regarding the definition of Arabs as well. Take Egypt for example. Professor Smith says: "All Egypt now speaks Arabic- a semitic language- and yet the population is very far from having assimilated itself to the Arabic type. But this could not have happened without the Qur'an and the religion of the Qur'an." --Aminz 09:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead

I'm not sure if I can be of help here, but I tried editing Bless sins' version of the lead to something that might work better. I think Bless sins has helped the balance, but that pre-Israel issues should probably also be noted. This isn't perfect, but maybe people can offer suggestions from this?:

This article is about the relationship between Arabs and antisemitism. According to Bernard Lewis, Arabs have during the last 1,400 years mostly not been antisemitic. Lewis writes Arabs, who are mostly Muslim, are not taught the Gospels or the story of Jewish deicide, and that Arab Muslims have not felt threatened by a Jewish presence in the Arab world. While various incidents of violence occurred, and Jews were subjected to separate laws and taxes from the Arab populations, Lewis suggests that the general relationship was similar to that between Muslims and other religious minorities.

However, since then Lewis writes that Arab antisemitism has grown due to two reasons: nineteenth century European influence, brought about by imperialism and Christian Arabs; and Israeli victories during the wars of 1956 and 1967. Regarding the present time, Lewis states: "The volume of anti-Semitic books and articles published, the size and number of editions and impressions, the eminence and authority of those who write, publish and sponsor them, their place in school and college curricula, their role in the mass media, would all seem to suggest that classical anti-Semitism is an essential part of Arab intellectual life at the present time-almost as much as happened in Nazi Germany, and considerably more than in late nineteenth and early twentieth century France."

--Mackan79 03:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There are micro and macro issues here. On the micro side, saying that Jews were treated as other non-Muslim minorities isn't really enough, since Lewis also points out that they were considered inferior, and their position reflected that. On the macro side, why should the lead have so much stuff from Lewis in it? Shouldn't it be a summary of the article instead? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Another issue is that you continue to selectively remove Lewis. Where Lewis says Arabs have been antisemitic, you insert, but where Lewis says Arabs haven't been antisemitic, you delete. This POV washing must stop.Bless sins 03:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the issue was that for the very longest time you kept selectively inserting one specific claim by Lewis into the lead. Suddenly, however, when there is a much more relevant quote from Lewis in the lead, you are suddenly talking about "balance" and about possibly leaving Lewis out altogether. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Mackan79, we should consider paraphrasing Lewis' final quote. It is unencyclopedia to leave large quotes, esp. in the lead which is suppoed to summarize anyways.Bless sins 03:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's should probably be lengthened; it's really compelling stuff. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't be quoting in the lead, though, should we? I'd agree with your point that we should be summarizing the article there, probably focusing less on Lewis. It so happens he provides a good two-sided look at it, which seems a good start. Anyway, I'll try a little more, but if others want to keep working I'm happy to help with cosmetics. Mackan79 04:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply not as versed in the historical issues as others here, but, maybe that's a good place to start:

The issues surrounding Arabs and antisemitism implicate the full history of the Arab and Jewish coexistence in the Middle East. According to Bernard Lewis, Jews have for the last 1400 years lived in the position of a religious minority in the Arab world, with an attendant lack of equal social and political rights. Nevertheless, the Arabs were not antisemitic. While certain acts of violence occurred, and Jews were viewed as inferior to the Arab Muslim populations, the position was not entirely different from that of other religious minorities, and Jews were given a place of protection under Muslim law. Lewis notes that Islam and Judaism were generally compatible and did not provide such conflicts as existed in Christian notions including deicide.

However, since then Lewis writes that Arab antisemitism has grown due to two reasons: nineteenth century European influence, brought about by imperialism and Christian Arabs; and Israeli victories during the wars of 1956 and 1967. Regarding the present time, Lewis states: "The volume of anti-Semitic books and articles published, the size and number of editions and impressions, the eminence and authority of those who write, publish and sponsor them, their place in school and college curricula, their role in the mass media, would all seem to suggest that classical anti-Semitism is an essential part of Arab intellectual life at the present time-almost as much as happened in Nazi Germany, and considerably more than in late nineteenth and early twentieth century France."

We could still add other material and should probably lessen the Lewis quote in the end, but how is that? Mackan79 04:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that Lewis is talking about the wars of 1948, not 1956, isn't he? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, I was wondering that as well. Mackan79 05:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Lewis states "The real change began after the war of 1956 and reached its peak after the war of 1967."Bless sins 17:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the first paragraph, I don't think it is accurate. He is how I see the paragraph you have proposed:

1. The issues surrounding Arabs and antisemitism implicate the full history of the Arab and Jewish coexistence in the Middle East. 2. According to Bernard Lewis, Jews have for the last 1400 years lived in the position of a religious minority in the Arab world, with an attendant lack of equal social and political rights. 3. Nevertheless, the Arabs were not antisemitic. 4. While certain acts of violence occurred, and Jews were viewed as inferior to the Arab Muslim populations, the position was not entirely different from that of other religious minorities, and Jews were given a place of protection under Muslim law. 5. Lewis notes that Islam and Judaism were generally compatible and did not provide such conflicts as existed in Christian notions including deicide.

1. This sentence is better than the vague one we had before. But we should also include North Africa (and possibly even Arab Spain).

2. Actually, Jews have lived in Arabia, much before Islam (which is where the figure 1,400 comes from), and they were always a religious minority. Also, Lewis has very little to say about "lack of [historical] equal social and political rights" by Arabs (though I think he does mention Muslims). Can you please provide the page number for that? Also, from what Lewis writes, there was no uniform treatment of Jews, thus it is unaccurate to say that "for 1,400 years Jews lived in a postion..."

3. This Lewis does say. From the Lewis' chapter on "The Muslims and the Jews", this is one of the few things Lewis sys about Arabs - the rest is about Muslims.

4. Again, can you provide the page number for this, so that it can be cleared up whether Lewis is talking about Arabs or Muslims.

5. This is the primary reason Lewis gives for "Arab were not antisemitic". We should make that clear.

Thus I propose someting like this.

The issues surrounding Arabs and antisemitism implicate the full history of the Arab and Jewish coexistence in the Middle East and North Africa. According to Bernard Lewis, for most of the last 1,400 years, Arabs have not been antisemitic. Lewis notes that Islam, the major religion of the Arabs, was generally compatible with Judaism and did not provide such conflicts as existed in Christian notions including deicide. Nevertheless, the situation of medieval Jewish minorities was far below the standard observed in present-day democracies, and worsened as Muslim power declined.

The first reference is clearly referring to Arabs. The second reference is to a paragraph, which preceded by a reference to racism and Arab antisemitism, and succeeded by the content that references "However, since then Lewis writes that Arab antisemitism has grown..."

Thus the reference works very nicely, connecting the two references specifically to Arab antisemitism. Bless sins 17:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Lack of accusations of cosmic evil should be added to the intro if we are choosing Lewis for the intro. --Aminz 07:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Can you propose a sentence that we can insert in the intro?Bless sins 17:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The consensus version has been fixed to deal with your "issues". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No it hasn't. You haven't responded to a single issue above. By far the most critical point of discussion is that your version has no sources. You have basically retained the sources which I added. But those sources say that which I added here. They do not (and I have verified that) say what you want them to. Even if the above issues didn't hold - the bottom line is that your version is unsourced (and possibly OR).Bless sins 02:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The consensus version, written by Mackan79, comes from Lewis. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I verified the sources, and they don't say what you want them to say. In any case, all you've done is retain my sources and put them on different content. Much of what you're adding can be considered OR, as Lewis certainly doesn't say it in relation Arabs.Bless sins 13:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, he does say that. If you disagree, bring the text in question from Lewis and explain why. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide the full quote of the source you claim to be representing. I have read (almost) half of Lewis' Semites and Anti-Semites, and didn't find what you are arguing.Bless sins 04:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You quote the source you claim to be representing. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Some points

• Why is this removed from the history section and placed down. --Aminz 07:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Re: "Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), current president.... the Nazis may have really killed less than one million Jews. (Jerusalem Post, January 26, 1995)"

We need a secondary source that says this is related to antisemitism. --Aminz 07:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is antisemitic. The Holocaust denial article lists many sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Jayjg, but like you know WP:OR demands sources in relation to the subject of the article. SO if you have any sources about Arabs and antisemitism feel free to insert them.Bless sins 02:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What kind of sources would you mean? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Any reliable source that would implicate Arabs denying the holocaust as antisemitic. Whereas many such sources exist, you may be hard-pressed to find sources that say Abu Mazen, considered a "moderate" figure, is antisemitic.Bless sins 02:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, Holocaust denial is antisemitic, but not if Abbas writes it? Anyway, look here. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Everycase is unique. As regards to the link you provided above: (a) Abbas has clearly retracted his statements, (b) who is the author of that material?Bless sins 02:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So some Holocaust denial isn't antisemitism? Regarding the links above (a) Please be more specific, (b) The Anti-Defamation League. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting (a) from the very link that you provided me. And (b), what makes the ADL such a reliable source on Arabs and antisemitism?Bless sins 05:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(a) I haven't provided a link. Which link do you mean? (b) One of the ADLs main activities for the past hundred years has been monitoring and reporting on antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(a)[2] (b) That is no evidence of a source's reliability. Has the ADL recruited some scholars of antisemitism? If yes, name them.Bless sins 13:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

From the link in question: "When I wrote The Other Side...we were at war with Israel," Abbas said. "Today I would not have made such remarks...". This is essentially a confession of using Holocaust Denial as a weapon.

I've been doing some thinking re sourcing for stuff like the Holocaust, and have 'discovered' something I call the Elvis paradox. People who want to write an extensive section for the Elvis Presley article about Elvis really being alive and in hiding can find any number of sources, some very scholarly and extensively researched, arguing the case; while those who would want to balance that out with the "normal" viewpoint will find a relative paucity of sources, which do not refute the individual arguments of the Elvis is Alive folks point by point. Yet, it's undeniable that most people by a large majority feel Elvis is dead, and in all probability he is. The very universality of that belief leads to the lack of sources with which to support it, Wikipedia style. Similarly for Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, etc.; the fringe elements are, as obsessed fanatics and monomaniacs, quite profuse in their output; while the mainstream belief in the reality of the Holocaust inhibits people from producing a matching body of source material except as a response to the Denial literature and sites, which is less useful for Wikipedia sourcing as it leads to long, point by point, arguments in the articles. And similarly for something like Arabic use of Holocaust Denial as Antisemitism; it's such a transparent case that the most anyone feels like doing is documenting it; scholarly articles analyzing it and coming to the conclusion that yes, it is antisemitic, are going to be as easy to find as scholarly articles analyzing and confirming the death of Elvis. Gzuckier 14:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The ADL are experts on antisemitism, and have been for 100 years. That is their raison d'être. I'm not going to bother commenting on this further, because that would feed trolling. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Re: "On December 17, 2004, The United States followed the lead of the French government, and placed Al-Manar on the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. This measure was aimed at forcing the companies which currently transmit Al-Manar to the United States via satellite to drop the controversial station or face criminal prosecution."

I don't understand what this has to do with antisemitism. Any source connecting this to antisemitism? --Aminz 07:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Al-Manar was banned for antisemitic broadcasts. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is a source that says that, then that's cool. But bieng "terrorist" is not synonymous with bieng "antisemitic".Bless sins 02:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Al-Manar was banned for antisemitic broadcasts. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and above I said "that's cool" (means I'm okay with including such statements). But a statement that simply says Al-Manar/Hizbullah is terrorist is irrelevent to this article.Bless sins 02:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Re: " There are a number of projects working for peace among Israelis and Arabs, and projects which include Jewish-Islamic dialogue."

I feel "recentism" for an article which is supposed to cover 1400 years. Further, I am not sure if an article on the relation of Arabs and antisemitism should contain this information. In any case it needs to be sourced. --Aminz 07:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Re: "Damascus affair" bit. This rings to me linke "Recentism". One incident in one place in 1400 years of history doesn't seem that much relevance to be pointed out in the see-also. More relevant seems to me to be the 12th century forced conversions under Alhamods. I mean the notable incidents. --Aminz 07:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

A famous incident of blood libel 167 years ago cannot be considered "recent". Jayjg ^(talk) 05:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Re:"Israeli victories during the wars of 1956 and 1967." in the intro. While this was a parameter, the general conflict itself was also important. --Aminz 08:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We go with what the sources say. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what this section is about; are you asking questions? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am writing why certain sentences should be either removed or properly sourced. Please answer to them one by one. Thanks. --Aminz 05:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning incidents

Jayjg, I disagree with the general approach used in writing the section Arabs_and_antisemitism#Nineteenth_century. We should find sources giving a general overview of the situtation in 19th century. Picking one incident and starting the section with it should be done only if that incident exemplifies the whole situation in 19th century. Otherwise one can find some good incident and start the section with it. This appraoch, (i.e. finding certain incidents and listing them) is original research.--Aminz 08:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is "Yossef Bodansky", and why is he a reliable source?Bless sins 19:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The most infamous instance of Arab antisemitism in the 19th century is original research? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source saying that it is "the most infamous instance of Arab antisemitism in the 19th century"? --Aminz 05:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you back to trolling again? I won't respond if you are. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Images

This article is missing images. Some pictures should be added to this article.--sefringle^Talk 02:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean this article lacks images. When adding images, just be careful that you don't violate copyright and the images are related to both Arabs and antisemitism.Bless sins 02:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)