Talk:Antisemitism in the Arab world/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

"Also, for the last 1,400 years most Arabs have been Muslims, and all Arab governments have been Muslim." Are you familiar with Lebanon? It has had a Maronite Christian led government for quite a while, although things are quite unstable now. --Shaddyz (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2008 (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)

So I take it that you don't have sources for your version, as you refuse to quote them. Thus your version is illegitimate. Actually, even my version is illegtimate until I quote my sources, which I will do shortly.Bless sins 05:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have access to Lewis as well. I've left you a suggestion on your Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Here it is:

For most of the fourteen hundred years or so of the Arab Jewish encounter, Arabs have not in fact been anti-Semitic...In Islam, the Gospels have no place in education, and Muslim children are not brought up on stories of Jewish deicide. Muhamamad and his companions were not Jews...The Quran was not offered as a fullfillment of Judaism, but as new revelation...Islam, unlike Christianity, did not retain the Old estament, and no clash of interpretations could therefore arise. There is thus no Muslim equivalent to the long and in the teological sense still unresolved dispute between the Church and Israel.

Bless sins 05:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. That's mostly material for the Islam and antisemitism article. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but on Islam and antisemitism you've been reverting every effort made to insert this material. In anycase, on this article, the content is relvent because Lewis is specifically talking about Arabs. Also, this quote substantiates my claims. Since you have not provided a quote to substantiate your claims, I am going to revert back to last version by me.Bless sins 03:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The quote is about Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and deicide. This is not an article about comparative theology; the Judaism and Islam article is. The lead here needs to talk about Arabs and antisemitism. Get back on track. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Lewis says "For most of the fourteen hundred years or so of the ARAB Jewish encounter, ARABS have not in fact been anti-Semitic" (emphasis added). Can you not see the word "Arab(s)" in the previous sentence? Bless sins 12:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That sentence is fine; the rest is a digression. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The rest is Lewis' reasoning as to why Arabs aren't antisemitic. It's highly unencyclopedic for us to declare that Arabs aren't antisemitic because Lewis said so. We should atleast give his reasonign.

Secondly, what you have inserted is not fine. You have not provided any quotes for the material you are adding.Bless sins 17:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

ADDED 9/7/08 This entire article should be removed from WIKIPEDIA. Muslims collectively are not anti-Semitic. It is against Islam to be so. However, when a population is oppressed, they will develop negative feelings against the perceived oppressor. Only when Political Zionism began causing many Arabs in Palestine to be violently displaced from their homes did negativity toward this Jewish Ideology develop. But it is not against Jews for being Jews, rather it is against those Jews who would blaspheme the word of God by being Zionist. Zionism is inherantly racist, so any perception of Anti-Semitism coming from the Islamic world is a backlash against that racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.56.7 (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2008 (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)

Sorry to butt in

but ... (1) does this guy Lewis really have such a unique position on the issue to justify these long citations and prominent position in the introduction? Do we quote him explicitly because we don't fully accept what he says, or for some other reason? If he is basically a neutral summary we should just paraphase him and give him as a citation not make all these unencyclopaedia "according to Lewis" as though we were doing a PhD literature review. If not them where's the other side of the story? If he's so good do we all need to read his book before even commenting? (2) in general when we make a selection like "antisemitism and XYZ" I think we should consider some sort of disclaiming statement saying that it is inevitable that this kind of selection focuses on the issues when it existed and isn't a general summary of relationships between Jews and XYZ. Otherwise this article would be called "Jews and XYZ". This might solve for example the problem of arguing about whether something really existed (which seems to me a bit of a non issue: find me 100,000 people and I'll find one with a pathological hatred of pretty much anything you can mention). --BozMo talk 18:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Bless sins likes Lewis, because Lewis says that for most of the last 1,400 years neither Arabs nor Islam were antisemitic, according to the way Lewis defines antisemitism. So, he likes to try to push as much of that POV into the article, and the lead, as possible. After months of this I finally got tired of it, so I put Lewis other views into the lead as well, which Bless sins had been conveniently omitting. So there you have it. Regarding your second point, that's pretty much what I've been arguing, but Bless sins wants to turn this into History of the Jews under Muslim rule. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

To answer BozMo:

• 1. Lewis is one of the few western scholars who has written extensively on both Muslims and antisemitism, and has a good grasp on both. I don't know why Jayjg insists on quoting him explicitly, but I we shoudl definetly paraphrase him. I agree that we should not make disruptive statements like "according to Lewis", unless we find an equally reliable source that opposes what Lewis says.
• 2. Perhaps we should make such a statement. Do you have any exact statement in mind?Bless sins 18:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Saudi Visas

The tourist/visa info has nothing to do with antisemitism. All it demostrates is that the Saudi Ministry of Tourism has a bad webmaster. Please note that the Saudi government itself declared it erraneous info.Bless sins 00:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Islam

Sefringle: "this isn't the Islam and antisemitism article." Yes, but clearly the two are related and need to be discussed together, or it would be impossible to have separate articles. I can't imagine you're saying Islam isn't relevant here. Mackan79 21:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This article discusses antisemitism among arabs; meaning among arab christians, arab muslims, and other arabs. If we include information about Islam, this article would be no different that Islam and antisemitism, in which case it would make no sense to keep this article. Though there might be a small relationship, this article is not about Islam.--Sefringle^Talk 23:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be different in that it would discuss each of those things, which the other article wouldn't. Clearly we can't make this just an article about the Christians and members of other religions, though, when the vast majority are Muslim. In fact, the article discusses Islam in every section, since it's impossible to discuss antisemitism in the Arab world without discussing the role of Islam. Mackan79 23:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, Lewis clearly says that the reason Arabs were not antisemitic (for the most part), is because they were Muslims. According to Lewis, Islam is a critical factor in Arab antisemitism.Bless sins 13:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

it doesn't belong in this article. Lewis is discussing Islam, not arabs. Last I checked, there were non-muslim arabs, whom Islam comments wouldn't apply to. Otherwise it would make sence to jsut merge this article into Islam and antisemitism, because they are the same topic.--Sefringle^Talk 23:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't, because an article on Islam isn't going to talk about Arab Christians, and an article on Arabs isn't going to talk about Indonesian Muslims. That doesn't mean an article on Arabs won't talk generally about Islam. The other version is also unacceptably one sided, you must be able to see. This doesn't seem like that much balancing material to request. Mackan79 03:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant material doesn't belong in the article. The article really isn't one sided, Bless sins' stuffing "Islam isn't antisemitic" quotes into this article doesn't really balance out this article. It is just irrelevant.--Sefringle^Talk 04:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying the article is one-sided, I said the lead is one sided, which it is. I also have a hard time seeing how you're saying that Islam isn't relevant to the Arab world. Can we please take a more reasonable approach to this? I'm not looking for a biased lead, but one that treats the issue with some basic amount of fairness. Mackan79 04:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The lead is pretty one sided- slanted toward the viewpoint that arabs are not antisemitic. We do not need to throw quotes that say Islam is not antisemitic, especially since this is very disputed, see Islam and antisemitism; much of the article presents a view that Islam actually is antisemitic. It isn't good to insurt quotes that are one sided and partially irrelevant. We also don't need an article that is a copy of the Islam and antisemitism article or one that is mostly a copy. It is probably best to remove Lewis' views from the lead, and put them somewhere else in the article.--Sefringle^Talk 05:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, BlessSins didn't write the line about Musims not having been antisemitic, I wrote that in a proposal that Jay ultimately thought was ok. Unfortunately, I think we've lost a good deal of the context since then. Mackan79 04:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, Islam is basically Lewis' explanation as to why Arabs mostly (not always) have not been antisemitic. It is very unencyclopedic to omit this explanation, and leaves the reader confused. Also, all the material about Islam is in relation ot the topic of Arabs.Bless sins 14:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree completely, and there is plenty of evidence from scholarly sources, some of which are mentioned in the islam and antisemitism article, to make the opposite conclusion. I am only going to revert it one more time, and if you re-add it, I will add some of the information from the Islam and antisemitism article that says how Islam is antisemitic to this article. I think you would probably prefer to keep out the Islam stuff. Not to mention, Islam stuff really isn't that relevant.--Sefringle^Talk 02:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You are free to add info. that says Islam is antisemitic. But make sure that the sources are in relation to the topic of the article (i.e. Arabs and antisemitism). Thus if the source is not about both antisemitism's relationship with Arabs, then don't bother adding it.Bless sins 22:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Not all Arabs are Christians, and Islam and antisemitism is a different article. Please don't add this material again. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes but "most" Arabs are Muslims. And that is exactly what Lewis says. He says Arabs have not been antisemitic for the "most" part. This material is clearly relevent and (if you have read the source) you know that. Please don't remove the material. Thanks.Bless sins 15:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

While I am aware Arab-Christians exist, I do think this article should be merged with Islam and Anti-Semitism, as the vast majority of Arabs are Muslim, and this happens in the wider context of the Islamic world. Many Arab-Christians are merely mimicking their Arab-Muslim brethren.

Ludicrous medieval-modern comparison

• the situation of medieval Jewish minorities under Islamic rule was substandard of modern democracies

Um.... was the situation of ANYBODY under ANY medieval rule up to the standards of modern democracy? I'm removing this sentence as entirely pointless. Eleland 18:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I only put that to appease users who insisted upon "npov"ing the intro by some sort of criticism of Arab Islamic rule.Bless sins 22:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Well, it's up to you, but I don't think such appeasement is wise. It just makes the article look ridiculous IMO. Eleland 01:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What's funny is that Lewis not only says that "the situation of medieval Jewish minorities under Islamic rule was substandard of modern democracies", he also says the treatment of Jews under Islamic rule was better than the treatment under Christan rule. But if I put that in, people would remove it.Bless sins 15:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Why removial of opinions from the lead was a good idea

Although I did not move Lewis' opinion out of the lead originaly, I believe it was a good idea, because it makes the lead neutral. Opinions in this case are probably best left elsewhere in the article, for risk of asserting that one opinion is more true than another.--Sefringle^Talk 06:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Umm, what lead are you talking about? As I see it you stripped the lead of any meaningful information.[3] That just lowers the quality of the article.Bless sins 00:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

How so?--Sefringle^Talk 03:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Lead section, a good article needs a lead. You basically stripped this article of one - a very NPOV one, actually. Thus it lowers the quality. Bless sins 03:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Um no. It wasn't NPOV. It was very POV, giving Lewis' viewpoint undue weight, and the intent is pretty clear in doing so; to push the POV that Antisemitism was rare in the arab world.--Sefringle^Talk 03:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to have even read the lead. Because it said that Arab anstisemitism is "considerably more than in late nineteenth and early twentieth century France". Anyways, you have no reason to decrease the quality of articles by removing their introductions. Bless sins 03:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I did read the lead. I know what it said. Anyways, it belongs elsewhere in the article, and you still haven't explained how it decreases teh quality of the article. Maybe we should add this issue to the mediation as well.--Sefringle^Talk 04:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"Anyways, it [lead] belongs elsewhere in the article." No. A lead - by definition - belongs at the top of an article. Besides, why are you giving Bernard Lewis a section of his own? It doesn't make sense.

An article without a lead is of lower quality than an article with one. Do you disagree?Bless sins 21:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You missed the point again. I said the opinions in the lead belong elsewhere. There is nothing wrong with a short lead. I know what a lead is. why are you giving Bernard Lewis a section of his own? It doesn't make sense. It makes just as much sense as having his opinion being the only opinion in the lead.

An article without a lead is of lower quality than an article with one. Do you disagree? No, but that says nothing about a lead being NPOV or about the length of the lead. Now can you answer my origional question, which is why Lewis' opinion belongs in the lead? Isn't that giving him undue weight?--Sefringle^Talk 22:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Firstly, Lewis is by far the most scholarly source in this article. He is the only source that can claim to be a scholar of both Middle East culture and antisemitism. No other scholar (currently sourced) specializes in both topics. Secondly, he provides a general opinion that spans that summarizes the last 1,400 years of history. He also gives adequate space to modern times, which where the Arabs and antisemitism controversy arises.Bless sins 15:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question.--Sefringle^Talk 03:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought your question was "why Lewis' opinion belongs in the lead"? I have answered that. Is there a question that I haven't answered?Bless sins 23:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, my question was why Lewis' opinion belongs in the lead? Isn't that giving him undue weight? both of which you haven't answered.--Sefringle^Talk 17:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll make it clear:

• Question: "why Lewis' opinion belongs in the lead"?
• Answer: Firstly, Lewis is by far the most scholarly source in this article. He is the only source that can claim to be a scholar of both Middle East culture and antisemitism. No other scholar (currently sourced) specializes in both topics. Secondly, he provides a general opinion that spans that summarizes the last 1,400 years of history. He also gives adequate space to modern times, which where the Arabs and antisemitism controversy arises.

He provides one opinion, and it can clearly be presented in its own section. Why does it need to go in the lead, and not some other section of the article. You haven't answered that. And no, he is not the only scholar who has an opinion on Arab antisemitism.--Sefringle^Talk 19:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Question: "Isn't that giving him undue weight"?
• Answer: No. If there is any other scholar (who is a reliable source both on antisemitism and Arab history) and has some sort of an opinion regarding Arab antisemitism during the span of 1,400 years, we will add him/her to the lead as well. But in the absence of such options, we use the best of what we have, hoping someone will eventually find other sources.Bless sins 19:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It is giving him undue weight, because you are placing his opinion in the top of the article, giving his opinion more weight than the other opinions. It doesn't make sense to have a lead full of conflicting opinions which are to be edit warred over which one to present first. It is better to give opinions their own section out of the lead and have an neutral lead.--Sefringle^Talk 19:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"more weight than the other opinions". What "other opinions"? Is there any opinion that summarizes Arab antisemitism for the past 1,400 years? And for the last time, your edits strip this article of any meaningful lead!Bless sins 21:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please respond to what I actually wrote rather than reiterating the same statement again and again. As for what you did write, what other opinions? The opinions you conveinently overlooked because you disagreed with, and decided not to include. I am sure that people other than Lewis have an opinioin on Arabs and antisemitism, and you know such opinions exist as well as I do.--Sefringle^Talk 02:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Can you please be more specific. Simply saying "such opinions exist" is not good enough. Please present them.Bless sins 07:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you respond to my other comment first.--Sefringle^Talk 02:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, I'm getting tired of your games. What exactly are your objections? List all of them below and number them. Every time I respond to one objection you start talking about some "other" objection.Bless sins 02:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Here. They are numbered now. Happy?

1. Lewis provides one opinion, and it can clearly be presented in its own section. Why does it need to go in the lead, and not some other section of the article? You haven't answered that.
2. Lewis is not the only scholar who has an opinion on Arab antisemitism
3. Earlier, I said It is better to give opinions their own section out of the lead and have an neutral lead Do you object to this?
4. Lewis never says Arabs were not antisemitic " because Islam, the major religion of the Arabs, was generally compatible with Judaism and did not foster theological conflicts that would result in antisemitism" In fact he never says islam is a reason. He says stories of Jewish decide, the main cause of Christian antisemitism, were uncommon in the Arab world. No mention of Islam, so that is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

--Sefringle^Talk 02:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very happy, and so is every other reader who appreciates structure and clarity.

1. Lewis is by far the most scholarly source in this article. He is the only source that can claim to be a scholar of both Middle East culture and antisemitism. No other scholar (currently sourced) specializes in both topics. Secondly, he provides a general opinion that spans that summarizes the last 1,400 years of history. He also gives adequate space to modern times, which where the Arabs and antisemitism controversy arises.

2. Are there any scholars who satisfy all of the following: are scholarly source on Arabs, are a scholarly source on antisemitism, and give an overview of antisemitism throughout the past 1,400 years? If yes, include them, is there anyone who stopped you?

3. The lead must contain someone's statements (since every statement must be sourced to someone). I agree that we should have a neutral lead (like we do when I revert).

4. Ofcourse he says Islam is the reason! He says "In Islam, the Gospels have no place in education, and muslim children are not brought up on stories of Jewish deicide." (emphasis added)Bless sins 20:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

1. You stated that already, but haven't stated why it belongs in the lead.
2. I'm sure there are, but I am also sure you avoided them for one reason or another.
3. No, you make the lead POV when you revert by taking Lewis' comments out of context.
4. No, not on the two pages mentioned as the source he doesn't. He doesn't say "Islam, the major religion of the Arabs, was generally compatible with Judaism," and you haven't provided the quote where he says that. He states they weren't brought up with stories of decide, but never states that Islam "did not foster theological conflicts that would result in antisemitism"; in fact, he implies just the opposite, stating that it is ubsurd to say Arabs cannot be antisemitic.--Sefringle^Talk 08:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

1. How many do I need to repeat myself? He belongs in the lead because he is by far the most scholarly, and his statement summarizes the subject.

2. If there are, then give me their names.

3. What do you mean by "POV"?

4. "Islam, the major religion of the Arabs, was generally compatible with Judaism". He implies that Islam was a major religion of the Arabs (and you know that is true). this is why the statement is placed in a section titled "Muslims and Jews". He also says that it was compatible with Judaism:

• "Islam, unlike Christianity, did not retain the Old testament, no clash of interpretations could therefore arise."
• "The clash of Judaism and Islam was resolved and ended with his victory".

As for "did not foster theological conflicts that would result in antisemitism":

• "There is thus no Muslim equivalent to the long and in the theological sense still unresolved conflict between the Church and Israel."Bless sins 02:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

1. But why does anyone belong in the lead. That you haven't answered.

3. He has an opinion, and you are taking him out of context with your misinterpritations. He provides a fair interpritation in those pages; but you wrote his opinion in the most POV form, taking him out of context, and stating that he says something he never says, thus making it more POV.

4. Do the first two quotes say "Islam was compatable with judaism"? No! It says there was no decide, and that Muhammad resolved the disputes with the Jews he was fighting by beating them. I don't know how you could possibly have interprited that as "Islam was compatable with judaism." The third quote compares the relationship between the Chruch and Israel; no mention of antisemitism here, and the "did not foster theological conflicts that would result in antisemitism" is quite a strech.--Sefringle^Talk 02:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

1. The lead must have some words and sentences in it, no? Those sentences should be sourced to some scholar(s), no? Thus that scholars opinions will be in the lead.

2. Because you didn't respond, I assume you don't know any.

3. I'm addressing that in the next point.

4. The first quote says "no clash of interpretations could therefore arise". This is very similar to saying "Islam is compatible with Judaism". We can replace it with "there is no clash between Islam and Judaism" as a compromise.

The third quote says that there is no unresolved theological conflict between Muslims religious institutions and Israel (meaning Jews).Bless sins 03:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes to the first sentence, No to the others. The sentences can be sourced to a scholar, but don't half to be, and an opinion doesn't have to be presented.

4. This is very similar to saying "Islam is compatible with Judaism". How so? It isn't similar at all; you are making things up again. Why don't we present exactly what Lewis says, which is what I included; Arabs were not Christians and thus didn't believe in stories of Jewish deicide. That is what he really said, none of this islam garbage you are claiming he said, which is a clear strech of the truth. The third quote says that there is no unresolved theological conflict between Muslims religious institutions and Israel No, it says there is no Muslim equivalent. It doesn't say there is "no unresolved theological conflict". --Sefringle^Talk 03:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Sefringle a sentence (esp. one in the lead) has to present an idea relevant to Arabs and antisemitism. Every idea must be sourced. Read WP:V and WP:NOR if you don't agree.

4. He doesn't say "Arabs were not Christians and thus didn't believe in stories of Jewish deicide", although he implies that. He says "In Islam, the Gospels have no place in education, and Muslim children are not brought up on stories of Jewish deicide." Lewis specifically says "Islam". In the same paragraph he also talks about the "Qur'an" (the scriptures of Islam) and "Muhammad" (the founder of Islam).Bless sins 01:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

1. yes, but why does that sentence have to be a perspective?

4. Lewis does not enthesize Islam though, and never says arabs were antisemitic because of Islam. I think we are best paraphraising exactly what he says without interpriting what we think he means. We start interpriting, as you have attempted to do, we get into the rhelm of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.--Sefringle^Talk 01:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Every idea is a perspective of someone. Many ideas are perspectives of a wide and respected group of scholars. Other ideas are not. Besides I never said we should have a "perspective" in the lead, I said we should have a meaningful idea in the lead. "This article is about Arabs and antisemitism" is not a meaningful idea.

4. He does emphasize Islam. Almost every sentence after the statement "Arabs were not antisemitic" has to do with Islam. This is what I propose:

According to Bernard Lewis, for most of the last 1,400 years, Arabs have not been antisemitic, because Islam, the major religion of the Arabs, neither felt threatened by the survival of Judaism and nor did it foster unresolved theological conflicts with the Jews.

Sefringle, the reason I'm summarizing is because I want to keep Lewis' statements brief. If you absolutely insist on quoting him then it would triple the size of the space given to Lewis. Ask yourself, do you really want that? Bless sins 14:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Please explain further what you mean by "meaningful idea".

4. The releavant paragraph of what Lewis says reads as follows [4]:

For most of the fourteen hundred years or so of the Arab Jewish encounter, the Arabs had not in fact been antisemitic as the word is used in the west-not because they were semites, a meaningless statement, but because for the most part they are not Christians.In Islam, Gospels have no place in education, and Muslim children are not brought up in stories of Jewish decide. Indeed, the very notion of decide is rejected by the qur'an as a blasphemous absurdity. Like the founder of Christianity, the founder of Islam had his encounter with the Jews, but both the circumstances and the outcome were very different. Muhammad and his companions were not Jews, and did not live and preach their message in a Jewish society. the Jews whom they knew were the three Jewish tribes of Medina, a religous minority in the predominantly pagen Arabian community. The muslims did not concive or present themselves as the new and true Israel; they did not therefore feel threatened or impunged by the obstinate survival of the Old Israel. The qur'an was not offered as a fufillment of Judaism, but as a new revelation, superseding both the Jewish and Christian scriptures, which had been neglected or distorted by their unworthy custodians. Islam, unlkie Christianity, did not retain the Old Testament, and no clash of interpritations could therefore arise.

Please show me where he says "Arabs have not been antisemitic, because Islam, the major religion of the Arabs, neither felt threatened by the survival of Judaism and nor did it foster unresolved theological conflicts with the Jews." I'm not asking you to quote in full, I am asking you to paraphraise his words without interpritations of what you think he means. Sefringle^Talk 01:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I'll teach by example. Meaningful ideas:

• Arabs are not, for the most part, antisemitic because their religious beliefs are compatible with Judaism.
• Arab culture seems to have antisemitic characteristics since it promotes antisemitic myths.
• Antisemitism in the Arab world has roots in Islam.

Ideas that are not meaningful, and are pretty obvious:

• This article is about antisemitism in the Arab world. (no duh!)
• Arab antisemitism encompasses Arab interactions with Jews. (it's obvious you need both Arab and Jews for this phenomenon to occur)

4. Gladly.

• Arabs have not been antisemitic
  • "Arabs had not in fact been antisemitic"
• because Islam, the major religion of the Arabs
  • "because for the most part they are not Christians. In Islam ..."
• neither felt threatened by the survival of Judaism
  • "The Muslims ... did not therefore feel threatened or impunged by the obstinate survival of the Old Israel."
• nor did it foster unresolved theological conflicts with the Jews
  • "There is thus no Muslim equivalent to the long, and in the theological sense still unresolved dispute between the Church and Israel."Bless sins 21:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

1. OK, you made your point, but explain how your "meaningful idea" is different from a perspective. 4. OK, now it is clear where the misinterpritations came from.

• Point 1: You say: "Arabs had not in fact been antisemitic"
  • He says "Arabs had not in fact been antisemitic as the word is used in the west"
    • In other words, there were occasions when arabs might have been antisemitic, just not the same way as in the west. Not all antisemitism is the same after all.

• Point 2: You say: "because Islam, the major religion of the Arabs
  • He says: "but because for the most part they are not Christians.In Islam, Gospels have no place in education, and Muslim children are not brought up in stories of Jewish decide."
    • Thus he is arguing that Arabs were not antisemitic as they were in the Christian world not because Islam is not antisemitic, but because Islam is not christianity, and Muslim children are not brought up in stories of Jewish decide, where stories of decide were the cause of christian antisemitism.

• point 3: You say: "neither felt threatened by the survival of Judaism
  • He says: "The muslims did not concive or present themselves as the new and true Israel; they did not therefore feel threatened or impunged by the obstinate survival of the Old Israel. The qur'an was not offered as a fufillment of Judaism, but as a new revelation, superseding both the Jewish and Christian scriptures, which had been neglected or distorted by their unworthy custodians"
    • Thus the muslims didn't present themselves as a fufillment of Judiasm, but rather a replacement, which was neglected or distorted by the past unworthy custodians.

Yahel Guhan 00:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

section break

• Yahel Guhan, I can propose a solution which fully quotes Lewis. This will make Lewis's part in the LEAD twice as long, and all of that will be regarding Islam. Here is what it'll look like:

For most of the past fourteen hundred years, Arabs have not, in fact, been antisemitic as the word is used in the west. This is because, for the most part, Arabs are not Christians brought up in stories of Jewish deicide. In Islam, such stories are rejected by the Qur'an as a blasphemous absurdity. Since Muslims do not consider themselves as the "true Israel", they do not feel threatened by the survival of Jews. Because Islam did not retain the Old Testament, no clash of interpretations between the two faiths can therefore arise. There is no Muslim theological dispute between their religious institutions and the Jews.

Now you can accept the above, or accept my summarized version. It's up to you.Bless sins 03:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

sure. I'll except accept this writing. Just need to make sure it isn't a copyvio. The next issue is whether it belongs in the lead at all. If it is too long, the answer is no. The lead should summarize all information presented in the article, not just one view. Yahel Guhan 18:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

By "except" do you mean "accept"? Otherwise I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Remember that you are the one who wants such a long piece. I have a proposed a much shorter summary (on my edit on 14:54, 17 September 2007), but you rejected it...And now you are complaining that this is too long??Bless sins 18:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I am "complaining" that it doesn't belong in the lead, because it is one opinion, and does not adequately summarize the entire article. It summarizes one section. Yahel Guhan 18:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure it does. In conjunction with the following, it summarizes the topic of Arabs and antisemitism.

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. By the 1980s, Lewis continues, the volume of antisemitic literature published, and the authority of its sponsors, seemed to suggest classical antisemitism to be an essential part of Arab intellectual life.

What part of the article is not included in the summary?Bless sins 20:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The parts about Hizbullah, the newspapers, the 19th centruy, and the status of muslims in the medieval middle east are not represented within this proposed lead. Yahel Guhan 21:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The newspapers and Hizbullah media are included in "antisemitic literature published". The 19 century is included in where the antisemitic influence came from. What is "midevil"? Do you mean "medieval", that is included in the past 1,400 years. Anyways, if the lead is incomplete then we can simply add more to it.Bless sins 03:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The medieval section isn't represented by the "past 1400 years" sentence, as that mentions nothing about the actual antisemitic events that took place. the newspapers and Hizbullah are examples of Arab antisemitic literature, and besides, that section is a large section, and deserves more weight than what is given.--Yahel Guhan 03:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It is already given enough weight. That you chose to give Islam-related stuff more weight is not mine or anybody else's fault. Given that you have no objection to what I have proposed, I'm going to request the unprotection of the article. If you object, here is your chance.Bless sins 03:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

prehaps you misunderstood me. What I am saying is we should give weight in the lead proportinate to the size of that content in the article. The lead shouldn't give the largest sections of the article only one sentence, when the smallest sections are just as long. Yahel Guhan 04:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? Didn't you just approve the lead I stated above (18:01, 7 October 2007). I hope you are not turning back on your word so soon.Bless sins 04:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify what I said. I said I'll accept the proposed writing for the Lewis' opinion section. I never said it was appropiate for the lead. Yahel Guhan 04:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

<reset>How many times do we need to go over this? Lewis belongs in the lead because he is by far the most scholarly, and his statement summarizes the subject. You are free to add other statements that summarize the article, if they indeed summarize it. But please don't censor Lewis.Bless sins 04:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Putting him slightly lower is not censorship. His view is still within the text of this article, just slightly lower. A lead summarizes all sections, and doesn't introduce new ideas. Putting Lewis in the lead is introducing new ideas in the lead which are not discussed anywhere else in the article. Yahel Guhan 23:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Lewis' views summarize 1,400 years of history! Thus they cover everything in this article, from the 7th century Arabian peninsula to modern day Arab world. No other view is as comprehensive as Lewis'. If you find other views as comprehensive as Lewis' feel free to add them in the lead.Bless sins 03:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You alreadly said that.[5] Can you respond to what I actually wrote? And to clarify what I said, I said the article should summarize all information presented within the article (i.e. history, views, events, etc.) giving proportional weight based on the length of that section in this article. Yahel Guhan 03:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the lead should present a summary of information. When have I stopped you from doing that? As far as editing goes, you have deleted the lead, while I have added it. At least I attempted to give this article a lead, while you have made no such attempt.

Regarding proportionality, the weight should be given on the basis of notability. It may be that some sections in the article itself is giving somethings undue weight, and thus we are not at all obliged to repeat NPOV violations.Bless sins 05:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

To interject, I don't think direct quotes or theories belong in the lead of an article. But I think the lead is a good place for summaries. All the research in this article points to limited incidents of Arab antisemitism until the 20th (or maybe 19th) century. I think that's the kind of thing that belongs in the lead. 67.71.1.93 21:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, I have "deleted" your lead because it does not address any of my concerns. It is one opinion not presented anywhere else in the article. A summary should include sources presented elsewhere within the article, and written proportionately giving weight based on the size of the section. No new information should be presented within the lead (i.e. Lewis' quote) that isn't discussed elsewhere within the article. Yahel Guhan 04:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Lewis' opinion covers the last 1,400 years of Arab history, with reference to 1986 (the year his book was published). are you saying that there is no information in the article about events that occurred between 586-1986?

Again a summary should only give weight in proportion to the size of sections to a perfect article, that is neutral. This article isn't neutral, and thus doesn't justify anything. You can't point at a bad example and seek to emulate it. It doesn't make sense. You yourself have stated that there is nothing wrong with the lead I proposed. Your only objection is it is insufficient. That can be changed when the article is unprotected.Bless sins 02:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Lewis' opinion does not summarize 1400 years of Arab history. It provides an opinion on those years. Do you understand the difference, or do I need to explain every minor detial to you? A summary would be a brief list of the events. An opinion is whether or not there was antisemitism during those years. Besides, his opinion covers nothing about arab antisemitism 1986-present. You yourself have stated that there is nothing wrong with the lead I proposed No, I stated there is nothing wrong with the replacement for what Lewis' said that you proposed. I never said it belongs in the lead. Since the article is protected, rather than saying this will be fixed when the page is being protected, why don't you propose a lead that summarizes all sections, or explain in detial what you intend to do, rather than one which presents new views discussed nowhere else in the article. It is better if we just start that discussion now, rather than edit war over it later. Yahel Guhan 02:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Providing a brief list would make the lead huge! Not only would Lewis have to list all the antisemitic incidents, he would also have to mention all the times when there was no antisemitism. It is true while his opinion covers 1,400 years of history it doesn't cover 21 years of history. Which means his opinion covers (1,400/1,421 =) 98.5% of history. Yahel Guhan the lead doesn't need to give 100% coverage, 98.5% is enough! Also it you who needs to propose additions to the lead I already proposed, since you are the one saying that the current lead is not enough.Bless sins 03:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, guess we need to take baby steps. Lewis is quoted nowhere else in the article other than the lead. Therefore new information is presented in the lead which isn't discussed elsewhere in the article. Second, a brief summary wouldn't be huge. By brief, I mean one or two sentences mentioning the events that occured (and maybe when depending on the size). No opinions- just historical events and facts, and no detials about any of the events. The article shouldn't enthesize periods of no natisemitism anyway. As for your ratio, you did it incorrectly. Since most of the antisemitic events occured within the last 200 years, and most of this article focuses on the most recent 200 years, the lead should also focus most of its attention on the most recent 200 years. It is called being proportionate to the size of the article. While Lewis may offer an opinion about a large percentage of history, his opinion does not cover more than 20% of the content presented within this article. That is a problem when writing a lead. Do you understand the difference? Is this clear, or do I need to go into more detials? I will see about writing a lead that fits my standards later when I have more time. Yahel Guhan 03:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If you find really notable events, I guess you could quote them. Which events do you have in mind? I am going to propose a lead below. Feel free to add whatever you want to it. Also, I think you are forgetting that an article about Arabs and antisemitism can support the antisemitism theory, as well as oppose it. Consider Allegations of Israeli apartheid.Bless sins 00:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed lead (Bless sins)

For most of the past fourteen hundred years, Arabs have not, in fact, been antisemitic as the word is used in the west. This is because, for the most part, Arabs are not Christians brought up in stories of Jewish deicide. In Islam, such stories are rejected by the Qur'an as a blasphemous absurdity. Since Muslims do not consider themselves as the "true Israel", they do not feel threatened by the survival of Jews. Because Islam did not retain the Old Testament, no clash of interpretations between the two faiths can therefore arise. There is no Muslim theological dispute between their religious institutions and the Jews.

Antisemitism in the Arab world increased greatly in modern times, due to many reasons: the breakdown of the Ottoman Empire and traditional Islamic society; European influence, brought about by Western imperialism and Christian Arabs; and the rise of Arab nationalism. In addition, there was resentment of disproportionate influence Jews had gained under colonialism, and of the Zionist movement.

While there were antisemitic incidents in the early twentieth century, antisemitism has certainly been heightened by the Arab-Israeli conflict. After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the Palestinian exodus, the creation of the state of Israel. The Israeli victories during the wars of 1956 and 1967 served a severe shock to the Arabs. The readiness of Arab regimes to scapegoat Jews for political purposes deteriorated the situation of the Jews and almost all emigrated (some voluntarily, others under threat). By the 1980s, the volume of antisemitic literature published in the Arab world, and the authority of its sponsors, seemed to suggest classical antisemitism to be an essential part of Arab intellectual life, considerably more than in late nineteenth and early twentieth century France, and almost as much in Nazi Germany.

Proposed lead (Yahel Guhan)

For most of the past fourteen hundred years, Arabs have not, in fact, been antisemitic as the word is used in the west. This is because, for the most part, Arabs are not Christians brought up in stories of Jewish deicide. In Islam, such stories are rejected by the Qur'an as a blasphemous absurdity. Since Muslims do not consider themselves as the "true Israel", they do not feel threatened by the survival of Jews. Because Islam did not retain the Old Testament, no clash of interpretations between the two faiths can therefore arise. There is no Muslim theological dispute between their religious institutions and the Jews.

Antisemitism in the Arab world has greatly increased in modern times. Nineteenth century European influence, brought about by imperialism and Christian Arabs; and Israeli victories during the wars of 1956 and 1967. By the 1980s, Lewis continues, the volume of antisemitic literature published, and the authority of its sponsors, seemed to suggest classical antisemitism to be an essential part of Arab intellectual life, considerably more than in late nineteenth and early twentieth century France, and almost as much in Nazi Germany.

Modern antisemitism has certainly been heightened by the Arab-Israeli conflict, there were an increasing number of pogroms against Jews prior to the foundation of Israel, including Nazi-inspired pogroms in Algeria in the 1930s, and attacks on the Jews in Iraq and Libya in the 1940s (see Farhud). George Gruen attributes the increased animosity towards Jews in the Arab world to several factors including: The breakdown of the Ottoman Empire and traditional Islamic society; domination by Western colonial powers under which Jews gained a disproportionately large role in the commercial, professional, and administrative life of the region; the rise of Arab nationalism, whose proponents sought the wealth and positions of local Jews through government channels; resentment over Jewish nationalism and the Zionist movement; and the readiness of unpopular regimes to scapegoat local Jews for political purposes.

After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the Palestinian exodus, the creation of the state of Israel, and the independence of Arab countries from European control, conditions for Jews in the Arab world deteriorated. Over the next few decades, almost all would flee the Arab world, some willingly, and some under threat (see Jewish exodus from Arab lands). In 1945 there were between 758,000 and 866,000 Jews (see table below) living in communities throughout the Arab world. Today, there are fewer than 8,000. In some Arab states, such as Libya (which was once around 3% Jewish), the Jewish community no longer exists; in other Arab countries, only a few hundred Jews remain.

discussion

I took two paragraphs straight out from this article that I think summarize modern antisemitism, as well as restored Lewis' other view. Yahel Guhan 01:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to include Lewis' other view. I'm so stupid. I'm the one who wrote it, and I'm the one who was pushing for it. The other two paragraphs seem to repeating stuff, but other than that they seem to be fine. Of course we need references of solid reliability that explicitly say this and clearly connect this to Arabs and antisemitism. (I'm only saying this because its the lead, lower below we can be much more flexible).Bless sins 01:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that our article is about 23,000 characters, we should have a lead that is two or three (maximum) paragraphs long.Bless sins 01:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Usage section

The section is about the etymology and usage of the terms antisemitism. This topic is already covered in the main article. There is no reason of duplicate it in various articles about antisemitism. This is not paper book, and the definition/usage is easily reachable via a wikilink by a simple mouse click. Wikipedia is against forking the content because is is maintenance problem to keep texts consistent. I deleted it. If someone restores is, please state your reason. Mukadderat 16:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree.--Sefringle^Talk 04:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

Please discuss your concerns, and request unprotection when you are ready. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, no discussion for a month... that's a bit depressing, especially for an article as obviously controversial as this one. Perhaps the edit-warriors just aren't interested any more. Might it be time to try removing the page protection, and see what happens? Terraxos 01:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputes havent been resolved quite yet. by the way, there was duscussion just two days ago. Check the talk page history. Yahel Guhan 03:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel the dispute has been resolved, yet Yahel Guhan is prolonging it for some reason. Guhan has accepted the factual accuracy of my version (proposed 03:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)), but feels that it doesn't summarize every section appropriately. He is free to add more to the lead after the article is unprotected, and we'll take it from there.Bless sins 05:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how either of the proposed version is acceptable.

• Mr Lewis should not be given quasi-authoritative status by putting him in the lead or above the various sub-sections. And especially not without mentioning him. PS: while it is true that we want no lenghty quote, it doesn't help at all if his text is merely copied into the article without indicating that it is largely a quote.
• "anti-semitism as understood in the west" is not good as this does not tell us what that is supposed to mean. Is that wording taken from Lewis? What is his definition? Throughout WP a-s is used to refer to enmity/hatred towards Jews in general - though I dislike that broad usage, we have to make sure that all WP articles either use the same standard or offer clear definitions beforehand.
• the reason given next is nonsensical: "This is because, for the most part, Arabs are not Christians brought up in stories of Jewish deicide. In Islam, such stories are rejected by the Qur'an as a blasphemous absurdity." - it basically says Arabs were not anti-semites because they are (wrong tense) not Christians which is taken up later when it says that anti-semitism was introduced by Arab Christians. The "deicide" thing is nonsense because a) Muslims do not believe Jesus to be divine, b) do not believe him to have been killed, c) do not believe "deicide" to be possible (but actually Christians share the latter thought mutatis mutandis). That does not mean that Muslims never accused the Jews of having opposed prophets including Jesus. Ah, and "stories" is a no-no.
• Other things are misleading: Muslims "do not consider themselves the true Israel" but they consider the patriarchs, prophets and other great figures to be muslims, which amounts to the same thing. Contrary to the article's claim, there are a great many theological disagreements between Jews and Muslims.
• And the theological issue brings back again the question of how a-s is defined. IMHO there has been enmity on religious grounds towards Jews. Not on "racial" grounds, which was anyway a novelty of the 19th century even in Europe. Note that "theological disagreement" does not equal "anti-semitism" (though it is sometimes misused that way) and "anti-semitism" does not equal "acts of violence", i.e. someone could be a jew-hater without committing violence for whatever reason. This article should be concerned with "anti-semitism" and not restrict itself to violence.
• This article, titled "Arabs and antisemitism" should concern itself with that and not "shift blame" by highlightin an alleged foreign influence or draw comparisons à la "the Jews had it much better among the Arabs than in the west" - this is not what this article is about. BTW, what is "imperialism" and its impact on a-s among the arabs supposed to mean?

Str1977 ^(talk) 20:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Much of your argument is not against me or my proposal but simply against Bernard Lewis, and that Lewis' writings are "nonsense". I suggest you read the actual discussion between Yahel and me, since you will find that your objections will be answered there.Bless sins (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There hasn't been any discussion for about a month. Perhaps the article should be unprotected.Bless sins (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

not yet. You still havent mentioned exactly what changes you plan to make once unprotected, which are almost guranteed to start another edit war. Yahel Guhan 04:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have. Please see my comments above.Talk:Arabs_and_antisemitism#Proposed_lead_.28Bless_sins.29Bless sins (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, you said you also plan to make some "additional additions." What are they? Yahel Guhan 05:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose to make additions that I have specified in the link above.Bless sins (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Image to be added

When this article is unlocked people might like to add this image

File:PoteozAmman.jpg

Antisemitic books on sale, Amman, Jordan in 2006. Middle row left is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Photo credit: Nir Nussbaum

This is a nice image and is free for us to use, and would liven up this poor image-less article. Lobojo (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Where's the source that says this is an example of antisemitism?Bless sins (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The image will be included, once the page gets unprotected. It is pretty obvious that the image is antisemitic. Yahel Guhan 05:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

So you admit there are no sources?Bless sins (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say the Protocols are antisemtic and some of the others aree too. Lobojo (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I see nowhere it says "Protocols of Elders of Zion". Secondly, I need a source to say that else books are on sale in Ammam, the capital of Jordon. For all I know the photographer could've put these books up in his/her own backyard and took a snapshot.Bless sins (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

While my arabic is very basic, I can read the words and the book in the centre row on the left (the blue one) is the protocols. Soemthing like "Birwatwakwalat hakhma'a Tzaywan", compare with the arabic article on the protocols. Lobojo (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You are using an Arabic wikipedia as a source? Secondly, you didn't respond, how do I know that this image was taken in Ammam? There's apparently no source saying that.Bless sins (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not using Arabic wikipedia as a source, apparently nobody else here can understand even rudimentary arabic, and I provided the link for them, though surely (as a native arabic script reader) you didn't need this proven to you. The source is a freelance photographer who has kindly licenced this image for use on wikipedia, and we have no need to doubt him at all. it is a simple fact (that anyone who has ever been to Jordan will honestly confirm) that such books are commonplace. Lobojo (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I haven't been to Jordan, so I need a reliable source to say this. And yes, it is normal on an English wikipedia to expect people of not speaking Arabic. I can read the Arabic script - but that's all. I can also read French script, as well as other scripts related to English script, that doesn't mean I can read in those languages.Bless sins (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The person who made the image says that it was taken in Amman. If you want to can put "claimed to" in the caption, but there is no reason to asume this is false.Lobojo (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to assume truth either. We don't even know who the person is, and what their credentials are. Can you provide this? BTW, how do you know what the person has said? Do you know this person personally?Bless sins (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is trollish wikilawyering. The image is merely an illstrative device, for the indisputable fact that sucj matetial is availablbe widely in Jordan. Please don't continue with this trolling. Lobojo (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll play devil's advocate.. Can you prove how many Jordanians buy these books? I think that would be much more valid to include. Moreover, aren't these books purchasable in the Western World also? Just as an example, even after a massive Cold War, the Communist Manifesto is still readily sold here in America. It's not like these antisemitic works are entirely out of print in the West, otherwise they wouldn't be printing in the Middle East, either. This appears to be a synthesis of original research; you cannot post a bunch of things, even if they are cited, in order to advance a different position. The only thing this image proves is that anti-semitic books are purchasable in Jordan. It does not prove how well they sell; moreover, it reflects much more badly upon the Jordanian government than it does on Jordanian Arabs themselves; Jordan, after all, isn't a beacon for Freedom of the Press. It does not prove that antisemitism is rampant in the Middle East. It's an image; and people are making suggestions as to what it could potentially mean about Arabs in general (which, in itself, appears to be a stereotype). That sure does sound like OR. Let the facts speak for themselves. I could just as easily go to Norway and take a snapshot of some neo-nazis (who are politically active across Europe); that doesn't necessarily mean their behavior represents the majority. There are much better pictures one could find, anyway. Anti-Jewish protests (NOT to be confused with Anti-Zionist) for example, would be a good place to start, since they aren't all that uncommon. -Rosywounds (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Demanding reliable sources is not wikilawyering. If you don't provide reliable sources, then one is forced to assume that this is simply your original research.Bless sins (talk) 07:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again: is there a reliable source?Bless sins (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did users upload an image without being able to read what is said? Whoever provided the image does not read Arabic or means to cause confusion. The vast majority of these books have absolutely nothing to do with antisemitism or Judaism. There is one book Protocols of Elders of Zion, which is sold in the west, as I have only come to know it from western friends. Another book is called Fall of Israel, but it should not be assumed that this book is against Judaism or antisemitic, because if it were, then many Jewish scholars are antisemitic like Norm Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky. There is even a book about racism!! (middle to the left), But I dont see the photo description mentioning that. This proves that these books are a whole variety. The book with Natanyahu on the cover is called A place between nations, another book is called War for Peace and Shimon Perez: The new Middle East. These relate to leaders and are in no way whatsoever anti-anything. The book in the middle to the write is about Clinton. The rest of the books are about specific areas of study, a biography of an Arab politician, an interpretation of the Qur'an, and some other insignificant stuff.

You guys uploaded without being able to read? There is a book about racism in there (middle left). other books are biographies, arab, israeli, and american. One book is against an arab politician. is it antiarab? this proves these books are widely varied. the protocals of zion is actually translated from english, and is sold in america. american markets are antisemitic? (67.171.224.169 (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

Not necessarily. Sometimes non-Muslims read the Koran because they want to understand Islam. People may read antisemitic literature in order to understand it, but not because they are antisemitic themselves.--69.234.207.252 (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are further proving/clearing my point. This is not evidence of antisemitism. If it does in fact equal antisemitism, then there are a whole lot of antisemites out there that we never thought of. (67.171.224.169 (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

I demanded that a user show a source for this back on 9 January 2008. I also asked for a reliable on 26 January and 16 February 2008. Now again I ask for a reliable source on the image. Clearly the Arabic in the image is under dispute. 67.171.224.169 found that the books are not antisemitic. I see no evidence that these books are in Jordan, rather I suspect they could be in someone's backyard. (Even if there was an Ammam skyline in the background someone can easily Photoshop it). thus we need reliable sources.Bless sins (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Um no. An image of the Amman skyline does not need a reference. In fact there is no source for any of the images in that article (if it was sourcable, it probably woundn't be a free image). But to prove this kind of stuff occurs: [6] Show me a source that says Image:Top of Rock Cropped.jpg is an image of New York City. There isn't one, but we all know it is New York, and even without a source for that image, it didn't stop the article from becomming a FA. Yahel Guhan 04:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

err... This image is about New York? I thought it was about Amman? If it is about Amman then don't bring New York in it. Also, if there's no source for the above image, then I can easily claim that the above is an image of "books saying nice things about Jews at a bookstall in Amman".Bless sins (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we aren't reaching a consensus here, I'm iniciating an RFC.

RFC

This RfC is regarding whether to include the above image, and then the caption to be placed under the image. I insist that we use a reliable source for the caption, else I propose "Books endorsing tolerance of Jews at a bookstall in Amman".Bless sins (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a well known antisemitic forgery. The photo's source states it was taken in an Amman bookstore - I can see no reason not to include such a relevant image in an article about Arabs and antisemitism Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"The photo's source"?? And what would that be? No sources (reliable or unreliable) have been provided.

Per the above reason anyone can interpret the image any way they want. From what I see I'd favor the "Books endorsing tolerance of Jews at a bookstall in Amman" caption, or maybe even "Books endorsing tolerance of Jews at a bookstall in Damascus" or how about "...Gaza city"?Bless sins (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bless sins, I'm replying to the RfC. The point people seem to be making is that this photo is meant to be illustrative, and not especially evidential of the claim that antisemitic books can be found in the Arab world. And of course they can, they can be found in many places. It's not standard practice to demand independent verification of any photo uploaded to Wikipedia for illustrative purposes. It would be unworkable - just think about it. In any event, if you have problems with this photograph there are more substantive issues you can raise. Namely, are the books in the photo (other than Protocols of the Elders of Zion) actually antisemitic books?Nonplus (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I think the current heading, saying "Political books for sale in Amman ..." and referring to the Protocols is fine. We just don't want to be saying "antisemitic books" if many of them aren't. So I think the photo should be kept. The presence of the Protocols in the context of a bunch of books on Middle East politics works as an illustration of antisemitism. Nonplus (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Also responding to the RfC. I'm inclined to agree with Nonplus: the photo is illustrative so we needn't require independent verification - and with no reason to doubt the photographer's word, we should assume good faith. Besides, even if the photo wasn't taken in Amman it makes very little difference to its impact in the article: the point is that an Arabic copy of the Protocols is on sale. Obviously we'd like the caption to be accurate, but since both the risk of its being inaccurate and the damage caused if it is seem small, I'm inclined to keep it. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If inaccuracy isn't at stake then why not say antisemitic books at sale in Haifa? Also, why not say that "books that preach tolerance for Jews"? I'm sorry, but I'm a firm believer in WP:V (in part because I know that if I tried to say that racist books were being sold openly in Washington, I'd be asked to provide reliable sources).Bless sins (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't have any reason to assume that this is not a genuine photograph, but even so, a random uploader to flickr isn't a reliable source, and if contested, the image should be taken down per policy. That being said, I hope we can find an equivalent, for I personally find it interesting, relevant and colourful. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I demand WP:V be followed, no more no less.Bless sins (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources, anyone?Bless sins (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, having thought about it a bit more I think I'll concede the point on the location of the photo. My argument about not losing much if it's wrong can easily be turned around: we don't gain much if it's right!

However I do still think we can keep the picture saying something like "Arabic books, including the Protocols, on sale". Bless Sins says "why not say that "books that preach tolerance for Jews"?", implying we need a source to confirm that it is the Protocols. The WP:V section on non-English sources (I know this is media not a source, but it's the closest policy I could find as a rough guide) says "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." - so although alternatives are preferred, we can use translations by Wikipedians if there's no alternative (as in this case). It doesn't say we need a source to back up the translation, so if there's no reason to think it's incorrect why not accept it? Also, for what it's worth, even a non-Arabic reader can tell that the title of the book is the same as the title of the Arabic Wikipedia's page on the Protocols.

What do you think? Olaf Davis | Talk 18:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'll dispute the translation since it is taking something out of context. The book may say "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", but what if said "A refutation of the false accusations made in Protocols of the Elders of Zion". That would turn the whole scenario around, wouldn't it?Bless sins (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It would turn the whole thing around - but I'm pretty certain it doesn't say that. The large text above the Star of David says "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (at least according to the Arabic Wiki's article title, which I think we can trust). There are some other bits of writing in the corners but they're far smaller. I really don't see that it's taking it out of context to assume they're not part of the title. Olaf Davis | Talk 19:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"(at least according to the Arabic Wiki's article title, which I think we can trust)" I don't trust it. If you want we can go to policy pages to discuss this, but I'm sure your experience on wikipedia will lead you to agree that wiki's are not always reliable sources.

Hey Olaf, I've a suggestion: why don't you find some reliable sources for the image? Then, I'll accept the image without hesitation. This image has been disputed before (see [7]

[8]) by someone who claims to read Arabic. Specifically he/she says that there are books critical of Arab politicians, and racism in the picture.Bless sins (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been disputed by someone who claims to speak Arabic - and who verified that one book is the Protocols. They disputed statements about the other books, sure, but we're not making any claims about them. So I don't see how their disputing it is problematic to the claims currently in the article.

As for reliable sources: it's my understanding that we don't need third-party sources for a translation into English (though they are preferable). Do you agree with this interpretation of WP:VUE? If not, then since all we're doing is translating text from the picture (we're not claiming anything about the picture itself) I don't think we need a cite at all. If you do disagree, probably the best way forward is to go get some more input on that. Olaf Davis | Talk 20:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The user was aiming to put the picture in some sort of context, which is what the entire dispute is about. I can see "Protocols of Elders of Zion" and I know that it is an antisemitic forgery. But I disagree with the context. I disagree with the claim that this was taken in Amman, I disagree with the claim that this is even a bookstall. Even there is no evidence that this is a book (it could be a pamphlet or brochure).

The only thing I see is that the name of an antisemitic literature is written in Arabic. That's it. We don't know what the context is, we don't know if its a promotion of the book or its criticism.Bless sins (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the dispute was about a citation for the book's title. The article no longer claims that the book's in Amman, or a bookstall, or even that it's a book rather than a pamphlet. All it says is that it's the Protocols, and then gives some information about what the Protocols are. The latter is sourced at the article on the book itself, and my understanding is that the former doesn't need a source as per WP:VUE. So which are you disputing with your {{fact}} tag? It can't be the context because the caption gives none! Olaf Davis | Talk 15:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, I can't believe I didn't realize this earlier. The Protocols is a book available at libraries (University of Sydney Libary for example). Does this mean this library is antisemitic? Or this is an example of antisemitism in Australia? If the Protocols of the Elders of Zion has been published in Arabic, then it has also been published in English (at it was originally in German). The mere translation of it in Arabic doesn't imply antisemitism.Bless sins (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean the library is antisemitic. The picture isn't on this article as evidence, it's there as an illustration. Given that the article does cite sources for the existence of antisemitism in the Arab world, I think having the picture there in addition to such sources is fine. If we had an article about 'rice-eating in China', a photo of a sack of rice would not provide evidence that the practice occurs. But if the article includes text citations, I don't think there'd be anything wrong with having such a photo for illustrative purposes. Similarly if we had sources pointing to Antisemitism in Australia, a picture of an Australian copy would be fine on an article about it.

In my last comment I asked exactly what your {{fact}} tag was referring to. I still hold that if it's the title then WP:VUE means we don't need a cite, but if you disagree we can go ask for clarification of the policy. If it's the 'literary fraud' part or the 'first published in 1903' I'm sure a citation won't be hard to find. And if it's something else, could you explain what, please? Olaf Davis | Talk 10:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The citation tag asks you to find a source that says this is relevant to antisemitism. If the Protocols is antisemitic, the antisemitism is on the fabricators and on those that endorse the fabrication. Anyone who translates the Protocols or reads it isn't necessarily antisemitic. The person could even be anti- anti-Semitic (reading the book to refute it). Thus, we need a source saying that the copy is used for antisemitic purposes.

As regards to your rice analogy: edit wars don't break out over 'rice-eating in China'. If you see, half of wikipedia is unsourced. And I'm not about to go around deleting it. But if a statement in this article is unsourced, I'll remove it. Why? Because statements in this article are quite contentious. WP:V requires that "...any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source..." I have challenged the image, thus you have to provide a source.Bless sins (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the basic point on which we disagree is whether the article is implicitly saying "this copy of the Protocols is used by antisemites/is evidence of the extent of antisemitism in the Arab world". I think it doesn't and therefore doesn't need a source, since no statement is being made. You think it does, and rightly demand a source for the statement. Do you think that's a reasonable summary of our sticking point?

It doesn't seem to me as though either of us is about to change our mind about this, so I propose we move to get a third opinion. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Well, this [9] made the decision rather easier, didn't it? Olaf Davis | Talk 23:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hence I didn't respond. I wonder why it was deleted.Bless sins (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)