Talk:Antisemitism in Islam/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

---

Reversions and discussions

Please work out your issues here. The previous discussions were fragmented, scattered across multiple sections, and barely coherent in terms of continuity of topic and thread. I have archived the talk page so that a clear discussion can take place. Please place each significant changes, and its rationale, in a separate section for clarity and ease of building consensus. Thank you. -- Avi 12:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Long headings + protected!

Sorry, I edited the page since I read it as semi-protected... which, is not a good thing. I just want to point out that I think headings which are sentences should be avoided as they are unwieldy and could be explained in an introduction sentence.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenavitar (talk • contribs)

It was a good edit; some of the Titles have been absurdly long, including this. Generally they have become so long because they are attempts to insert apologetics into what should be a simple descriptor. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I come around sporadically so it'd be great if we can all agree to it when the page is unprotected... but, I've never had my time on the arbcom for abusing admin tools and I'd like to keep it that way.

And I agree with what you say. This page is about Islam and anti-Semitism not about the X% of Muslims / Islamic teaching that isn't ever considered anti-Semitic. I think a big problem is the tit-for-tat idea of neutrality within each article that tends to move them off topic. We just need make sure the article conveys about bounded scope (unless a notable author is arguing that all Muslims are anti-Semitic). gren グレン 18:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Trends section

There is no reason to remove the following:

According to Norman Stillman, Antisemitism in Muslim world increased greatly for more than two decades following 1948 but "peaked by the 1970s, and declined somewhat as the slow process of rapprochement between the Arab world and the state of Israel evolved in the 1980s and 1990s." Johannes Jansen believes that antisemitism will have no future in the Arab world in the long run. In his view, like other imports from the Western World, antisemitism is unable to establish itself in the private lives of Muslims.

It is sourced to reliable sources (so it is in accordance with WP:V). It represents the views of various scholars (so it is NPOV). As per concensus on WP:NOT, it doesn't violate the "WP:NOT#Cball".Bless sins 18:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. You are just repeating the same arguements, and we already responded to them. We are getting tired of repeating ourselves. Do you have a new arguement to add?--sefringle^Talk 02:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

These are just random opinions, not backed by anything, and they're not even current. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The first one belongs to Encyclopedia of Islam and is notable. It is not random. --Aminz 04:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If you think the second one is POV, you need to find another scholar who says something otherwise. (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete) --Aminz 04:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Which says "There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will not be induced to change it, we have sometimes taken to removing the text to the talk page itself (but not deleting it entirely). But the latter should be done more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased."--Sefringle^Talk 05:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle I have responded to all your arguments. But here it is again. You said that Jansen's opinions were a violation of WP:NOT#CBALL. That is incorrect. I posted something here, and the response was that Jansen's statments were legit. Also, Not including Lewis and Stillman, but including PEW, is a clear violation of NPOV. Because NPOV says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views..." Thus we should represent Lewis nd Stillan, who are certainly reliable sources.Bless sins 02:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And I have responded to all your arguements, but I am not going to waste time repeating them. Either you have something new to say, or you don't. If you don't, it is pretty clear that there is no consensus to add this section back in, so this is just becomming disruptive.--Sefringle^Talk 02:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There is concensus on Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not that this material is legit. Furthermore, all of our previous disucssion were archived and you yourself told me to start anew.[1] And you haven't responded to my concerns (esp. the one regarding Jansen passing WP:NOT#CBALL).Bless sins 02:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, these are just random opinions, sometimes second-hand, and not current. Respond to that. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "second-hand"? They are not "random", because they are specifically about antisemitism. And why do souces need to be "current" to be used. I don't think there is a rule on wikipedia that says we can't use something that was published seven years ago.Bless sins 03:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Encyclopedia of Islam" reference appears to be second hand. They're "random" because they're just two sources you happened to find that speculate that Arab antisemitism is decreasing; remember, your purpose here is to whitewash, so that's the only material you will insert. And if you're going to talk about "trends", you need to use current material, not material from a decade ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you mean by "second hand". Do you perhaps mean tertiary sources? You have got your definition of "random" totally wrong. Just because there are two sources that make the same statement, doesn't mean those sources are "random". And which material is "from a decade ago"? Also, I'd like it if you stopped speculating about what my "purpose" on wikipedia is. Remember this dispute is not about me, but rather about content.Bless sins 01:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Islam is quoting Stillman; when were the statements made by these sources? Also, I'm not speculating about your purpose, I'm stating it. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering that you only responded to the "second hand" argument, I'm assuming this is the last of your objections. Firstly, I think Norman Stillman himself wrote that EI entry, though I'm not sure. We should ask Aminz about that. Wikipedia doesn't object to using tertiary sources, which is basically sources that quote or analyze secondary sources. Also, please don't make personal attacks. The dispute will end faster if you concentrate on the article rather than myself.Bless sins 03:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you've just ignored the other issues. These are two opinions, randomly picked, stated without any backing, and they're old - no longer relevant. Regarding the disputes, if you ever start editing articles not solely for the purpose of whitewashing, then we wouldn't have any disagreements to begin with. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Which issues have I ignored? These two statements are both relevent. Regarding their dates: Stillman is talking about the trends from 1948 to the 1990s. Thus as long as he wrote this during the 1990s his statements are valid. In any case, I think the Stillman source is dated to 2002. Also, does wikipedia prevent us from using souces that are several years old? Finally, please stop making personal attacks. That only prolongs the dispute.Bless sins 13:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"Trends" from 10 years ago aren't relevant; if you want to know what "trends" are, you need recent sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the trends he is talking about are from 1940s to 1990s. And ofcourse trends from 10-50 years ago are relvent. If we are going to include what happened to Jews in 9th century (1100 years ago), then certainly we can include that with happened relatively recently.Bless sins 03:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

But these aren't descriptions of actual events, they're broad theories about "trends", and they're outdated. In the 1980s the climate "trends" suggested that the earth was cooling. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

They are trends about the past. In 1990s, Stillman looked back to the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, and gives a brief summary of how antisemitism was going up or down during that time.Bless sins 04:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, whatever. It's broadbrushed semi-historical crystal-balling. It adds nothing of value. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your "whatever" shows you've run out of arugments. There is concensus on WP:NOT, that this does not constitute as crystal balling (see this). There is nothing worng with bieng "historical". Much of the info of this article is "historical". I've answered all your objections. Bless sins 04:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't have any new arguements. You are only repeating yourself while we have come up with new arguements, and now you are trying to say we have run out of new ways to say you are repeating yourself. Fine. I admit it. I have run out of new ways to say "you are repeating yourself".--Sefringle^Talk 04:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. He keeps repeating himself, then has the nerve to claim the we have run out of arguments. Repeating oneself isn't "answering objections". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

One last time (even i'm getting exhausted here). Here is my arugment laid out in a very simple manner, tell me if you agree or disagree.

• 1. The above content is sourced to WP:RS and meets WP:V. Agree?
• 2. Removing the above content is a violation of NPOV, because NPOV says that articels must be "...representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." Agree?
• 3. The above content is not a violation of WP:OR.
  • This content is sourced to a scholar and not a user. Agree?
  • The source is clearly talking about the topic. Agree?
• 4. WP:BLP doesn't apply since we are not really directly talking about a living person here. Agree?
• 5. Regarding WP:NOT#CBALL.
  • Stillman is not predicting the future, but talking about the past. Agree?
  • Jansen is predicting the future. However, there is concensus here, his statements are not a violation of the policy. Agree?

Please answer the questions above. Should you disagree, tell me why, and state the specific wikipedia policy backing up your statements.Bless sins 02:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I'll repeat myself here one more time to make it clear what the problems are.

1. Agree
2. Disagree. It is not representing fairly or without bias all significant views. It is only representing one view; your viewpoint. The other viewpoints are not represented at all in this section.
3. Disagree. The source is not necessarily talking about the topic of trends in antisemitism. See the definition of a trend here:[2]. The sources say nothing about a general trend in antisemitism
4. I'll agree with whatever Jayjg says on this one.
5. Disagree. One additional opinion from someone who may or may not understand the policy (status undetermined) doesn't make consensus. It is still a violation of the policy to include the quote.--Sefringle^Talk 02:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's my response:

• 2. You said: "The other viewpoints are not represented at all in this section." Which viewpoint is not represented? Also, Sefringle you said "It is only representing one view; your viewpoint". Can you agree that this represents Stillman's and Jansen's viewpoints?
• 3. Again there were two questions. Firslty, do you agree that I'm not making this up? Secondly, do you agree that the author is talking clearly about antisemitism and Islam, which is all that is required?
• 4. That means you have no objection.
• 5. Again there are two question: firstly do you agree that Stillman doesn't attempt to predict the future? Secondly, do you agree that while me, you, Jayjg and Aminz are possibly biased, the user who made the comment wasn't trying to take any side?Bless sins 02:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

2. The viewpoint that Islam is antisemitic is not represented. This section completely ignores the viewpoints of the other scholars.

3. I already answered this question before. You are making up the connection between their words and "trends of antisemitism in islam"

4. I already answered this question.

5. I answered this question already too.--Sefringle^Talk 03:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

2. If such a viewpoint exists (in a reliable source) you are free to include it. But I doubt it does. Because you can't find reliable sources for some viewpoints doesn't mean you delete other viewpoints form the article as well.

3. Do both the sources not specifically say "Islam"? Do both the sources not specifically say "antisemitism"?

4 & 5. Seems like you have no objection.Bless sins 04:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

2: Half the article presents this viewpoint. I just haven't found a summary into one source like you have.

3: you didn't respond to what I say

4 &5:Obviously I do object. Please re-read my comments and respond without repeating yourself.--Sefringle^Talk 22:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg and Sefringle's arguments are not "arguments". Everyone familar with Encyclopedia of Islam (a very prestigous academic source) knows that it represents notable academic views (in many cases it covers important ones; not just the POV of the author). To say that a detailed passage of EoI adds nothing of value to the article poses a sanity question on the behalf of Norman Stillman. According to these arguments, Norman Stillman must be out of his mind when he was writting EoI. Most bothersome is the argument that EoI's POV is just a "random" POV: OH MY GOD!!!. I doubt that Jayjg and Sefringle's intent is to present all POVs. --Aminz 09:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What we are saying is Bless sins is cherrypicking quotes he/she likes that fit his POV, and is not representing other POV's in the section. Bless sins is only adding the quotes that support his/her POV. --Sefringle^Talk 03:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

So here is Sefringle's accusation: that I'm adding only some POVs to he article, yet not others, particularly those that don't fit my perspective.

For a minute let's assume that this accusation (which I don't hold to be true) is true. There is nothing wrong with adding one POV. Infact, Jayjg has only added one particular POV to the article, and so have you Sefringle. I should add the POVs I find, and you should add the POVs you find. But what shouldn't be done, is for either of us to remove the other POVs. That's how we get NPOV. Although I'm not doing that, you certainly are.Bless sins 17:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Jayjg added a counter POV to balance out what you wrote. you also just added a section summarizing your POV while ignoring other POV's. That is what the trends section is.--Sefringle^Talk 23:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If Jayjg added a counter POV, did I remove that that POV? And if a counter POV exists, then you've answered our own concern about counter POVs not being represented. Secondly, how did I "ignore" other POVs? I let the previous POVs stay, and, for the sake of NPOV, added the POV of a notable scholar.Bless sins 20:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Not repeating myself.--Sefringle^Talk 18:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Quran section

There is no reason to remove the following:

According to Bernard Lewis, the Quran does not devote much content to the issue of Jews and Judaism. Of these most of the Quranic references are to the biblical Children of Israel, a few references also talk about contemporary Jews. There is no specific mention of Jews in verses dating from the Meccan period.

What point is being made here? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This helps clarify when the "antisemitism" in Islam developed (i.e. what period of time). This also shows that the degreee of antisemitism/philosemitism by accountign the amount of Quranic content devoted to Jews.Bless sins 02:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How does it help clarify that? It's about passages in the Qur'an, which, according to your faith, was compiled over a period of about 20 years, 610-632. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right that the Quran was revealed to the Prophet Muhamamd from 610-632. The "Meccan period" constitutes of 610-622, or 12 of the 22 years of revelation. The above material shows that, for the majority of its duration, the revelation of the Quran was not at all concerned with Jews (let alone antisemitism). It also shows that the topic of Jews began to appear in the Quran after the Hegira. I don't understand why you would oppose the inclusion of this.Bless sins 01:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Islam has been around for 1400 years; you're trying to make something out of the first twenty years vs. the next ten. Of what relevance is this to the topic of the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the religion was founded in the first 20 years!! I mean there are billions of Muslims, but this article tries to make something out of one of them - the Prophet Muhammad. Obviously some parts of Islamic history are waaaay more important than others.Bless sins 03:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there aren't "billions of Muslims". In any event, I'm still not getting what point you are trying to make in the article, and why people would care - please explain what it is supposed to tell the reader. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There have been, the sum total of 1,400 years. I have repeatedly stated that the point is that for the majority of its reveleation period, the Quran was not all concerned with the Jews. It shows when the alleged antisemitism started.Bless sins 13:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The "revelation period" is 10 years out of 1400. Focusing on this is WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you don't know what you're talking about. Your argument is analogous to the following: "there have been billions of Muslims throughout the 1,400 years of Islamic history, focusing on one man (Prophet Muhammad) is WP:UNDUE." Ofcourse, the rpeceing argument is absurd, and you know it.Bless sins 03:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you're inserting silly trivia. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, like half the Quran is "silly trivia". Clearly you don't have any valid reason. I'm adding the above to the article.Bless sins 03:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, don't. I've explained the issues with it. You need to move to a different article, because your edits aren't helping improve this one. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind, your main reason for inserting this is so you can ensure that Schweitzer and Perry don't get the first word in this section; it's part of the "move Schweitzer and Perry down" tactic. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you need to move on from this article. Clearly the amterial that I'm adding is noteworthy, as it was mentioned Stillman's Antisemitism: A historical encyclopedia of prejudice and persecution in relation both Islam and antisemitism. And form now on I'm not going to respond to any of your sepculations regarding by "motives" or allegedly hidden "intentions".Bless sins 03:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, not all material from a source should be repeated in a Wikipedia article. Schweitzer and Perry lead this section, and they don't move down, and certainly not for trivia about which parts about Jews in the Qur'an were written when. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Jayjg you don't seem to understand the nature of the Quran. The Meccan period represents (roughly) half the Quran! If we are giving three verses on apes and pigs an entire subsection, then surely we can give half the Quran atleast a paragraph. Please talk to someone who knows the history of the Quran as well.Bless sins 02:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh hh. Lets stick with what the sources say here.--Sefringle^Talk 02:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I'm saying. I'm only inserting what the sources say. And the source do NOT say that this material is "trivia".Bless sins 17:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Islamic theology

Restore Judaism in Islamic theology. This section is sourced to:

• Bernard Lewis in Semites and Anti-Semites
• Samuel Rosenblatt & Koppel Pinsonin Essays on Antisemitism (co-authors)
• Leon Poliakov in The History of Anti-semitism
• Jerome Chanes in Antisemitism
• Frederick Sweitzer & Marvin Perry in Anti-Semitism: myth and hate from antiquity to the present (co-authors)
• Khaleel Muhammad in Symposium: The Koran and Anti-Semitism
• Norman Stillman in Antisemitism: A historical encyclopedia of prejudice and persecution

All of the scholars are writing specifically about Islam as well as antisemitism. Since it sources the views of 9 scholars, removing this section would severely violate WP:NPOV.

It's WP:SYNTH; none of them are discussing "Judaism in Islamic theology", you have invented that topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are. They all talk about the Islamic concept of God (thus theology) with relation to Jews in the context of antisemitism. If you don't believe me, check the sources yourself.Bless sins 02:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want, we change the title to "Jews/Judaism and the Islamic concept of God".Bless sins 02:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Do all of these items come in sections titled "Judaism in Islamic theology" or "Jews/Judaism and the Islamic concept of God"? Do any of these sources refer to these items in any way similar? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Schweitzer and Perry's statements regarding the Quran are currently under "Attacks on Jews" heading. However, the authors have put their comments under the heading "Jewish-Muslim relations in history". All of the authors I have mentioned above, specifically use either "theolog[y/ical]" or "God/god". They also talk about Quran's relationship with the Jewish scriptures (and how that prevents a clash between two religions) and the concept of Jesus/Messiah (and how Muslims chare with Jews a fundamental concept). Finally, the authors link all of this to antisemitism.

Jayjg, the titile of the section isn't the issue here. If you accept the content, I am willing to concede to a reasonable compromise on the title. Bless sins 01:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, what I object to is your using various statements from these authors to comes to a novel synthesis regarding "Judaism in Islamic theology". None of these authors is attempting to present a comprehensive view of "Judaism in Islamic theology", that's something you've invented. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, the scholars specifically use the words "theolog[y/ical]" or "God/god". They are all talking about Islam. And finally, they are all talking about Jews/Judaism in the context of antisemitism. All the "synthesis" is made by the scholars themselves. I have only reported what they say. Do you have any valid reason for opposing me on the points above?Bless sins 03:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The synthesis is in bringing all this material together and presenting it as a coherent theory of "Judaism in Muslim thought". That is WP:SYNTH. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH says that a user can't say "A and B, therefore C". But I'm not advancing a C position. It seems that by your definition the entire article would be a synthesis because we have brought togethor various sources. I'm not presenting any theory, but rahter saying that this is what scholars say about antisemitism with regards to Judaism/Jews and the Islamic concept of God (also known as theology).Bless sins 13:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course you're advancing a position; unsurprisingly, the "theology" you've invented is quite positive regarding Islam. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What position am I advancing that the scholars don't already say? If you can't answer this question then your accusation of WP:SYNTH are totally unjustified.Bless sins 03:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The authors don't advance your view at all; they don't claim to give an overview of Judaism in Islamic theology. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes they do. How many times do I have to repeat that? And why don't you go read all the sources yourself and then come back and argue.Bless sins 03:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the sources. You've come up with six points in your theology, but not all of the sources list all six points. Further, if we look just at the Schweitzer and Perry material, you've mixed material that is literally hundreds of pages apart in the book. If Schweitzer and Perry were trying to present a coherent thesis of Judaism in Islamic theology, they wouldn't have put the points over 200 pages apart. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Which point exactly is unsourced? (Quote it). Secondly, the only part of S and P that is "hundreds of pages apart" is "They see the accusation of deicide is the ultimate source of "all antisemitic persecution and discrimination." If you truly insist, we can remove that one sentence. Any other objections?Bless sins 03:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Point 1,2,3,4 are not sourced at all. Point 5 is sourced to one source, point 6 to a different source. WP:SYNTH. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Points 1,2,3 and 4 are sourced to Lewis and Chanes. And yes different content is sourced to different scholars. How is that WP:SYNTH?Bless sins 04:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Because you've put it all together into one section, as if this is a coherent view of Judaism in Islamic theology. In fact, it's a bunch of different points thrown together, from a bunch of authors who aren't making the same points, nor attempting to present an overview of Judaism in Islamic theology. The second I challenge you on any of the details (e.g. Schweitzer and Perry), you say "o.k. that's a synthesis, but the rest isn't". I've explained myself very clearly over 1/2 dozen times. Unless you come up with new arguments, please just review what I've said up until now. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, just look at this edit[3]. I have addressed all of your concerns above (including those regarding S & P).Bless sins 04:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Take note of how dishonest your edit was; rather than making a simple edit addressing one point, you made multiple edits, all contentious, some of which you hadn't even discussed here first. You need to approach this in an entirely different way; first, find material that actually advances the topic article itself, not merely whitewashes. Then, propose the material be added to the article here on Talk:. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Which edit did I make that was not discussed here before? Both my edits are discussed in this section. I'd like it if you stopped personal attacks.Bless sins 02:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said anything was synthesis. But I am simply making a compromise with you. You have so far said nothing about any of the otehr scholars. You haven't even addresed S & P (except for one).Bless sins 04:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Make a new argument please. I've already responded to your current argument at length, and your endlessly repeating it isn't going to make my own objections go away. Repeating statements isn't "addressing all of your concerns". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand. Do you have an argument against the material that we are discussing here? If yes, what is it? If you have no arugment/objection, then I'll add the material right away.Bless sins 02:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Make a new argument for including it please; your previous arguments have met with no agreement. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I asked you if you had an objection? Do you? Jayjg, I would like to know wheter you have an objection to this material or not. So, do you have an objection? If yes, what is it? If you don't, please say so.Bless sins 04:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've expressed my objections at length, above, and repeated them several times. I won't repeat them again, regardless of how many times you ask me to, or pretend that I have not made them. Do you have any new arguments in favor of this synthesis that misrepresents the authors you take it from? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see your objections. Can you point out the time you made them? OK so you are saying that I'm misrepresenting the scholars. Can you be more specific. Which scholar am I misrepresenting? And have you read the source before you are accusing me of misrepresenting scholars?Bless sins 04:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not repeating myself. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears you have no more objections.Bless sins 17:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My objections have been stated multiple times, and still stand. Not repeating myself. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You have made the ambiguous statement that I "misrepresent[ed] the authors". Yet you have not specified which authors I've misrepresented. If you have, no need to repeat your comment, just point out the date and time.Bless sins 20:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made all sorts of objections, and explained what they meant. I will no longer repeat myself on this topic; my objections stand until you come up with a new reason for creating your original research regarding "Judaism in Islamic theology". And my objections stand even without me responding to your repetitive questions about points that have already been gone over at length. On this thread, my continuing silence from this point on will indicate that I still object, and that you have not raised any new point. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Ok, so your accusation is that the above is original research. This is the only objection you've presented.

Response: Please answer the following questions. My questions are referring to contetn in this edit.[4]

• 1. The above content is cited to reliable and scholarly sources. Agree?
• 2. All of the above sources state the content in relation to both Islam and antisemitism. Agree?
• 3. All of the sources above are talking about one of the following: Islamic theology, Islamic concept of God, Islamic beliefs about Jesus or Islam's position on deicide (killing of a god). Agree?
• 4. Is there a single sentence (or phrase), that I have made up, and is not present in the sources? Specify.Bless sins 13:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism in pre-modern Islam

Restore this section. No one has really presented an objection against this section. The fact that this content is removed is because it got caught in the edit war over the above mentioned issues.Bless sins 18:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't talk about antisemitism, though, it just cherry-picks positive things to say from authors who write about antisemitism. It fails WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specifc at how it fails NPOV. Please note that a lot of the content I'm adding is actually from Schweitzer and Perry. Not including that content would indeed be "cherry-picking".Bless sins 02:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No, including material that is not actually about antisemitism, but rather about instances where there was no antisemitism, is cherry-picking or non-relevant material. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The material comes form the very same source you love: Schweitzer and Perry. Actually it is from the same chapter as well. Not including that material would "cherry-picking". Also, talking about periods when there was little antisemitism is just as relevent as talking about periods when there was significant antisemitism.Bless sins 03:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So you admit that you went looking for material that actually wasn't about antisemitism, but the opposite. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What? When did I "admit" or even talk about that? Infact, I've said that the material added is about the antisemitism. Please note: it is form the same source you have added material from. Not including this material would indeed be "cherry-picking".Bless sins 03:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You are making illogical statements here. We cannot include the entire chapter, of course, that would be plagiarism. So, instead, we just cite S&P's main examples of antisemitism. Other material, that isn't about antisemitism, but the opposite, belongs in an article about another topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with Bless sins on the point that you should include in the article information on both the periods of high and low levels of antisemitism in Islam. After all, the article is titled "Islam and antisemitism", not "Periods when Islam has been antisemitic". It should describe all of Islam's history regarding antisemitism, including the periods where there was little antisemitism. Leaving it out would create a biased and inaccurate history, suggesting that Islam has always been highly antisemitic. If you have a problem with his citations or descriptions of such periods then you should try to work with him on improving them instead of simply removing them. -- HiEv 05:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How, then, would the article differ from History of the Jews under Muslim rule or Islam and Judaism? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It would differ in the fact that it focuses on the history of Islam and antisemitism, rather than the history of Jews only when under Muslim rule or the much broader topic of Islam and Judaism (which includes similarities between the two religions and other subjects.) So, both of those articles cover topics besides antisemitism, and as such may not have room to go as much in-depth into the topic of Islam and antisemitism as this article can (instead they can link to this article for people who want more detail.) To give you a somewhat similar example, the timeline of glaciation article doesn't mention only the ice ages, it also shows the interglacial periods between ice ages. In the same way, periods of little antisemitism should be described too, not just periods of high antisemitism. I'm not saying that these periods need lots of space, however a description of when and where they took place and why they may have started and ended (if possible,) maybe with some brief examples demonstrating the change attitude, would be appropriate. Understanding why antisemitism in Islam both waxes and wanes can be very informative. -- HiEv 05:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If, for example, the article were to say "Antisemitism was particularly bad in the 13th and 14th cenutry in Andalus", wouldn't that imply that it wasn't so bad in the 9-12th centuries? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's subject to interpretation. But, if we have a reliable source about the 9-12 centuries, it doesn't hurt to clarify.Bless sins 01:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that when you go on at length about it, you end up spending most of your time talking about what the article is not about. As an exaggerated example, if one were to create a Timeline of Muslim antisemitism, and then have an entry for each year in which there were no recorded antisemitic incidents with "No recorded antisemitic incidents", it would look ridiculous. People reading an article want to see material that exemplifies what the topic is. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

<reset>I do not go at length talking about. Most of the article is still dominated by the events of the 20th century. Consider the article Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Fully half of the article is devoted to saying that there is no Israeli apartheid. Just because there are allegations agaisnt Islam of antisemitism, doesn't mean they are true. Those scholars with a different POV should be represented fairly per NPOV.Bless sins 03:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You've answered this question yourself (a long time ago). This article should contain sources/content in which the author specifically mentions antisemitism (since then there have been some exceptions, but not too many). Thus, if a scholar thought that an event in History of the Jews under Muslim rule was somehow relevent to antisemitism, then we mention it as well.Bless sins 01:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because a source is relevant to a topic, it doesn't mean we copy everything that's in it. We're still editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be a copyright violation. But a source in relation to the topic is required. And I have provided such sources for all the content I've added.Bless sins 03:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "a source in relation to the topic is required"? We don't replicate everything from a source, we have to decide what is most relevant. What is most relevant to this article are descriptions of antisemitism, not of non-antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I mean the source should be related to (or talking about) both Islam and antisemitism. Ofcourse we don't replicate. But that doesn't mean we cherry pick quotes that place Islam in a negative context and totally ignore the author when he/she says that Islam wasn't always antisemitic. Remember this article is about the relationship between Islam and antisemitism. You are assuming that the relationship is always positive. However, as many scholars show, it is sometimes negative as well.Bless sins 13:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is quite clear that Islam isn't always antisemitic, but it focuses on the antisemitic parts, of course, since that's the topic of the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really. In any case, why do you want to remove information that provides evidence as to why Islam wasn't always antisemitic? Making a statement without any sort of reasonig or backing seems pretty unscholarly and unencyclopedic to me.Bless sins 03:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, actually, the topic of the article is Islam and antisemitism. And I'm not going to bother responding to straw man arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And all of my sources are in relation to the topic. Infact my sources (in some cases) are the exact same as the sources that you advocated!Bless sins 02:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, Jayjg, you have only responded to some of what I attempted to do. A lot of what I did was organizing the section in terms of time and place. You have not at all responded to that (whether you agree with it or disagree).Bless sins 13:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You haven't brought up the reorganizations. What do you wish to do and why? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

All that I wish to do is in this edit. Aomng the major things: create section "Early rule and Later rule", since scholars tend to pay soem attention to changes in the Islamic world when talking about antisemitism. Also move "Literature" below the section with events, per Sefringle's idea of seperating "Events" and "views". FInally removing duplicate info. Again, what I wish to do is the edit link I provided above.Bless sins 03:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)*

That includes all sorts of content changes mixed in. Focus on one, or the other, but not all of them at the same time, it's too confusing. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No I've outlined above the major changes. Please re-read the comment on 03:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)*.Bless sins 02:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Focus on one or the other, and move slowly. I won't respond further here, since you're now just arguing about who said what where, but keep in mind that changes must be small, comprehensible, digestible, and agreed to. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, if you think that I need your permission to make even the smallest edit on wikipedia, then forget it. I won't agree to that. BUt if you have nay objection to any of my edits, then I'm willing to entertain those, so long as you wish to communicate with me.Bless sins 04:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

i think the point being made by HiEv and Bless sins is reasonable. if academic scholars, who are discussing antisemitism in general, note that there were times where it wasn't prominent (as well as when it was), then that appears quite topical. some of the material, such as Jews under the Fatimids, should probably be moved over to History of the Jews under Muslim rule, unless the authors are connecting it directly to their discussion of the presence/absence of antisemitism at the time. ITAQALLAH 15:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The question is, how much belongs in this article, and how much in History of the Jews under Muslim rule? Bless sins has been trying to put as much general material as possible into this article, which serves to dilute the focus of this article. If he wants to merge the articles, he should request it on the proper page. If not, then this article still needs to maintain focus. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll gladly re-answer your question: those parts of history which a scholar believes are relevent to antisemitism belong in this article. All the source I have used specifically discuss the topic in context of antisemitism. If there is a source that you don't believe (with good reason) is talking about antisemitism, let me know.Bless sins 17:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, to respond to your earlier comments, the topic of the article isn't The periods when Islam has been antisemitic, it's Islam and antisemitism, and that's not the same thing. This article could, for example, cite quotes from notable Islamic texts or prominent Islamic scholars that speak out against prejudice, and this would be entirely relevant. In the same way, descriptions of periods when Islam has tolerated Judaism would also be relevant to this article as it would show that antisemitism isn't the rule in Islamic history and it would detail the differences between those periods. That kind of stuff all fits within the focus of the article, because it shows how the relationship between Islam and antisemitism has changed over time and varies by area and by group. Also, one should not try to mention such periods by omission either, as you have suggested above. Doing so requires that the reader assume things that have not been said and gives no explanatory detail about why or how "it wasn't so bad" during those periods. Basically, please do not try to make the article almost exclusively about Islam being pro-antisemitism, as that is an incomplete and biased description of the relationship between Islam and antisemitism. Thanks.  :-) -- HiEv 07:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Jayjg, I suspect (though I maybe wrong), that you haven't even read the sources I used in the edits I'm advocating for. If you haven't, then you can't really be sure whether these sources are relevent to the article or not.Bless sins 20:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

HiEv, I'm sure there is some amount of relevant content that can be included; obviously we don't want to drown the topic, as Bless sins has been trying to do. What do you suggest as a reasonable amount? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, can you cite a wiki policy (quote it) that prevents me from adding the above content to this article. If not, then I don't think you have provided one good reason for me to not do so.Bless sins 12:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete states the following:

"The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.

There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will not be induced to change it, we have sometimes taken to removing the text to the talk page itself (but not deleting it entirely). But the latter should be done more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased."--Sefringle^Talk 18:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a good reason why Jayjg should not be deleting material, especially since his earlier objection stated here was that the material supposedly failed WP:NPOV. As for the question of "what is a reasonable amount?" there is no simple answer. What is added should be relevant, notable, clear, and reliably sourced, but no larger than necessary to communicate the basic information. Still, it should clearly be more than zero. If you think there is too much information it can always be spun off into a new article with a short summary here. Simply deleting huge swaths of legitimate material, as you did here, instead of removing potential bias or summarizing it is bad editing practice. -- HiEv 08:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This material certianly isn't relevant. It is about how Islam is "tolerant" to jews. That is not relevant to the topic of antisemitism, and certianly doesn't deserve a heading as if it is the accepted opinion as to how islam views jews, considering it is only one view. Still it doesn't belong here, as it isn't at all relevant to antisemitism. This isn't the Islam and Judaism article after all.--Sefringle^Talk 02:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The material certainly is relevent. It shows that Islam wasn't always antisemitic, as you claim it to be. It balances material that says Islam was antisemitic, thereby bring the article closer to a neutral POV. Finally, all the statements have been written by thier respective authors in relation to antisemitism.Bless sins 13:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Section break 1

I'm only going to say this one more time. Information about tolerance to Jews is not relevant. It makes the article more POV, by diluting the opinions of other scholars and attempts to say Lewis' opinion is somehow truer than those of scholars with other opinions, and this opinion certainly shouldn't be stated as if it is fact. It is an opinion and it is already expressed within the article where it belongs (in the tolerance section) with as much detail as it merits given WP:UNDUE. It isn't even related to the topic of antisemitism. He is saying the qur’an doesn't devote much to Jews and Judaism; no relevance to antisemitism here. Information saying Islam is tolerant to Jews is not relevant. Lewis' statement about nothing being antisemitic does not belong under the header "Judaism in Muslim theology and beliefs." That is saying the other opinions have no relevance, because Lewis and Cohan's rebuttal is correct and thus other opinions are wrong. It is POV pushing to have this where it is. In addition, as Jayjg already stated, you are making an original opinion based on what the sources say. None of the sources say antisemitism. Thay present various information, and you are making your own interpretation of this information to say that Islam is not antisemitic. Some of this is actually original research. Af for the literature section, praise of islamic literature is also irrelevant.--Sefringle^Talk 04:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins has already well covered most of the objections below that I would make and have already made to the above. However let me reiterate that when the Islam and antisemitism article is covering the history of Islam and antisemitism that it should be a barometer of antisemitism in Islam, and not only show the peaks while ignoring the valleys as you are stating. The article is about the relationship between Islam and antisemitism, and in the history that includes periods when Islam was not particularly antisemitic. Without that you are only giving half the story, and producing a rather badly biased picture of Islam. This is why periods of low or no antisemitism in Islam are relevant to the article. Yes, the sections are possibly of lesser importance when not discussing Islam explicitly opposing antisemitism, but they are not of no importance or relevance and should not be left out entirely. They are needed to give a complete, unbiased, and accurate portrayal of the issue.

Furthermore, I don't see how you can say, "Information saying Islam is tolerant to Jews is not relevant," for an article titled "Islam and antisemitism." Evidence against antisemitism in Islam is just as relevant as evidence for it when discussing this topic. For example, the Timeline of antisemitism article includes examples of both people supporting and opposing antisemitism (see 1519 & 1964 for examples.) What you are advocating is that only evidence of Islam supporting antisemitism is "on topic" here, and I have to strongly disagree. -- HiEv 19:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you already said most of that already, to which Jayjg responded. And I will make my point clearer. The problem with Bless Sins version is it is giving too much undue weight to the periods of "low" antisemitism. Those periods were fairly represented without giving them too much undue weight within the article before bless sins added the one sided POV ultra-bias content. Despite the clear WP:SYNTH problems with that content. These views are clearly represented in the tolerance section where they were given proper weight. The additions give them undue weight by using WP:SYNTH, adding semi-irrelevant content, and phrasing that says this opinion is more valuable than the other opinions.--Sefringle^Talk 01:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Those periods are almost not represented at all. In anycase, most of the removal of sourced content appears to be censorship. Secondly, there are no WP:SYNTH problems, you only imagine there to be. When I ask you to explain, you say "already explained that", and thus run away from debate. Finally, all the opinions are of reliable and respected sources, they are not "ultra-bias".Bless sins 04:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of censorship do not belong here. Yes, wikipedia is not censored. It also isn't a medium for propaganda. Instead of accusing me of trying to censor wikipedia, why don't you attempt to justify the content you wish to include and try to reach consensus. The content does have WP:SYNTH problems, as Jayjg already explained, and I am using the "already explained that" arguement because you are repeating the same arguements over and over again, and I am tired of writing the same thing again and again.--Sefringle^Talk 18:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course accusations of censorship belong here if censorship may be going on. How else can you avoid censorship if you can't discuss it when it may be going on? Are you trying to censor discussions of censorship now too?!?  ;-) (That last line is a joke.) Also, there are no WP:SYNTH problems because he's merely quoting information from multiple sources, not drawing a conclusion based on them that is not included in any of them. He has asked for examples of him drawing conclusions that did not come from his sources and nobody has provided even one. Until that happens, accusations of WP:SYNTH are apparently baseless.

Finally, since you didn't actually respond to anything in my previous comment, I will respond to your accusations of "one sided POV ultra-bias content" by simply saying that including periods of low antisemitism is nothing of the sort. In fact it is the opposite of the bias that occurs when you leave out/censor those periods from the article. If you have a problem with bias regarding a relevant topic the solution is to correct the bias, not to remove any reference to that topic. Furthermore, most sources on this issue will have some bias, so perhaps it could corrected by adding another viewpoint? If there isn't any then maybe it isn't as biased as you claim. The point is, removing any mention of periods of low antisemitism in Islam from the history does not prevent bias, it creates bias by only giving half the story. -- HiEv 22:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

there are no WP:SYNTH problems because he's merely quoting information from multiple sources, not drawing a conclusion based on them that is not included in any of them. Yes there are, As Jayjg already pointed out above. As for the second half of your comment, mentioning the "low" periods of antisemitism has already been mentioned. These periods, however do not disserve over half the article, because at that point they are irrelevant.

Besides, the content I am refering to has nothing to do with that. It has to do with taking irrelevant quotes and jumping to the conclusion that because of these arguements, Islam is not antisemitic. Thus it smacks WP:SYNTH. --Sefringle^Talk 00:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Response to Sefringle: Your previous edits mixes a lot arguments together, arguments that I separated into different section to proceed with discussion in an orderly manner. Nevertheless, I'll respond to your statements.

• "Information about tolerance to Jews is not relevant."
  • Yes it is, as long as it is made in relation to both Islam and antisemitism. It shows that Islam wasn't always antisemitic. Besides, the information I'm including is hardly about "tolerance", but is rather regarding the nature of antisemitism in Islam.

However, none of the information that you tried to add has anything to do with antisemitism. It is all about tolerance to Jews, and has nothing to do with antisemitism. Now we can do the "yes it is, no it isn't" argument forever, but these quotes you tried to add without consensus have nothing to do with antisemitism. In fact antisemitism is not even mentioned by the sources.--Sefringle^Talk 06:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like it if you atleast stopped making false accusations. In which source "antisemitism is not even mentioned"? Please answer that question (and specify the source).Bless sins 06:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

NO. You added the content, the burden of proof is on you. Either show me where you got the content, if it is from a source already on wikipedia, or provide the exact quote to "prove" its relevance.--Sefringle^Talk 01:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, the titles of all the sources mention "antisemitism" (I've lsited the titles here). So there goes your allegation "antisemitism is not even mentioned". If you have furhter objections, you'll need to be more specific, as I have no inclination to provide quotes for every last source in this article.Bless sins 04:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As I have already explained, not everything in book that has antisemitism in its title is relevant to the topic of antisemitism, and from the reviews of the books (some of which you have shown me), it is clear that the more accurate topic of the books is history of tolerance and persecution of the jews. Not everything under that topic is relevant to antisemitism.--Sefringle^Talk 19:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I was merely refuting your false allegation: "antisemitism is not even mentioned". I really don't understand your paradoxical arugments. (e.g: "Muslim theology" is not Muslim theology, and now books about antisemitism contain ideas that have nothing to do with antisemitism). Why one earth would someone right about topics irrelevent to antisemitism in a book about antisemitism? The authors of these books are scholars on the topic, I think oyu keep forgetting that.Bless sins 11:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You have said that before, and I have responded to it in the archive section entitled "Edit 1'". I am not going to repeat myself again.--Sefringle^Talk 06:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, there are three archives. Secondly, if you begin to refer to archives, we will start goin in circles. Basicaly that would undo any progress we've made. Fianlly, it appears you have pretty much no objections to the material (as you haven't presented any counter arugments).Bless sins 15:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well when you repeat a question I already answered in the archive, it is just a waste of time to repat it again.--Sefringle^Talk 05:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• "...by diluting the opinions of other scholars..."
  • Why do wish to focus on the opinions of some scholars while omitting the opinions of others. That would violate NPOV.

I'm talking about diluting the opinions of the other scholars with irrelevant opinions that are ORish and one sided. It does not balance out the opinion that Islam is antisemitic; it instead makes a well balanced article have a pro-islam bias, by attempting to assert that an alternative opinion is more true than another opinion. It making the article have undue weight. The article is balanced without that addition. Now I'm starting to repeat myself because you broke up my argument, and apparently missed my point.--Sefringle^Talk 06:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You are abusing the concept of OR. The opinion of other scholars, in relation to Islam and antisemitism, is not OR. Only opinions belonging to wikipedians are OR. Also, please don't try to censor legititmate opinions.Bless sins 06:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of censorship by other editors when it is a content dispute is clear violation of WP:CIVIL. You apparently didn't read my other comment too clearly. Anyway, anything relevant from your addition belongs in the tolerance section; the only place where it can be placed in a neutral manner; however, what you added isn't relevant, and would be just repetition of what is already there.--Sefringle^Talk 01:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A statement about "Muslim theology" and Judaism belongs in such a section. None of this is already present in the article.Bless sins 04:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't about muslim theology. It is about tolerance, and tolerance alone. Now we are repeating ourselves again. So please come up with new arguements so I don't have to say "sorry, not repeating myself" to your next response.--Sefringle^Talk 19:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Some quotes specifically say "Muslim theology". I'll repeat: "MUSLIM THEOLOGY". When will you admit that content that says "Muslim theology" is actually about Muslim theology.Bless sins 11:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not repating myself.--Sefringle^Talk 00:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's no way of answering a question. I suppose you don't actually have an answer.Bless sins 01:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I did answer, but I'm not going to answer the same question twice, which is what you are asking me to do.--Sefringle^Talk 05:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Section break 2

• "Lewis' opinion is somehow truer than those of scholars with other opinions"
  • When did I say that?

Many times, besides your edits show it by giving him undue weight in the article.

Point out once when I inserted something of that sort in the article.Bless sins 06:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Example 1: In the quran section, you added "According to Bernard Lewis, the Quran does not devote much content to the issue of Jews and Judaism" to the lead of that section, thus giving his opinion more weight than the opinions of the other scholars. Then you added a pro-islam opinion following, thus stating this opinion is more valuable than the other opinions in the section.

Example 2: In the "Muslim theology" section (which you added, and wihch gives both undue weight and repeated bias, you added "Bernard Lewis writes that there is nothing in Muslim theology (with a single exception) that can be considered refutations of Judaism or ferocious anti-Jewish diatribes" to the header, followed by "Scholars on Islam" to describe them, as if this particular opinion by them is more valuable than those of other scholars. This opinion is, in reality just POV.--Sefringle^Talk 01:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Did I actually say "this opinion is more valuable than the other opinions". I still don't see how saying "According to Bernard Lewis, the Quran does not devote much content to the issue of Jews and Judaism" says that Lewis is more important than other scholars. I didn't even use words such as "important" or "weight", you seem to have no evidence to back that up.Bless sins 04:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Putting it in the lead, and under the header you put it under does say that. I'm not going to say this again.--Sefringle^Talk 19:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone's opinion has to be in the lead, no? I'm tryign to make that neutral by putting generic and neutral statements in the lead ("the amount of content about Jews in the Qur'an etc.)Bless sins 11:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Nobody's opinion has to be in the lead, and it is probably better to leave opinions out of the lead. The current lead, without an opinion is at least NPOV. The content can be discussed later within the article, even if it isn't mentioned in the lead.--Sefringle^Talk 00:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, this is very simple logic: Every section has to start with a sentence, no? Every sentence must be sourced, no? Thus, the first sentence (in every section) is going to reflect the opinion of some scholar.Bless sins 01:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And the point is...?--Sefringle^Talk 05:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is that someone's opinion has to be in the lead. That the opinion is a neutral one, merely stating number without implying any bias is most suitable solution to this tricky situation.Bless sins 00:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

but you haven't answered the question. Why does soeone's opinion have to be in the lead? The problem is no opinion is really neutral, and having opinions in the lead just makes POV problems, as few of the scholars have a neutral opinion on this topic.--Sefringle^Talk 02:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• "this opinion certainly shouldn't be stated as if it is fact"
  • For the most part I haven't stated opinions as fact. But even if I have, you can change it to "According to Lewis..." That is no reason to delete it.

Stuffing his opinion as close to the top of the article is a clear example of saying his opinion is more important than other peoples opinions. Also giving putting his opinions under titles like "Judaism in Muslim theology and beliefs" is the equivalent to saying 'this opinion is true. Also your addition "Scholars on Islam (Lewis and Jerome Chanes) suggest that Muslims were not antisemitic for the most part due to the Quran and it's perception of God" is stating that it is fact that Islam isn't antisemitic. It doesn't matter that you specified whose opinion it is in parenthesis; you stated it as if their opinion was the only opinion that mattered.--Sefringle^Talk 06:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Islam_and_antisemitism#.22Moving_up.22.2F.22moving_down.22, with regards to "Stuffing his opinion as close to the top ". "Judaism in Muslim theology and beliefs" is a pretty neutral title. DO you have a better suggestion? Finally you can put a scholar's opinion under that title, I'm not preventing you from doing that.

Regarding your last quotation "'Scholars on Islam...": you are free to add other scholars that you think matter. I'm not preventing you from doing that. Bless sins 06:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Any general scholars opinions belong in the "Antisemitism in the context of Islam" section under the appropiate scholars name. Those sections, if written neutally could have been merged.--Sefringle^Talk 01:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

We are talking of opinions on the treatment of Judaism in "Muslim theology", not general opinions. Please keep yourself on topic.Bless sins 04:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

NO. We are talking about general opinions, some of which are scholarly, some of which are irrelevant. The sections need to be shortened or removed.--Sefringle^Talk 19:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to talk about opinions that are "irrelevent". I thought we were talking about the content in the "Judaism in Muslim theology" section??? What are these "general" opinions you talk of?Bless sins 11:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Those are the general opinions I am talking about.--Sefringle^Talk 00:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What are "these" opinions? I suppose you mean the content under "Judaism in Muslim theology"? Then please refer to it as such. What about that content? Which of them is not scholarly?Bless sins 01:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? When did I say anything about "scholarly"? I said the opinions you tried to add om the Muslim theology section are general. They don't disserve their own section.--Sefringle^Talk 05:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You said " we are talking about general opinions, some of which are scholarly," at 19:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC). Is there any opinion that I'm adding that is not scholarly? Please point it out. The opinions that I added to the Muslim theology section are about Muslim theology. Which one isn't?Bless sins 00:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please respond to what I actually posted, rather than some minor detials. None of the opinions about muslim theology; as I already stated- it is islam. Some of them are opinions of how islam views jews; others are synth problems, as I expalined above.--Sefringle^Talk 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• "in the tolerance section"
  • Content about" tolerance" should indeed be in the "tolerance" section. But content relating to "tolerance" is not the issue here. The issues are regarding Islamic theology, and the history of the Quran.

Except this isn't related to Islamic theology. It is related to tolerance. Nothing mentioned in this section provides a balanced view of how Islam views antisemitism. It is simply a new theory stating that the qur'an respects Jews. Perfect definition of tolerance toward Jews.--Sefringle^Talk 06:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The sources in the theology section specifically talk of "theology" or the Islamic concept of God and Divine revelation (a synonym for theology). We've been over this.Bless sins 06:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes we have, so I won't bother to repeat myself over what I already said.--Sefringle^Talk 01:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like you no longer object.Bless sins 04:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Of corse I object, but I am not going to repeat myself over why I object.--Sefringle^Talk 19:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No reason given for objection (atleast in the above content).Bless sins 11:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I did give a reason to object, but I'm not going to repeat it. That is just a waste of time.--Sefringle^Talk 00:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If you actually gave me an answer instead of constantly repeating "I'm not going to repeat", we would make progress.Bless sins 01:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You specificly said "we have been over this", and I am agreeing, so I am not responding to what we already have been over.--Sefringle^Talk 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• "He is saying the qur’an doesn't devote much to Jews and Judaism; no relevance to antisemitism here."
  • How can anyone be antisemitic without talking about Jews/Judaism? Thus if the Quran (in certain chapters) doesn't even mention Jews/Judaism, those chapters can't be antisemitic. The above is not my opinion, it's Lewis'.

See WP:SYNTH. I'm not going to repeat myself again. He doesn't say because of this muslims aren't antisemitic, nor does he say because of this they are antisemitic; thus irrelevant. Not going to state that again.--Sefringle^Talk 06:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

How can you say that? Have you even read the source? When you say "He doesn't say..." it means you have seen the source yourself. He says it in direct relation to antisemitism (and Islam). DOn't bother responding until you've read the source you are talking about.

Sorry. Not repeating myself. (nor am I repeating Jayjg's arguements.)--Sefringle^Talk 01:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thus you have no new (or unanswered) argument against this material.Bless sins 04:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I already answered your arguement, but you are responding to it with the same arguements you already answered. I am not going to repeat my self again.--Sefringle^Talk 19:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Issue settled (as you have no objections).Bless sins 11:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Of corse I object, but I'm not going to repeat why I object. See the section above for why, and if you respond, please have a new arguement.--Sefringle^Talk 00:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If you actually gave me an answer instead of constantly repeating "I'm not going to repeat", we would make progress. Also, what is "above" supposed to mean?Bless sins 01:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Above" means the section just above this section; in other words the section that starts with "in the tolerance section". Much of this discussion is over the same stuff but under different headers.--Sefringle^Talk 05:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please review what the meaning of a section is: see WP:section. The section we are currently posting is Talk:Islam_and_antisemitism#Sefringle.27s_objections, and the section above that is Talk:Islam_and_antisemitism#Antisemitism_in_pre-modern_Islam. Sefringle, please make lie easier for both of us, and just post the link of the diff here. An example of a diff is [5].Bless sins 00:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[6]--Sefringle^Talk 02:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Section break 3

• "Lewis' statement about nothing being antisemitic does not belong under the header "Judaism in Muslim theology and beliefs." "
  • Actually I wrote "Bernard Lewis writes that there is nothing in Muslim theology..." Bernard Lewis is talking only about Muslim theology (a branch of Islam). And Lewis' statement about "Muslim theology" indeed belongs under a header "Judaism in Muslim theology and beliefs".

Theology is "the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity." [7] Thus muslim theology is not a branch of Islamic studies, but rather the entire study of the religion of Islam itself. Thus this heading still has the same problems.--Sefringle^Talk 06:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What? Are you saying that "Muslim theology" isn't "Muslim theology"? When Lewis says "Muslim theology" he means "Muslim theology". Is that so hard to understand?Bless sins 06:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Again you repeat yourelf. I am not going to repeat myself again.--Sefringle^Talk 01:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting that "Muslim theology" is "Muslim theology".Bless sins 04:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said that. I just said I am not responding to arguments you make when you say the same arguement twice.--Sefringle^Talk 19:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So you still hold the arugment that "Muslim theology" is not the same as "Muslim theology".Bless sins 11:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that. I am saying "Muslim theology" is no different than "Islam." We've been over this.--Sefringle^Talk 00:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's like saying "Christian theology" = "Christianity", which is obviously not true. But even if Muslim theology is same as Islam, how does that make statements regarding Muslim theology irrelevant?Bless sins 01:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It does. They are the same. The only difference is Christian theology would more accurately be the study of Christianity so muslim theology is the study of Islam. Look up theology in the dictionary if you don't believe me.--Sefringle^Talk 05:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Answer my question: if "Muslim theology" is the same as "Islam" how does that justify deleting content on "Muslim theology" and antisemitism? And if you look up the definition of "Islamic theology", you will find that it deals with revelation, truthfulness of Qur'an, characteristics of Allah. But it doesn't deal with Islamic law, dhimmis, jizya (etc.) per se. Bless sins 00:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I told you already. The section is very one sided, POV, very selective to push a certian veiw, and it has WP:SINTH problems. Not to mention not all of it is relevant to antisemitism, only small snipits are, and those parts need editing. As for theology again, I explained how "muslim theology" is islam, and if you disagree, do you expect me to take your word for it and assume what you say is true without any evidence?--Sefringle^Talk 02:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• "That is saying the other opinions have no relevance, because Lewis and Cohan's rebuttal is correct and thus other opinions are wrong."
  • No. I clearly attributed the sentence to Lewis. I never said that Lewis' opinion is "correct". I never said that other opinion "have no relevance". On the contrary, it is you who imply that by removing the opinions of Lewis, Chanes, Poliakov, Schweitzer, Perry, Pinson and Rosenblatt.

No. While you attributed it to Lewis and Cohan, you also stated this is the correct opinion of all scholars, meaning other opinions are incorrect. I am removing irrelevant opinions. I am not removing legit opinions on the topic that are accurate and can be reworded into a neutral and appropriate manner.--Sefringle^Talk 06:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again. I didn't insert anything that said "this is the correct opinion of all scholars". Please point out my edit that does that.Bless sins 06:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

See above.--Sefringle^Talk 01:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You've made tens, if not hundreds, of comments "above". Be specific.Bless sins 04:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

See the "example 1, example 2 section.--Sefringle^Talk 19:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What's "example 1"? Can you post the link of some sort?Bless sins 11:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It is under the header entitled "Lewis' opinion is somehow truer than those of scholars with other opinions".--Sefringle^Talk 00:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any such titled section. Can you please post a link (a dif of your edit)? Thanks.Bless sins 01:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how you missed it? You created it. Anyway, it is in this section, above, but before the reset.--Sefringle^Talk 05:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please post the link to your diff (or copy and paste your answer). Your prolonging the discussion by making ambiguous references.Bless sins 00:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[8]--Sefringle^Talk 02:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• "In addition, as Jayjg already stated, you are making an original opinion based on what the sources say."
  • You're half right. What I wrote is indeed "based on what the sources say". But what I wrote is not "original". Infact, you can verify all these sources yourself.

I am going to assume Jayjg is right on this one; considering his/her qualifications.--Sefringle^Talk 06:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That means you don't have any objection to this. Good one less problem to resolve.Bless sins 06:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I made it prefectly clear that I do object.

Right. But you have no reasons for your objection, atleast you haven't provided any.Bless sins 04:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I already gave my reasons. I am not going to repeat them though.--Sefringle^Talk 19:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Issue settled (as you have no objections).Bless sins 11:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I do have objections, but they already have been made.--Sefringle^Talk 00:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes and I've addressed them.Bless sins 00:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No. You haven't. --Sefringle^Talk 02:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• "None of the sources say antisemitism."
  • Every one of my sources "say antisemitism". Every one. Please point out a single source that doesn't say antisemitism.

See above--Sefringle^Talk 06:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Where above? Which source of mine doesn't say antisemitism?Bless sins 06:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I made this prefectly clear as well. I'm not repeating myself. I said I am only going to say this once.--Sefringle^Talk 01:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly clear that everyone of my sources is about antisemitism.Bless sins 04:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No. It is not. And I am not giong to repeat this again.--Sefringle^Talk 19:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Issue settled (as you have no objections).Bless sins 11:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I do have objections, but they already have been made.--Sefringle^Talk 00:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and I adressed your objections, unless you have any new ones. If i didn't address your objections, please specify which one.Bless sins 01:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

see above (meaning above in this section, in the rest of my comments).--Sefringle^Talk 05:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please post the link to your edit.Bless sins 00:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[9]--Sefringle^Talk 03:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Some of this is actually original research."
  • Please point out any content that you think is original research. Be specific and don't say "all that you write is original research".

See Jayjg's comment dated 04:29, 25 June 2007 above in the "Islamic theology" section of this talk page--Sefringle^Talk 06:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

AgainJayjg himself doesn't refer to anything specific in that comment. The only thing he is referring to there is the S&P qutions which I got form two different pages. But that was the problem with old version. The version I'm reverting to [10] only quotes one page of S&P. The fact that you don't know that I have addressed this problem shows that you don't even read my edits before reverting them.Bless sins 22:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't address his concerns, because we (Jayjg included) are still arguing over this issue.--Sefringle^Talk 01:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If your concern is to demonize Islam, then yes I have not (nor will ever) address it. Otherwise, I have addressed WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.Bless sins 04:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please refraim from accusing me of having some hidden agenda. Such allegations are personal attacks.--Sefringle^Talk 19:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

When did I accuse you of a "hidden agenda"?Bless sins 11:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "If your concern is to demonize Islam..." implies that I have a hidden agenda to demonize Islam. Please refraim from such allegations.--Sefringle^Talk 00:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Notice the if. Please look up the meaning of "if", should you be unsure. BTW, I never said "hidden agenda".Bless sins 01:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, but you implied it.--Sefringle^Talk 05:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You're saying that I didn't say it but somehow implied it (without saying it). Does that make any sense?Bless sins 00:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It does if you think about it for a minute.--Sefringle^Talk 03:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• "As for the literature section, praise of islamic literature is also irrelevant."
  • I'm not "prais[ing] islamic literature". I putting in content that says Muslim literature is not always antisemitic.--Bless sins 15:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

With comments unrelated to antisemitism.--Sefringle^Talk 06:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

And what are those "comments"?Bless sins 06:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Already answered this.--Sefringle^Talk 01:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really. You never speicifed waht "comments" you talk of.Bless sins 04:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You origionally tried to add the following: "The outstanding characteristic of the classical Islamic view of Jews is their unimportance. The religious, philosophical, and literary Islamic writings tended to ignore Jews and focused more on Christianity. Although the Jews received little praise or respect and were sometimes blamed for various misdeeds, there were no fears of Jewish conspiracy and domination, nor any charges of diabolic evil nor accusations of poisoning the wells nor spreading the plague nor were even accused of engaging in blood libels. These concepts did not arise until the Ottomans learned them from their Greek subjects in the 15th century." This has no relevance to antisemitism.--Sefringle^Talk 19:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that "blood libel", "diabolic evil nor accusations of poisoning the wells", accusation of "spreading the plague" have nothing to do with antisemitism?Bless sins 11:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No. I am saying that the lack of these events is irrelevant. It adds POV to overenthesize these things within the article and gives them undue weight.--Sefringle^Talk 00:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you agree that "blood libel", "diabolic evil nor accusations of poisoning the wells", accusation of "spreading the plague" are indeed antisemtic charges. Then you say the lack of antisemitic charges is irrelvent to antisemitism??? Agin you make a pardoxical statement.Bless sins 01:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is poorly worded, clearly to push a POV. Part of it is relevant, part is not. I'll try to fix this quote.--Sefringle^Talk 05:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed version: "The outstanding characteristic of the classical Islamic view of Jews is their unimportance. The religious, philosophical, and literary Islamic writings tended to ignore Jews and focused more on Christianity. The Jews received little praise or respect and were sometimes blamed for various misdeeds. Fears of Jewish conspiracy and domination, and charges of diabolic evil, accusations of poisoning the wells, spreading the plague, and Jewish accusations of engaging in blood libels were learned by the Ottomans from their Greek subjects in the 15th century." At least this version states the same thing in a neutral manner. If I can find the source, I'll add this version back in.--Sefringle^Talk 05:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No that is basically what you call a misquote. Lewis says "there were no fears of Jewish conspiracy and domination, nor any charges of diabolic evil nor accusations of poisoning the wells nor spreading the plague nor were even accused of engaging in blood libels". You basically removed that vital information, twisting Lewis' words.Bless sins 00:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't a misquote. I changed the wording to make the quote neutral; instead of arguing that antisemitism didn't exist, not it argues no point about the existance of antisemitism. But the important part of the quote (meaning the actual historical facts) is exactly the same.--Sefringle^Talk 03:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition section

The following is a (probably unintentional) misrepresentation of sources:

According to Bernard Lewis, antisemitism is marked by two distinct features: Jews are judged according to a standard different from that applied to others, and they are accused of "cosmic evil."

This is what Lewis actually says,

Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism, for there was no attribution of cosmic evil. (emphasis added)

Whoever added this probably meant to say that the Jews are not accused of cosmic evil. I know it is just one word, but it makes a lot of difference.Bless sins 18:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should mention this point. --Aminz 04:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly the opposite! According to Lewis, unless Jews are accused of "cosmic evil", it's not antisemitism. Thus, in Lewis view, antisemitism is marked by two distinct features, one of which is that they are "accused of cosmic evil". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think bless sins means we should mention that accusations of cosmic evil wasn't there. (?) --Aminz 04:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is under the "Definitions" section, so I don't think it can be that. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that Lewis is saying that accusations of "cosmic evil" were not present in Islam/Muslim antisemitism. But the article says the exact opposite. Can you provide the quote, Jayjg, where Lewis says that Muslim antisemitism accuses Jews of "cosmic evil"?Bless sins 02:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You're completely wrong about this; the article does not say the exact opposite at all. Maybe this is a language problem. I suggest you read the section again. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Am I really wrong? The article says "Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism, for there was no attribution of cosmic evil. " Jayjg, I'm actually backing up my arguments with citation from Lewis. It is time you started doing the same.Bless sins 03:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My argument is from Lewis and from the English language; you are misunderstanding it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Where does Lewis say what you are claiming he says? I've provided you with the quote that he actually uses. Please provide the relevnet Lewis quote that backs up your claims.Bless sins 03:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The source is the exact same quote! You have misunderstood the English!!. Let's work very simply here. I'm going to ask some yes or no questions, and I'd like you to respond with a simple yes or no. 1) Does Lewis think that "attribution of cosmic evil" is a critical component of antisemitism? 2) If there is no "attribution of cosmic evil" then, according to Lewis, can something be true antisemitism? Please, just answer "yes" or "no" to these questions, it will help uncover the misunderstanding. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I usually refrain from answering question with only a yes/no answer, as they are mostly flawed, but will do so this time. If we do not take Lewis' quote in context then the answer to your questions will be: 1) yes, 2) no. But that only suggests that, according to Lewis, antisemitism has not been present in the Islamic world. Surely that is a fact worth mentioning!Bless sins 01:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The section in question is only providing definitions of antisemitism, and it does clearly state "For Lewis, from the late nineteenth century, movements appear among Muslims of which for the first time one can legitimately use the term anti-semitic." It's pretty obvious. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes and the above definition is clearly not applicable to Islam, according to the definer himself. On the contrary, as you have just admitted above, that according to Lewis' definitons, there was no "true antisemitism" in the Islamic world. That is worthy of noting.Bless sins 03:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The article notes it! I just quoted you the very sentence that notes it! What other sentence from Lewis do you think the article needs? Please quote it. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

<reset>No the sentence you quoted doesn't say antisemitism was not present in Islam. Perhaps we should have the following: "According to Bernard Lewis, antisemitism has mostly not been present in the Islamic world, as there has been no accusation against the Jews of "cosmic evil", a distinct feature of antisemitism." Bless sins 13:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

For Lewis, from the late nineteenth century, movements appear among Muslims of which for the first time one can legitimately use the term anti-semitic. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And the above quote says nothing of the absence of the accusation of cosmic evil.Bless sins 03:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

So what?? It says that there wasn't "anti-semitism" until the late 19th century. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"So what". Did you not say above that, according to Lewis, "attribution of cosmic evil" is a critical component of antisemitism? If soemthing is a "critical" component, certainly it deserves to be mentioned in relation to Islam (which is what our main topic is).Bless sins 03:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Lewis already says that his unique definition of antisemitism includes "cosmic evil", and that it didn't exist in Islam until the late 19th century. You are beating a dead horse with a POV stick. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Lewis says that his definition of antisemitism includes "cosmic evil", and that "cosmic evil" didn't exist in Islam until the late 19th century. Why aren't we including that?Bless sins 04:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is already made; you are beating a dead horse with POV-whitewash stick. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

<reset> I don't see it being made. I don't see anything about "cosmic evil" in the following sentence: "For Lewis, from the late nineteenth century, movements appear among Muslims of which for the first time one can legitimately use the term anti-semitic." Can you please show me the words "cosmic evil" in the sentence quoted above?Bless sins 02:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're fixated on that phrase. Frankly, it only weakens Lewis's claims. In any event, the sentence makes it quite clear that in Lewis's view it is only in the late 19th century that truly antisemitic movements appear in Islam. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How many times do I have to repeat that the above sentence does not say anything about "cosmic evil"? I don't care if it makes Lewis' claims look weak. It is not my job (nor yours) here as to glorify Lewis' POVs.Bless sins 04:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So what if the sentence doesn't say anything about "cosmic evil"? There's no reason why it should need to. The point is made without it, and there's no particular need to repeat it. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse the sentence doesn't need to say anythig about "cosmic evil". We should just include an additional sentence. Remember, wikipedia is not limited by length.Bless sins 04:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

But it is limited by WP:NPOV and good taste. The article already says that, according to Lewis, there was no antisemitism in Islam before the 19th century. It doesn't need two sentences saying that. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

<reset>I will pose to you a simple question: Does the following sentence mention anything about "cosmic evil": For Lewis, from the late nineteenth century, movements appear among Muslims of which for the first time one can legitimately use the term anti-semitic. If you answer this question, it will clear things up.Bless sins 12:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the best solution to this is to quote the one disputed sentence of Lewis verbatim. Then we will have no issue because we will have represented perfectly.Bless sins 12:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw, Lewis says that cosmic evil is a component of antisemitism. But ne never says that "Jews are judged according to a standard different from that applied to others" is a component of antisemitism in relaiton to Islam.Bless sins 12:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As it is, the "definition" is one short sentence providing an actual definition, and then two looong sentences saying that Muslims weren't antisemitic. It's extremely unbalanced as it. Why don't you propose a single sentence, and we'll replace that sentence with it. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, this is no longer the "definition" section. Secondly, I have proposed a single sentence. Currently the article says:

According to Bernard Lewis, antisemitism is marked by two distinct features: Jews are judged according to a standard different from that applied to others, and they are accused of "cosmic evil."

I propose we replace it with:

According to Bernard Lewis prejudices and occasional hostility existed in the Islamic world, but not anti-Semitism, as there was no attribution of "cosmic evil".

These are not my words, but Lewis'. Thus you can not, in any way, say that this misrrepresents Lewis. Note I have also shortened the original quote a bit.Bless sins 17:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I've replaced the middle two sentences with your formulation, which says the same thing in a more concise way. Good idea, now the Lewis paragraph is the same size as the others, not twice as long as it was before. I'm not sure why you insisted that the paragraph had to say that Islam did not attribute "cosmic evil" to Jews, when it already said Islam didn't attribute "diabolical evil" to Jews, but you've pushed so long on this that I'm just giving in. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at how incredibly dishonest your edit is. Though you said the edit is "per Bless sins", I never said the two middle sentences should be erased.

In anycase, your edit messes thigns up a bit. Where does Bernard Lewis talk about "Jews are judged according to a standard different from that applied to others" in the context of Islam? That needs to go. Secondly, Why do we need two sentences on cosmic evil. The first sentence on cosmic evil says nothing the second doesn't.Bless sins 19:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? You're the one who insisted that we need a second reference to "cosmic evil". Now that we added it, you want it removed again? Enough is enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Can you show me where Lewis says "Jews are judged according to a standard different from that applied to others" in relation to Islam? Why do you keep on inserting that?

Also, the sentence, "...but not anti-Semitism, as there was no attribution of 'cosmic evil'", according to you, is the source for "and they are accused of 'cosmic evil.'" Then why do we need to repeat it twice? Why do you insist on keeping the following sentence:

According to Bernard Lewis, antisemitism is marked by two distinct features: Jews are judged according to a standard different from that applied to others, and they are accused of "cosmic evil."

Please stop creating straw man arugments and putting words in my mouth.Bless sins 19:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't have a definition of Islam in antisemitism without actually having one. You insisted we not only had to define what Antisemitism entailed, according to Lewis, but also point out that, in his view, Islam wasn't antisemitic because it did not attribute "cosmic evil" to Jews. That has been done. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, the source says "Anti-Semitism is something quite different. It is marked by two special features. One of them is that Jews are judged by a standard different from that applied to others... The other special feature of anti-Semitism, which is much more important than differing standards of judgment, is the accusation against Jews of cosmic evil." That is how Lewis defines antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and Lewis says that in relation general antisemitism, not Muslim antisemitism. Incase you haven't noticed, this article is about Islam and antisemitism. If something is not about Islam (and antisemitism), then it doesn't belong.Bless sins 12:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Lewis has his own peculiar definition of antisemitism, and he disqualifies Islam because of it. We give Lewis's whole definition, not half of it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

But Lewis says nothing about "Jews are judged by a standard different from that applied to others" in relation to Islam. Thus, half of the definition is irrelevent to antisemitism in Islam. Then why talk about it?Bless sins 00:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Martin Gilbert

Martin Gilbert's book Dearest Auntie Fori. The Story of the Jewish People is hardly an acdemic work. The book is filled with fantastical passages such as "God was extremely disappointed that Adam and Eve had chosen to disobey him..." (pg. 5) or "Moses was very angry, as was God." (pg. 28). Therefore, this source is not at all reliable.

But let's get back to Islam. The pages cited, 179-182, say absolutely nothing of antisemitism. Neither the source, nor the contents have any relation to antisemitism. The use of the source is OR, and thus I'm removing it. Bless sins 04:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Damascus affair is one of the best-known episodes of antisemitism in history. Beit Or 20:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Your above comment is just nonsense. I though Holocaust was one of the best known examples of antisemitism. Or was it deicide? Maybe, blood libel?

In any case, the source for the content is not only unreliable, but says nothing about antisemitism. Please don't insert OR.Bless sins 23:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Albert S. Lindemann, The Jew Accused: Three Anti-Semitic Affairs (Dreyfus, Beilis, Frank), 1894-1915, "Earlier anti-Semitic affairs", p. v. "...Two deserve brief consideration as providing useful background for the Three Affairs: the Damascus Affair (1840) and the Tiszaeszlar Affair (1882)." There are many similar sources. Now please stop making ridiculous edits. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have sources, why don't you add them to the article? The current source is not only unreliable but also OR. I'll wait a couple of days for you to do so.Bless sins 19:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Martin Gilbert is a noted historian. The Damascus affair was an infamous antisemitic incident. Any ridiculous edits will be reverted, using a vandalism revert. You have been notified. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Martin Gilbert says that God and Moses were angry at the Egyptians. This is ridiculous! How can Gilbert know what God is thinking? Secondly, Gilbert is not talking about antisemitism at all. Please note that your content might belong in History of the Jews under Muslim rule but not in this article which is strictly about antisemitism (and Islam).Bless sins 19:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert is writing metaphorically. Sir Martin Gilbert is a noted historian. The Damascus affair was an infamous antisemitic incident. Any ridiculous edits will be reverted, using a vandalism revert. You have been notified. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Metaphorically? The fact is that if we accept Gilbert's source as a valid source of history, then we are forced to conclude that Gilbert somehow knew what God was thinking. Secondly, you keep evading my questions about OR. Gilbert says nothing about "antisemitism". Using him in this article is complete OR, as his book is not at all in relation to the topic.Bless sins 12:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The Damascus affair was an antisemitic blood libel. Many sources attest to this. I've provided one. Any ridiculous edits will be reverted, using a vandalism revert. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

<reset> As of 00:47 July 8, the info is still sourced to Martin Gilbert. I have veridied that Gilbert is not only an unrelaible source, but also says nothing about antisemitism. Therefore, per WP:NOR, I must remove this, since it is not in relation to the topic of the article.

If you have another source, please provide it directly in the article.Bless sins 00:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Martin Gilbert is a distinguished historian and in principle his books fully qualify as reliable sources, given that we remember that in any case where there is a scholarly disagreement both sides must be represented. With respect to this particular book, it should also be checked whether it is written for a scholarly or a popular audience. If for a popular audience, then it is not an appropriate source for an article on a potentially controversial topic such as this one. I'm not at all impressed with the sloppy referencing that has given this book (a book referenced no less than six times in the article, please note!) the wrong title. Even correcting that (Letters to Auntie Fori...), I can't find the edition referred to. The British Library has a London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson edition of 2002, ISBN 0297607405, and a London, Phoenix edition of 2003, ISBN 0753816938. There are American editions listed at US Amazon but none by HarperCollins. I see that the hardback is available at $1.95, i.e. it is "remaindered", not indicative of a scholarly text.Itsmejudith 09:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Damascus Affair was indeed one of the best known cases of antisemitism – European and American antisemitism and only secondarily that of the Ottoman Empire. The publishers of one of the key sources (the Ronald Florence book) for the Damascus Affair article say:

Vicious charges of ritual murder had been heard in Europe for centuries and are heard in the Middle East today—but everything else here was turned around. The accusers of the Jews were not the Muslim majority. The French consul was the chief prosecutor, aided by the British consul, with the support of the American consul.

Daniel Pipes’ review of the Frankel book in Middle East Quarterly 5 (3) Sept 1998 also summarises the event in a way that implicates the French consul above all others – but the article does not choose to quote the relevant paragraphs of his review, in fact the French consul is hardly mentioned and the British and American consuls not at all.

It seems that some editors could do with improving their own source research skills before making incivil accusations of "ridiculous edits". Itsmejudith 10:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, please note that the content disputed is not limited to the Damascus affair. It is related to everything sourced to Gilbert. The reason I have an issue with Gilbert is primarily that he himself never says anything of antisemitism. Thus although the content may belong under History of the Jews under Muslim rule, it doesn't belong here - unless someone can find something that relates the events to antisemitism.Bless sins 13:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Moving up"/"moving down"

I want to put an end to this argument for good. Accusations have thrown out that I (or another user) am/is trying to move some content down or up. I would like to point out the faults with such allegations.

1. In order to move content up, one must move content down and vice versa. Therefore, if a user moves S & P up, in doing so they've moved other authors down. Why is it acceptable to move one author up at the expense of another?
2. Content should be organized with respect to topic, not with respect to what a particular user want the first sentence to be.
3. So what if someone move some content up or down? Is it against wikipedia rules to move content? Does wikipedia say that once content is added, it must never moved for as long as wikipedia exists? I want to make sure that I'm following wikipedia's rules, not some users.Bless sins 04:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The only WP rule I can think of that would apply is the need for a good article to have a logical structure. Just aim for an end result that is balanced and doesn't confuse the reader. Itsmejudith 10:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevent image

Can someone explain how "Image:NYTimes 1948 Jews in Arab.jpg" is an example of the relationship between Islam and antisemitism. Remember to back your claims with reliable sources.Bless sins 17:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

A newspaper that says all Jews in muslim lands are in danger, and you don't see a connection between Islam and antisemitism!? The connection is pretty obvious.--Sefringle^Talk 23:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Does the newspaper say anthing about antisemitism, and the Islamic faith?Bless sins 19:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It says muslim. It directly relates to general muslim antisemitism.--Sefringle^Talk 22:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Does it say "antisemitism"?Bless sins 12:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Martin Kramer

Aminz (talk · contribs) origionally wrote the following, wanting to add it to this article. Lets see if we can edit it to fairly represent his views. The source given was: [11].

For Martin Kramer, two common answers to the question of the source of today's antisemitism locates it "either in the essence of Islam, or in the creation of Israel." The argument of those who hold that antisemitism is essntial to Islam is that since the Qur'an states that some Jews engaged in treachery against Muhammad, it would inspire those Muslims who go back to the original sources of Jewish hatred. According to Kramer, this answer "touches on some truths, yet it misses many others". One is that in Islamic tradition, in striking contrast with the Christian concept of the eternal Jew, the the contemporary Jews were not presented as archetypes—as the embodiment of Jews in all times and places; or that the Qur'an also records of Muhammad's amicable relations with some Jews. Kramer however states that today's Muslim antisemitism "make very effective use of the Qur'an and Tradition of the Prophet. But it is also a selective and distorting use."

--Sefringle^Talk 19:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Totallydisputed tag

I propose removing the {{totallydisputed}} tag. It seems the disputes are pretty much over for the most part.--Sefringle^Talk 04:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really, see above sections.Bless sins 06:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You deliberately restored that information which there was no consensus for the inclusion of because of this proposal; didn't you?--Sefringle^Talk 06:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No consensus. That's what dispute literally means I believe. --Aminz 08:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know what a dispute is. I'm not stupid.--Sefringle^Talk 02:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And I don't think the dispute would be settled until there are editors who argue for excluding Encyclopedia of Islam's statistical information by calling it "a random source" (and so why using a random source), or something that doesn't add anything informative or other kinds of excuses. If you don't want to include a source, at least please be honest as to why you don't want to do that. --Aminz 08:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm, Sefringle, I first resotred the material on 11 July[12]. Stop accusing me of silly things, and try to end disputes before removing the tag.Bless sins 15:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent controversial edits

Bless sins, as stated before, there is no consensus for your edits. The reasons have been explained at great length on this Talk: page; indeed, at such length that we have been forced to repeat our reasoning several times, as you keep bringing up the same arguments again and again. Also, as explained above, at some point the circular arguments had to come to an end, and our non-responses were not indications that we agreed with your attempted edits, but that we were simply not repeating ourselves. It is rather disappointing, therefore, to see you claim that you felt your edits were acceptable because there had been "no disagreement in 8 days". Whether 8 days or 80, you have no agreement on the changes you are proposing, and you know this. Further repetition of your already rejected arguments will not change this. Please accept this and move on to other, more fruitful areas to edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My edits are fruitful. I can't believe you are still censoring content sourced to nine scholars. Nine scholars! You have not provided a single argument against my content, except that you don't like it. I have made repeated attempts to discuss this matter with you, but each time you run away. Please state the exact wiki policy that is being violated by the content I insert. I'm giving you another chance at dialogue. Please don't respond in the form of personal attacks.Bless sins 04:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you once made an arugment with regards to S & P. That argument is obsolete since I have taken out that particular reference to S & P. Just to tell you so you don't repeat that.Bless sins 04:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as you insist on inserting that original research and synthesis about "Judaism in Muslim theology" we're never going to get anywhere. And I've said it before, Schweitzer and Perry do not move down. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

But it isn't original research. All the scholars are talking about antisemitism, Judaism and Muslim theology. Forget agreeing with me, do you atleast understand what I'm saying?

Regarding your second arugment, please look at my edit (04:16, 27 June 2007) inTalk:Islam_and_antisemitism#.22Moving_up.22.2F.22moving_down.22, for why your argument is silly.Bless sins 05:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've gone over why it is original research at length, in previous comments. Do you imagine that has changed somehow? Regarding moving down, it won't be moving down. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it has. You said that an S & P reference (03:41, 25 June 2007) was OR, and I took it off. That is no longer what the dispute is about. Yet it keeps on disrupting the discussion here.

Regarding "moving down" discussion, please continue it at Talk:Islam_and_antisemitism#.22Moving_up.22.2F.22moving_down.22. Thanks.Bless sins 06:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've already discussed both of these at length. Extreme length. And I didn't only object to the S&P reference. Whenever you feel the urge to revert in that material, re-read my previous comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You always keep saying that these edits violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. But you never explain how. And because you keep on repeating those same allegations, you think that you have "discussed" this at "extreme length". Anyways I'll make one last attempt below.Bless sins 13:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's consider my edits a small chunk at a time. How is the content below OR?

Bernard Lewis writes that there is nothing in Muslim theology (with a single exception) that can be considered refutations of Judaism or ferocious anti-Jewish diatribes.

Please explain.Bless sins 13:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is mostly about antisemitism, not "refutations of Judaism" for one thing. What section do you think that belongs in? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

But Lewis interprets such refutations of Judaism as antisemitism. In anycase, are you telling me that "anti-Jewish diatribes" isn't antisemitism? Aren't you the one who argued that "anti-Jewish" was a synonym for "antisemitic"?

What section do I think this belongs in? A comment about "anti-Jewish diatribes" in "Muslim theology" belongs in a section titled "Judaism in Muslim theology". Sounds logical to me.Bless sins 19:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your latest edits, which improve this article a lot. --Raphael1 16:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Numbers instead of opinions?

I suggest we present the statistics instead of personal opinions in the following quote:

" According to Bernard Lewis, the Quran does not devote much content to the issue of Jews and Judaism. Of these most of the Quranic references are to the biblical Children of Israel, a few references also talk about contemporary Jews. There is no specific mention of Jews in verses dating from the Meccan period."

In other words, we can say how many verses are there etc etc. --Aminz 10:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"the Quran does not devote much content to the issue of Jews and Judaism." is a completely inane phrase. Sadly, the article is full of such meaningless statemnents. Beit Or 10:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be replaced with numbers instead of opinions. --Aminz 10:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion as to how this can be presented: 1. Report the number of verses about Jews and Judaism 2. The number of verses about biblical Children of Israel 3. The number of verses about contemporary Jews. 4. Number of Medinain ones or Meccan ones.

We can let the reader make up his/her own mind if these form a large or small fraction. --Aminz 10:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I am confused. EoI says: "As noted above, the words Yahūd, Yahūdī, and Hūd first appear in the Medinan sūras—albeit a total of fifteen times, compared with the forty-three specific mentions of the Banū Isrāʾīl throughout the entire Ḳurʾān (the verbal form [allad̲h̲īna] hādū—“those who are Jewish”—appears ten times.)" while EoQ says: "The Arabic term denoting “Jews” is yahūd, which occurs seven times in the Qurʾān. The form hūd also denotes the same and appears in this sense three times. The singular, yahūdī, occurs once." These seem to contradict each other because according to EoI, the noun form appears 15 times while according to EoQ it is 7+3+1 =11. The sources agree on the number of occurance of the verb form. --Aminz 10:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This edit was a good one. I support this change.--Sefringle^Talk 18:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, Beit Or, and Sefringle. I really don't mind the removal of non-numerical statements like "much" and "mostly", but what is this: "According to Frederick M. Schweitzer and Marvin Perry, these references are mostly negative". I guess that should be removed as well?Bless sins 11:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Um no.--Sefringle^Talk 03:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Why are we practicing double standards here?Bless sins 14:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"Mostly negative" cannot possibly be transformed into a number. No double standard.--Sefringle^Talk 05:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to transform "mostly negative" into numbers. For example: "of the twelve references to Jews in the Qur'an, nine appear to be negative". That you fail to see this simple example, further raises my suspicions that double standards are at work here.Bless sins 23:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Sefringle, sweeping removal of content [13] that has been there for a long time is not appropriate. It will only result in edit-wars. For now, please discuss removal of "Judaism in Muslim theology and beliefs". I don't think the whole section is justified to be removed. --Aminz 18:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the section that is currently under dispute (and is the section we are revert warring over). See above section entitled "Sefringle's objections".--Sefringle^Talk 19:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at this. As Bless sins said, re "Information about tolerance to Jews is not relevant", this article is about "Islam and antisemitism" not a proof that Islam is anti-semitism. If toleration is in some sense the opposite of antisemitism, it is relevant here. It can be used if an authors does so. --Aminz 19:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"Toleration" is a weasel word, while antisemitism isn't. The sources must explicitly talk about opposition to antisemitism rather than some vague "toleration", otherwise it's original research. This is as simple as that. Beit Or 20:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Toleration" is certainly not a weasel word. Since those statements about tolerance are written in books about anti-Semitism, it seems to me, that you are quibbling. --Raphael1 12:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mind WP:NPA--Sefringle^Talk 20:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying that it seems like he was quibbling (which basically means using minor and/or irrelevant points to evade an issue) is not a "personal attack." Read the WP:NPA page yourself and you will see it does not fit the criteria of a personal attack at all. Trying to turn a discussion of your disputed deletion into an accusation of weasel words against someone else certainly seems to fit the definition of "quibbling" to me as well. The point is that antisemitism doesn't always exist in Islam, thus showing periods and examples of that tolerance are on-topic in this article.

Furthermore, the removal of all of that content was unwarranted, especially when you admit yourself that it is currently under dispute. The correct action in that case is to try to come up with a compromise that satisfies both parties, not simply deleting all references to Islamic toleration of Jews, which is, not surprisingly, what you've been arguing for throughout the dispute. Bless Sins, Aminz, and myself have all given arguments about why the material is appropriate for the article, so a wholesale deletion of it is contrary to the recommendations given in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. I hope you will read and follow those recommendations. -- HiEv 09:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"you are quibbling" most certianly is a personal attack. It implies a negative connotation about the editor, not the arguement. As for the rest of your comment, if you or someone else has an idea of a fair compromise that they think will satisfy both parties, they are welcome to suggest it. But restoration of the same disputed material is not compromising, but rather edit warring.--Sefringle^Talk 00:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not a personal attack. "You're a bad person," or "you suck," or "you're an [uncouth word]," those are all personal attacks. "You're doing something wrong" or "you are making a mistake" is not. The difference is that the former is attacking a person's character while the latter is pointing out a problem with the person's actions. "You are quibbling" fits into the latter category. Again, read the examples on WP:NPA and you will see that comment doesn't resemble any of the examples given. If writing "you are quibbling" "implies a negative connotation" as you put it, then so does accusing people of personal attacks or pointing out any of their errors or problems in editing. Clearly all of that is allowed because it is not a personal attack, it's simply an attempt to point out a problem in what someone is doing so they can correct/avoid it, not an attempt to make an attack on their character.

As for the more important issue, I agree that both the wholesale deletion of the disputed material and preventing any edits of the disputed material are not examples of compromise, but we have asked for ways to fix the disputed material, and the only suggestions I've seen have been wholesale deletion (admittedly I haven't read all of this rather lengthy dispute, so I may have missed some other suggestions.) Our party is willing to edit the material to better fit Wikipedia's policies, but your party hasn't convincingly shown any policies or guidelines it's violating or how to remedy the "problem" (primarily the disputed claim of the material being off-topic) other than deletion. So, since you are the ones who don't like the material, and deletion is off the table at this point due to an inability to reach consensus on that point (just as keeping everything intact is also off the table,) it is incumbent on your party to clarify what the problems with the disputed material are that need to be fixed. Preferably this will be done in a concise way that lays out the policy and guideline violations in particular parts, and suggestions regarding remedies which would be acceptable to the people who have a problem with this disputed material. If you think it would help we could make a request for mediation or start an RFC as suggested in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Considering the length of the dispute and the fact that both parties are often appear fed up with the other party, with some points being repeated over and over, and attempts to argue against those points often being ignored with comments like, "Sorry. Not repeating myself," I highly recommend requesting mediation and getting an experienced and impartial third party here to settle the dispute. -- HiEv 08:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

i would highly recommend this be taken to mediation as there is little indication that the ongoing content dispute will be resolved otherwise. ITAQALLAH 01:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's about time I listened to you...Bless sins 03:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, would you please check out the Lewis's book "Semites and anti-Semites" from a library so that we could reference to pages instead of quoting stuff here. It would be faster. --Aminz 19:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert war

If you're revert warring without further discussion, perhaps mediation? Or an RfC? As an alternative, why not move this article to Islam and Jewish people or something? That should take care of the objecions on both sides.Hornplease 20:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a mediation going on. See the above mediation template. Anyway, I am deeply opposed to such a move. We already have an article called Islam and Judaism.--Sefringle^Talk 01:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Which can serve as a parent article, perhaps? There is already an article on History of the Jews under Muslim rule; this can serve as a companion article, the theory to that article's practice? Hornplease 05:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you all please stop revert warring over the article and let the mediation proceed? The information currently in should be left in because leaving it in now and fixing it later is easier than deleting it now trying to restore deleted sections later. Also, as the mediation proceeds you can point to the current version and discuss any disputes over this material there and what should be changed or removed. If the material is deleted now then it makes it hard to discuss in the mediation. Furthermore, please refrain from making any new additions to the article that aren't minor fixes until the mediation is over so as to provide a more stable version of the article to discuss. This goes for both sides of the dispute. Thank you. -- HiEv 07:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is easy to tell what information we are talking about for the mediation. Just a reminder, the dispute is over the accuracy of the material, whether it belongs at all, etc. New resolutions can be added as necessary if fixed. Anyway, you are right about one thing; we should stop edit warring.--Sefringle^Talk 07:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the dispute is about things including what belongs at all, so please don't decide for yourself what belongs at all without consensus. You are acting as though the mediation is complete and you got everything you wanted. If you want to try finding a compromise and fixing the edits, fine, but simply reverting all of that work repeatedly is not helpful and does not show a spirit of cooperation in this dispute. -- HiEv 09:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

This page has been prevented to prevent revert warring. Please direct all comments to the mediation case's talk page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Islam and antisemitism. --Deskana (talky) 23:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverting

Yahel Guhan (a.k.a. Sefringle) please do not restart the revert war and please read Help:Reverting. You are violating most of the "Do not" points on that page. Also, your indiscriminate revert reintroduced errors and risks getting the page protected again. If you have a problem with the text please resume your discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Islam and antisemitism instead. Thank you. -- HiEv 11:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yahel Guhan, you and I are both parties to an ongoing mediation. Please do not make contentious edits to this page until the mediation is finished. I have so far restrained myself from making edits to this page (because I don't want another edit war), and expect you to do the same. Please don't drag us into this. Also HiEv and I are waiting for your response on the mediation talk page.Bless sins 19:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Semites cannot be "anti-Semitic"

Arabs are Semites! Syrians are Semites! Iraqis are Semites! Lebanese are Semites! Yemenis are Semites! Omanis are Semites! Jordanians are Semites! I continue to contemplate the overtly absurd misue of Semantics in our popular culture. Semites cannot be "anti-Semitic!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlon (talk • contribs) 13:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see the third box at the top of this talk page. -- HiEv 20:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"Antisemitism" is a bit of a misnomer, and includes only hatred towards Jews. For hatred of Arabs, see anti-arabism.Bless sins 15:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Reconciliation efforts

Prompted by some discussion about Seattle Jewish Federation shooting, I've added a small subsection about Islamic opposition to anti-Semitism. This section can be improved, of course, and even expanded, provided it's not given undue weight.

Meanwhile, it looks like mediation efforts have been terminated or suspended. If so, please msg me and discuss in Talk before deleting this new little section. Thanks. HG | Talk 10:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Broken references

There were two broken references in the article that I have changed to "fact" tags. Both were broken when added. The first was added in these two edits, which refer to a non-existant "Morris10" reference. And the second was added in this edit, which refered to a non-existant "Stillman1" reference (though there was/is a "Stillman2" reference, so I don't know if that was simply a typo.) Please check on these and fix the references if you can. Thanks. -- HiEv 18:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

repeatition tag

I am tagging this page with {{repetition}} because much of this article, especially bless sins version is just repeatings of the exact same content. Until this problem is fixed, I am adding this tag. Yahel Guhan 00:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation closed

Unfortunately the mediation has been closed. I'm not sure what to do now. Perhaps Deskana can guide us?

The only good news are the following. Both Yahel Guhan and I agreed that the following is relevant to the article:

Bernard Lewis writes that there is nothing in Muslim theology (with a single exception) that can be considered refutations of Judaism or ferocious anti-Jewish diatribes.[16] Scholars on Islam (Lewis[17] and Jerome Chanes[18]) suggest that Muslims were not antisemitic for the most part due to the Quran and it's perception of God. They argue that the Qur'an: 1. orders Muslims to profess strict monotheism, as does Judaism; 2. views the stories of Jewish deicide as a blasphemous absurdity, and other similar stories in the gospels are not part of the educational system in Muslim society; 3. did not present itself as a fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible but rather a restorer of its original messages that had been distorted over time - thus no clash of interpretations between Judaism and Islam could arise, and, 4. views Muhammad as fully human, not a Son of God or Messiah, a claim less offensive to Jews. In addition Lewis argues that the Quran lacks popular western traditions of "guilt and betrayal". [19] Rosenblatt and Pinson suggest that the Quran teaches the toleration of Judaism as a fellow monotheistic faith.[20]

Other than that, we failed to accomplish much.Bless sins 00:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets focus on the rewrite of this section. The Lewis source is the same one we used in Arabs and antisemitism, so maybe we should do something similar to what we agreed to on that talk page as to how to fix this. Yahel Guhan 00:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure let's focus on rewriting. But let's not try to re-invent the wheel. You know how hard it is for both of us to agree upon something? When we do agree, let's keep the agreement and not turn back on our word.Bless sins 01:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's my proposal for the rewrite of the numbered section. We'll do something similar to what we agreed to on Arabs and antisemitism. As for the other parts, I'll need to see the quotes first.

According to Barnard Lewis and Jerome Chanes, Muslim had not been antisemitic in the same way the term is used in the west. Muslim antisemitism differs from Christian antisemitism in that Muslims were not 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. The founders of both Islam and Christianity came into conflicts with the Jews, but there the resemblence ends. Jesus was crusified, Muhammad triumphed over his community. His conflicts with the Jewish tribes in Medina resulted in their defeat, rather than his, resulting in the conflict being resolved within his lifetime.

The second issue, is the header. I think a better header would be something like "comparisions between Christian antisemitism." or western antisemitism. Yahel Guhan 01:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yahel the above doesn't even completely summarize Lewis, let alone take into account the views of Chanes, Rosenblatt and Pinson. Yahel Guhan, let's stick with what we have agree to, and begin discussing the rest which we haven't agreed upon yet, ok? If we ever reach consensus on the rest of the article, then we'll come back to this.Bless sins 01:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, since you rejected my proposal, why don't you propose an alternative idea that addresses your concerns. The original version doesn't accurately present their (or at least Lewis' views either). My proposal states everything you stated in the italicized section. As you havent provided the quotes, for Chanes, Rosenblatt, or Pinson, and I don't have access to them, it is kind of hard to come up with a new compromise version that represents their views. What parts of Lewis' view aren't presented?. Yahel Guhan 02:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Lewis' statement "Bernard Lewis writes that there is nothing in Muslim theology (with a single exception) that can be considered refutations of Judaism or ferocious anti-Jewish diatribes."Bless sins 05:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think in Lewis view the first appearance of what can legitimately be described as antisemitic movement appeared in late nineteenth century (Lewis(1984), p.184). I have a proposal here [14] --Aminz 05:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide the full quote? Yahel Guhan 01:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(Peanut gallery:) I'm concerned that you folks are drifting (escalating? verb?) into an edit war. If only for your own sake, I urge you not to do that. It's unfortunate that mediation hasn't worked out, but try to use the Talk or figure out other channels. This is a controversial article, so folks shouldn't be deleting whole segments of texts, or going thru back and forth reverts, without discussion here. Also, efforts to technically evade WP:3RR are frowned upon. HG | Talk 13:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we at least agree to replace the part that reads as follows with the compromise version I proposed?:

Scholars on Islam (Lewis and Jerome Chanes) suggest that Muslims were not antisemitic for the most part due to the Quran and it's perception of God. They argue that the Qur'an:

1. orders Muslims to profess strict monotheism, as does Judaism;
2. views the stories of Jewish deicide as a blasphemous absurdity, and other similar stories in the gospels are not part of the educational system in Muslim society;
3. did not present itself as a fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible but rather a restorer of its original messages that had been distorted over time - thus no clash of interpretations between Judaism and Islam could arise, and,
4. views Muhammad as fully human, not a Son of God or Messiah, a claim less offensive to Jews.

--Yahel Guhan 01:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

NO! We agreed that the part mentioned above is completely relevant. The evidence is on the mediation talk page. Yahel Guhan, discussion can't continue if you turn back on your word every few days. It's pointless reaching a compromise, knowing that you will be going aginst that compromise later on.Bless sins 02:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

We agreed it is relevant, but we didn't agree that is was phrased correctly to represent the sources. We also didn't resolve the POV issues with that section. We both have access to one of the two sources in that section [15], and it seems based on what you wrote that Chanes makes the same point as Lewis, so why not suggest a compromise that you will agree to that presents exactly what Lewis' view is, since you reject my version (which in my opinion presents exactly what Lewis says in this POV section)? Yahel Guhan 18:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What you wrote omits some statements, e.g. "views Muhammad as fully human, not a Son of God or Messiah, a claim less offensive to Jews".It also add stuff about Muhammad, that is not relevant in the Qur'an section. Is there any problem with my version? Does it violate policy in any way. I don't care about stylistic errors, summary issues, repetition at this point, since there are WP:NOT#censored, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR issues. Such stylistic issues are the least of my concerns.Bless sins 19:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your version is, as I originally stated, is it violates WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, and it misinterprits the source. As for your other points, the first can be added, but the second, is that the section really isn't related to the qur'an. Decide is not related to the qur'an. But with these issues fixed, will you agree to the my proposed compromise version? Yahel Guhan 19:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

How does it violate WP:SYNTH? A simple test for WP:SYNTH is to see if someting is standalone. What that means is that if two or more sources are required support one fact, then it is WP:SYNTH. Can you provide me with an example of such fact in the above content?

WP:NPOV. Please quote the specific part of NPOV I'm violating. Deicide is related to the Qur'an and has been related to it by multiple scholars. I won't agree to your proposed version because there are no problems with mine.Bless sins 22:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH: I explained this in the mediation already, but I'll copy my comment here so that it is clear:

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are the same policy. But WP:SYNTH states "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

Your arguement for inclusion read: "Had you read the book before you said "they don't say that". But let's assume that the argument is only in relation to Christianity. Isn't it significant that in Islam, the "ultimate source" of centuries of persecution and prejudice is absent?" That is position C, which you are using to include the text that reads: "Scholars on Islam (Lewis[17] and Jerome Chanes[18]) suggest that Muslims were not antisemitic for the most part due to the Quran and it's perception of God", and you base it off four points which may or may not have been made by the authors:

"1.orders Muslims to profess strict monotheism, as does Judaism;

2.views the stories of Jewish deicide as a blasphemous absurdity, and other similar stories in the gospels are not part of the educational system in Muslim society;

3.did not present itself as a fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible but rather a restorer of its original messages that had been distorted over time - thus no clash of interpretations between Judaism and Islam could arise, and,

4.views Muhammad as fully human, not a Son of God or Messiah, a claim less offensive to Jews. "

These four points are statements A and B, and alone, they do not establish relevance. The statement that does establish relevance is the one above that I said was point C, which is original research because none of the scholars actually say that. Thus it is WP:SYNTH.

WP:NPOV: Yes, decide is important, however statements like "Scholars on Islam (Lewis[15] and Jerome Chanes[6]) suggest that Muslims were not antisemitic for the most part due to the Quran and it's perception of God." are both arguements not mentioned by either Lewis or Chanes, and are phrased in a manner that is anything but neutral. Yahel Guhan 01:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

OK so now you are saying that the four points are irrelevant ("These four points are statements A and B, and alone, they do not establish relevance")?? Just a some time ago you said "We agreed it is relevant". Regarding NPOV, you have completely wrong idea of what that policy is, but your point was right. Thus, I've changed the wording.Bless sins 02:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"relevant" does not mean verifiable or neutral. As a group they establish relevance, but alone the statements do not. Yahel Guhan 01:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "relevant" does not mean verifiable or neutral. (i) "Verifiable" means if it is documented in a reliable source. (ii) Neutral means if it reflects a significant view proportionately. Do you agree that the above (that I've always supported) is both (i) and (ii)?Bless sins 04:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I don't. I thought I made that point clear in my last comment. Yahel Guhan 05:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. For (i): the content is sourced to Bernard Lewis and Jerome Chanes. I've provided the book and the page numbers. I don't see the problem here. (ii) It does reflect significant views. Bernard Lewis is considered a leading scholar on topics concerning Middle East, Jews, Islam, and antisemitism. As for Jerome Chanes, I've to look him up.Bless sins 06:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will make this a bit clearer. Lewis is a scholar, however he does not say "Scholars on Islam suggest that Muslims were not antisemitic for the most part due to various reasons." Is my point clear now? Yahel Guhan 07:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse, Lewis would never call himself "scholar on Islam" others have called him that. But ok, I'll remove the "scholars of Islam", in order to reach a compromise. He also doesn't say "various reasons" but rather just lists them. I'm only summarizing him.Bless sins 11:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am still waiting for you to make this change. Yahel Guhan 01:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The remark that something is "a claim less offensive to Jews" is non-academic rubbish with an agenda unless you can support it with documentation, and I propose that any and ALL statements containing this remark should be deleted 01:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoserjoe (talk • contribs)

It is stated in a reliable source (if that's what you mean by "documentation").Bless sins 16:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reliable sources attached to this phrase, anywhere. It's claiming that something has been measured ("i.e. less offensive"), but it appears to be not more than someone's simplistic personal POV Hoserjoe 03:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hoserjoe, you need to get in touch with reality. The article does not say "less offensive", but rather says "the Qur'an doesn't offend Jews". The two sources are at the end of the paragraph.Bless sins 16:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It should be removed, but bless sins is putting up a fight over it, so I can't get rid of it without starting an edit war. Yahel Guhan 03:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yahel Guhan, you've gotta stop this flip-flop. First you say its appropriate and can stay. Then you say it should be removed. When I take you on account of your previous statement, you say it should stay but be stated more neutrally. Now again you are saying this should be removed. There are more important things for us to do, then for you to go back and forth on your arguments. Put this to a rest for now, we'll come back to it once we discuss other issues, and you make up your mind.Bless sins 16:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

When did I ever say it was "appropriate?" Yahel Guhan 01:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you said relevant.Bless sins 20:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

When? Provide the diff. Yahel Guhan 04:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

<reset>I could provide the diff, or I could merely point out that you know you said that, because you admitted it. Please see your post in this section made on 18:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC): "We agreed it is relevant."Bless sins 01:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The nazis section

I recently added a new section about the support amongst muslims for Nazi Germany. Yahel Guhan 04:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you show how it is relevant to the Islamic faith? Unless you are saying that Nazism is a sect of Islam, you need to make the connection between Islam and Nazism (through reliable sources).Bless sins 15:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, please consider this carefully. A reliable source needs to demonstrate its relevance to Islam, not you. The reliable source should be the same source that provides us with this content, else you will violate WP:SYNTH.Bless sins 15:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The actions and beliefs of the general muslim population at the time is clearly relevant to Islam. Or do you deny that muslims are connected to Islam? Yahel Guhan 00:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

So you claim that actions and beliefs of "general muslim population" is related to Nazism. Prove that, and I'll have no objection for including the section.Bless sins 00:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

See this page: [16] where Lewis describes the relationship between the arab muslims and the nazis. Yahel Guhan 01:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

When I click the link, I'm simply directed to the frontpage of the book. Give me the page number. Also, if Lewis says that Nazism is relevant to Islam, then we use Lewis. You can't synthesize the statement of Lewis and A to put forward opinion B. It's called WP:SYNTH.Bless sins 02:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

p.147. Yahel Guhan 18:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Without being critical of that, let's accept it. That only justifies the use of Lewis (1999) p. 147. What about the rest of the sources?Bless sins 03:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Which one do you dispute? There are many. Yahel Guhan 01:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me take some time to verify each source personally. If you haven't done that then you should do that too.Bless sins 04:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Khaleel Mohammed

There is consensus on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_FrontPageMag.com_a_reliable_source.3F that FrontPage is not a reliable source. Unless we can find the symposium from somewhere else, we can't use it.Bless sins 15:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

saudi textbooks

Bless sins, see p. 12 of the PDF: [17]

In addition, researchers have found that for several decades Saudi publications have been indoctrinating students in an ideology of religious hatred against Christians, Jews, and others, including Muslims who do not adhere to strict Wahhabi teaching.

Thus it is relevant to antisemitism. Yahel Guhan 19:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You need a reliable source for such conclusion. To hate everybody else because they are different, differs from hating Jews specifically because they are Jew (religiously or ethnically). If a reliable source makes such conclusion, we can attribute it with proper conclusion. In such case, we should not forget that conveying the underlying facts is more important than people's definition of antisemitism. --Aminz 21:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

so you are saying Freedom House isn't a reliable source? Yahel Guhan 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yahel Guhan does Freedom House specifically accuse Saudis of antisemitism? (Actually it does). Go find it. There you will also find that Saudi antisemitism is in opposition to Islamic teachings.Bless sins 22:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

yes it does. See the above quote. I'll bold the relevant part. Yahel Guhan 01:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the word "antisemitism". Even if we assume that the above sentence reflects antisemitism, it can't have been inspired by Islam. Hating Muslims is quite un-Islamic.Bless sins 02:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked the source: The source says that Wahabis:

Regarding Anti-Semitism, they:

• Instruct that “the struggle between Muslims and Jews”27 will continue “until the hour [of judgment]”28 and that “Muslims will triumph because they are right” and “he who is right is always victorious.”
• Cite a selective teaching of violence against Jews, while in the same lesson, ignore the passages of the Qur’an and hadiths [narratives of the life of the Prophet] that counsel tolerance.
• Teach the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as historical fact and relate modern events to it.
• Discuss Jews in violent terms, blaming them for virtually all the “sedition” and wars of the modern world.

I have no problem with inclusion of this given that check for its reliability (the author, Nina Shea is An international human-rights lawyer) and attribute it properly. --Aminz 06:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I meant. If we cite them, we aren't going to cherry pick quotes. We also have to say that the antisemitism is a distorted reading of the Qur'an and hadith.Bless sins 10:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Moratorium on edits

Listen, I know you both care about the article and have worked hard on it. But it doesn't make sense to me that you would both continue editing so much, at the same time you are discussing so many disagreements. Such editing is likely to create friction. Plus, it makes it hard for other folks, or at least for me, to comment or collaborate in a helpful way. (Am I over-reacting?) Would you both be willing to disengage from editing the disputed sections? HG | Talk 23:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, when we stop reverting, which version should the article be at. Mine, or Yahel Guhan's? And you know very well what answer each of us is going to give. One solution is that we can roll back edits to this version. This version lasted for the longest time one and a half months. But I'm not sure if Yahel will agree. Another solution is to blank the article. This will be painful for both of us, forcing us to reach compromise. A final solution would be that the top half of the article is in accordance with me, and the bottom half is in accordance with Yahel (or vice versa).Bless sins 03:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you both stop now, maybe a conversation here could work out a fair way to leave the article during discussions. Worse case, we just switch back and forth between competing versions. If one person declines to stop, I think it's a bad reflection on them. HG | Talk 03:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

HG I am very willing to stop editing it depends only on the version it the edit-warring stops at. If the article remains more or less at the latest version I am very happy to stop. Therefore the bigger dilemma is to figure out a compromise.Bless sins 10:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm half tempted to go for the temporary blanking and protection option while we work it out. Is there a template for that? I'm a bit busy right now, so I'll respond to the other comments tomarrow. Yahel Guhan 22:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to you both, I really appreciate your willingness to work this out. Blanking is not an option WP:BLANK and we don't need the page protection are long as you both stay in the conversation, without battling it out thru edits. So it may have to be voluntary handshake agreement, ok? HG | Talk 22:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I would go for the half and half option. That would, however create two problems 1. who gets what half, and 2. where is the line. I assume, we'd restore our half with our version, and then stop editing alltogether until we resolve this issue? Yahel Guhan 18:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

So can you propose a reasonable compromise for now?Bless sins 07:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought I just did. First, where is the deviding line, and who gets what half? I'd prefer the top half, if you don't have an objection? What is your wish for the line, or should I pick? Or is this an unreasonable compromise (even though you suggested it)? Yahel Guhan 07:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Let me suggest a way to go about this. First: The article has about 2 dozen sections. Aren't there some sections that are relatively uncontested, where your disagreements don't devolve into edit warring? If so, let's leave those intact. Second, why don't you each (a) list the sections that you believe are most heavily disputed, and (b) rank those sections in the order you'd like to work on them. Maybe then you each get 1 or 2 sections, with your version and a commitment by both parties to work on it. (If length parity seems relevant, we can further divide or combine sections.) How does that sound? If plausible, why don't you each submit your list w/priorities. Thanks! HG | Talk 07:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

that is a better idea. Yahel Guhan 09:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, how about I swap your approval here with my idea at Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Ha ha, just kidding. You're a good guy... I look forward to your ranked list! L'hit, HG | Talk 12:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

<reset>I too like your idea. This is how I suggest we go about doing this. Personally I find it painful when I spend hours writing something, only to have another editor remove it. Yahel Guhan might feel the same. Thus, for now, instead of attacking and removing material, let's focus on retaining the material. Thus I've provided a list of sections, the party which has made the most contributions to that section, and the order we should work on them.

• "Antisemitism in the context of Islam" (Yahel Guhan, Bless sins) {8}
• "Qur'an" (Bless sins) {4}
• "Muhammad" (excluding the subsection on hadith) (Bless sins) {1}
• "Pre-modern Islam" (Bless sins) {5}
• "Twentieth and twenty-first centuries" (Yahel Guhan) {3}
  • "Support for the Third Reich" (Yahel Guhan) {7}
  • "Arab sermons" (Yahel Guhan) {6}
  • "Renunciation of antisemitism"/"Reconciliation efforts" (Yahel Guhan) {2}
  • "Trends/statistics" (Yahel Guhan, Bless sins) {9}

In the spirit of "articles should grow, not shrink" I suggest that each of us retain the section to which we have contributed the most. Regarding the first and last sections one of us can keep one section, while other can keep the other section. I've ranked the sections in order of the disputes which are easiest to resolve.Bless sins 16:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) But you forget to give me credit for doing the most on the reconciliation section! I get no respect! rofl) Conciliatorily yours, HG | Talk

I think we should focus on the sections that are actually under dispute, rather tahn just the ones we contributed to, and devide them up based on order. It makes no sense to devide up stuff we agree to already. I will make a list below this comment of those sections. (Feel free to add)Yahel Guhan 17:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Quran (all)(1)
• Muslim Spain (6)
• Twentieth and twenty-first centuries (how to devide) (5)
  • Seattle Jewish Federation shooting (4)
  • Saudi Textbooks (3)
  • Condemnation of antisemitism (7)
  • trends/statistics (2)

Ok, I see some agreement on where you disagree. Yahel, can you rank yours in terms of easiest and/or most important? And Bless sins respond to his list? Thanks. HG | Talk 18:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

they're ranked now in order of most important. Yahel Guhan 18:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ruminating. This may be harder than I thought. Not sure your lists are comparable. Anyway, let me think out loud and just give me gentle feedback, don't whack me upside the skull. You both ranked Quran as #1 or #2. So, this may be difficult for reaching agreement, but you'll both be motivated to work on it. You ranked 20/21st Century as #3 and #5 so maybe that could be a second or parallel focus. If so, then Plan A: we could start with a Bless Sins' version of Quran and a Yahel Guhan version of 20/21 Cs. If you agree with this (big if?), then you'd both revert those sections to ones you feel comfortable with as a starting point. By starting point, I don't mean your fiercest POV-slanted versions, but your kindest, most accommodating and tolerant of the other-POV version. But whatever version you choose, we'll start from there. How does this sound? Regarding the other sections, Plan B: Heck, I can't figure out how to balance it out without driving ourselves nuts. But I do have one stopgap measure. This idea assumes -- easy for me to say -- that I'm a fair-minded and encyclopedia-oriented editor. Here's what we'd do. For all the other sections (combined or each separately), you can each nominate a diff(s). Let me choose the versions that I believe should stand for now, during the moratorium, while you try to work out the Plan A disputed sections. If you accept Plan B, whether I choose all or none of your diffs, you've agreed to live with it uncomplainingly. So best to nominate diffs that appear the most neutral. (Of course, I could be an "honest broker" and make some post-facto emendations, but not if you'll both drive me bonkers!) (Ideally, the diffs would be submitted in unmarked envelopes.) Ok, this is unconventional. But what do you think? HG | Talk 19:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with plan A. It's not that I've anything against you but it is much simpler. Basically, the way I think plan A should be implemented is described by my edit on 16:08, 28 October 2007. The sections with "Bless sins" beside them would be reverted to the version I feel comfortable with. The sections with "Yahel Guhan" beside them will be reverted to what Yahel Guhan feels comfortable with. For sections with both names beside them, you and Aminz, and some other third party can decide what to do.Bless sins 19:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, maybe I wasn't clear. My version of Plan A deals only with 2 (large) sections, Plan B deals with all other sections. Anyway, Bless Sins is suggesting that instead of my Plan B (i.e., throw yourselves at my mercy) you guys split up the other sections and leave them intact during the moratorium. That's fine with me, if Yahel likes it, then Yahel should agree/revise BlessSins' list of who gets which section. HG | Talk 20:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It might be better if we devide up and pick a half of each of the two major disputed sections (quran and 20/21st centuries) and do the same thing with the rest after. I'm not completely sure I understand the proposal completely. Yahel Guhan 22:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins' proposal

This is what we do: The following sections are reverted to the version Bless sins prefers, provided his version is reasonable.

• "Qur'an"
• "Muhammad" (excluding the subsection on hadith)
• "Pre-modern Islam"

The following sections are reverted to the version Yahel Guhan prefers, provided his/her version is reasonable.

• "Twentieth and twenty-first centuries" (the part not included in any subsection)
  • "Support for the Third Reich"
  • "Arab sermons"
  • "Renunciation of antisemitism"/"Reconciliation efforts"

Bless sins agrees to not edit the sections assigned to Yahel Guhan (and vice versa) for a period of _______ days. During this time the two will discuss things on talk. As agreements (hopefully) emerge on talk, the two editors will modify their respective sections accordingly.

There remain two final venues of dispute:

• "Antisemitism in the context of Islam"
• "Trends/statistics"

In this case, both editors will submit their proposals and HG will pick one of them. In the case of "Antisemitism in the context of Islam" it might be prudent to ask for Aminz's edit as well, since the section is his/her creation.Bless sins 00:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not agreeing to this proposal, because you get all the major sections I dispute kept in, while I get only the minor sections; the trends section, is in the "undecided" section; this should go to whoever doesn't get the qur'an section. Second, I think one more thing should be added: No new sections or changes will be made by either editor once they insurt their version, until disputes are resolved, unless there is a consensus first. As for the # of days, lets not put a time limit on this; instead, lets make it until disputes are resolved. Yahel Guhan 01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So you don't think that the "Support for the Third Reich" section is "major"?? It probably contains as many words as the Qur'an section itself. The logic I'm following is to minimize the removal of content. If you were to take the Qur'an section, you'd remove a lot of what I've written. If I was to take the Support for the Third Reich section I'd also remove much of it, since I think it is original research. This way both of our hard work is going to waste.

I do think a time limit should be imposed, else the discussion will go on and on and on...At the end of the time limit we can both renew the proposal.

A "moratorium" is not the same as "protection". We both agree not to edit the other persons sections. But that doesn't mean we can't make productive edits to our own sections or neutral sections. But what we can do is this: we don't remove any content without consensus.

Please remember the essence of my proposal is "Live and let live". We retain the content we added, and we allow others to retain the content they added.Bless sins 01:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is, the third reich section isn't under dispute (or if it is, you haven't mentioned the parts that you dispute). We aren't just mentioning every section. Realisticly, at the end of the time limit, what's going to happen? We are either going to renew the same proposal, or we will likely end up restarting the revert war. A moratorium is the "suspension of activity." [18] What we are making is a temporary compromise so that we stop edit warring until we resolve disputes. Obviously, reverting vandalism and minor edits correcting spelling/grammer is not controversial, but what I am saying is we shouldn't be editing the page with controversial additions and changes without talk page consensus between us until disputes are resolved. The content is what is under dispute, just a reminder. I have temporarily refraimed from editing this page until this one issue gets resolved, but we could always go back to edit warring, which leaves who gets the "good version" up to whatever time an admin decides to protect the page. I think it is better if we each get half of what we want, and half of what we don't want, and stop editing until we reach a fair more perminant compromise. That is the essense of what I am proposing. Yahel Guhan 02:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit tired and haven't been able to figure out how to help settle this yet. Let's give it some time. Maybe Yahel could offer a specific counter-proposal. Thanks. HG | Talk 04:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. See belowYahel Guhan 00:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins - the "Support for the Third Reich" section is indeed "major". It's also high-profile and looks exactly like a partisan effort to incite religious hatred - directly equivalent in method and intention to hate-hate propaganda. The whole section is riddled with weasel words, starting with the title. Zionist elements had far more contact with, influence over and effective alliances with Mussolini and the Fascists than did any Palestinians. By the time Husseini had been forced out of Palestine and taken refuge in Berlin, Zionist groups already had a long history of collaboration with the Nazis - later culminating in astonishing but well attested claims that they abandoned easily saved Jews to the the gas chambers. (It's not the Holocaust Deniers who make those latter claims - it comes from modern day followers of Judaism).

Whereas the influence of fascism anywhere in the Arab world (let along Palestine) was trivial - did it amount to anything atall, other than a short-lived coup in Baghdad? Nazi sympathisers couldn't even stab the apparently beaten British in Cairo before Alamein. A case made against fascist elements in the US, France (even the UK) would be far more credible. Husseini was never anything other than a religious leader, no political power and virtually no budget whatsoever. Statements such as "The Arabs were Germany's natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely Great Britain, the Jews, and the Communists" have been entered into our article as if they were "fact", when they're quotes from the one and only known audience betwween the Mufti and Hitler. They're utterly worthless as evidence of anything. References to antisemitism in Iran are hardly any better (the accused in this case was shortly later helped to overthrow democracy in Iran - making us seem more pro-Nazi than any Iranian). If Nazi war-criminals really disappeared into the Middle East I've never heard of it - I thought they either hung around in Europe or went to the Ameicas, North and South. Nor is the claim that Mein Kampf reached 6th position in the Palestinian best-seller list in 1999 be given either much relevance (or much importance, since it comes from MEMRI). The Bell Curve reached similar prominence in a market at least one thousand (and perhaps one million) times bigger - does that make the whole of the US negro-hating? We should have nothing to do with writing so obviously intent on inciting hatred. PR^talk 18:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yahel Guhan's proposal

One person gets to insert their most recent version of the Qur'an section, the other gets to insert their most recent version of the 20/21st century section (which includes the trends/statistics section). I would prefer the Qur'an section, but at this point, if Bless sins chooses that section, he/she can take it in the interest of moving on. After we restore our section, we will both refrain from editing this page until disputes are resolved and/or a permanent compromise is reached. No new sections or major edits should be made to this article without first proposing them on this talk page, and then, only if consensus between the two of us for its inclusion exists should it be added. As for the other not as critical disputed sections, they should be listed, and divided up equally between the two of us. If there is an odd number remaining, the one remainder section will be decided by HG. As we reach a resolution/compromise, the compromise version can be inserted into the article. Yahel Guhan 00:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This sounds good, like a friendly revision of the Bless Sins proposal. Minor differences: the "Trends" section handled by Yahel, and other sections still to be specified. (Maybe you take turns to "draft" the sections you want?) Also, how strongly does Bless Sins want a time limit? Feel free to bring in Aminz or anybody else for the odd remaining section, or if the "draft" of less-critical sections gets awkward. Let me just encourage each person to restore (and edit) versions that move toward consensus and descriptive neutrality. Also, I think the point is to focus on the 2 sections first in your conversation. Terrific. HG | Talk 01:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Like I said that because I have made the most contribution to the Qur'an section, it should be stay in the version I prefer. The same rule would apply to sections to which Yahel Guhan has made the most contribution.

Please note that the "20/21st century section" is much larger than the Qur'an section. In the other remaining sections, where the contribution was made by me, it should remain as my version, and where the contribution was made by Yahel, it should remain in his/her version.

I still think that the "Trends" section should be decided by a third party. I think you would agree that each of us has made significant contributions to that part.

However, I also insist upon the following: there needs to be a time-frame. If there isn't then I see no end in sight. Note when the time-frame expires, both parties can renew the agreement. Secondly, both of us should reserve the right to contribute to the article (excluding each other's sections). The only limitation should be that we are not supposed to remove content without consensus. Frankly, I don't have the patience to post on this talk page and go into discussion just to correct some spelling mistake or to edit some grammar.Bless sins 03:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sounds like you aren't agreeing over (1) the trends section and (2) maybe time frame. (1) I don't have an answer, but it'd be a shame to go this far and not resolve it. Can this section itself be split up? Or resolved by 3rd parties? Yahel? (2) Bless sins, what time frame do you want? Since Yahel suggested moratorium until resolution, Bless sins presumably is concerned that you'll reach an impasse before resolution and wants to be able to exit the moratorium. Is that right? If so, maybe you could say that if either party feels that no further progress is being made under the moratorium, they can give a X (4?) day notice before dissolving the moratorium? Or do you simply want to say, let's go for 3 weeks with option to renew the moratorium? Again, hope this is useful and sorry if it's not. Thanks for both of you for your perseverance, Good luck. HG | Talk 10:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't think whiat Bless sins is saying is fair. The main issue here, just a reminder, is whether or not the content even belongs at all, so saying we just get to automaticly keep what we added is not something I will agree to. To me, the two major sections under dispute are just propaganda, poorly sourced, unverifiable, and anything but neutral, as I already stated. I figured half and half would be a fair temporary compromise, but apparently bless sins doesn't agree. If bless sins wants a specific time, thats fine too; I think it is a stupid idea though, as neither one of us edits wikipedia all day or every day, nor is it realistic for either one of us to expect the other to. This plan is works by the honor system after all, so I really can't do anything about it except resort back to edit warring if Bless sins doesn't obligue, and if he/she wants a time frame, there is a time frame for this moratorium. I'm not saying there is a problem with fixing spelling and grammer (both of which are minor edits), but making major changes to the wording or additions of content which is controversial is a problem, and that should be avoided unless a consensus between us exists for its inclusion in the future. But if we can't agree to some moratorium, I suppose it may mean back to edit warring, which is bad for both of us, as it risks blocks, arbcom, and protection of a "bad version" for one person, a "good version" for the other, all depending on when protection occurs, as Bless sins already stated; it is up to whenever an admin decides to protect the page. I think half and half would be better, but if Bless sins prefers the edit war until he/she gets what he/she wants, that is his choice. Yahel Guhan 01:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, ok, so Yahel will reluctantly accept a timeframe. But Yahel is objecting to Bless sins' limitation that content not be removed. (Is that it?) I also found that limitation a bit unnecessary, since good content can be recovered from a wiki's history (or you can save it yourself) and content may merit removal. Instead, the basic assumptions/limitation are in our policies, e.g. content should remain or be added if it is verifiable (from reliable sources), neutrally presented, and germane to the topic. (The trends section is pretty small and I hope it won't be such a sticking point. Maybe you can each give a few inches there?) Bless sins, what time limit do you want put on the table? HG PS. We need to keep in mind that the agreement only covers the two most active editors here. Various less active or visiting editors may edit, and you both will have to figure out how to handle it and still stay true to your mutual understanding. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree the one of the issues here is whether some content belongs at all. Yahel Guhan, please note that I've disputed most of the section on collaboration with Nazis. But I'm reluctant to unilaterally removing it since you (no doubt) worked hard on it. We here to support each other's work, not undermine it. When I said time limit, I didn't mean to be limiting. For example, a time limit of 6 weeks (maybe more if you insist) works for me. Regarding the "Trends" section, I can give a few inches: Yahel Guhan wanted to move some content and remove some other content (while I wanted neither). What we can do is: Yahel Guhan may move the content to wherever he/she wishes, but not remove it entirely. Regarding editing the article under moratorium: maybe we can make an edit, if we quickly run it by you? Also please remember that it is incorrect to say "if Bless sins prefers the edit war". If I wanted that, I wouldn't participate in this discussion, let alone make a proposal.Bless sins 10:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not agreeing to this for reasons already stated; it isn't a fair compromise to me. As a possible alternative, I might consider it if you will restore "attacks" in place of "criticisms" in the qur'an section for your version, restore the apes and pigs section, and re-attribute everything to the prospective scholar without explanations of the person (for example: "scholars of islam...", "it is generally accepted that..." etc.). Since I have to sacrifice part of my version to meet your standards, you should have to do so as well to some extent with your version. As for edit warring, it takes two (or more) to edit war, Bless sins. You can't deny that you have a long history of edit warring whenever your version is reverted, even when consensus is against you. Not to mention, you are one of the edit warring parties here as well. So no, my comment on edit warring is not necessarily incorrect. If I or anyone else was to revert your version now, I am sure you would restart the edit war within a 24 hour period. I only temporarily stopped while we work out this one issue; I haven't commented on the other sections yet because of that, as this is most critical at the moment. Yahel Guhan 05:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yahel Guhan I think what I'm offering is a very reasonable compromise. If you have an alternate proposal state it, no "I might consider". "Since I have to sacrifice part of my version to meet your standards, you should have to do so as well to some extent with your version." Sure if that means I get to have a say in the twentieth twenty first century section. Look I put forth a simple proposal: I get the pre-modern stuff, you get the modern stuff. Let's agree on this. I'll make a concession: you can do whatever you want with the trends section. Before you ask me for anything else consider the size of the 20/21st century section and how much I can remove from it that I believe is OR (e.g Nazi section).Bless sins 03:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine (as I am unsure of what the issue is with the pre-modern section other than a relevance tag, you can have it as it is presented for now). I'll insurt my version for the 21st century now. Yahel Guhan 04:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Reconciliation efforts"

I checked out [19] and [20]. They seem to condemn antisemitism because they think it is wrong. One of them says they should condemn antisemitism because "Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia come from very similar places". These are a group of Muslims who "who believe that we have a common bond both religiously, historically and socially with our Jewish brothers and sisters." I can't see this as an effort on their part to create bonds with "Jewish brothers and sisters". Yahel, could you please explain why you think "Condemnation of antisemitism" is less appropriate than "Reconciliation efforts". Thanks --Aminz 06:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I added this subsection (prompted by the debate about categorizing the Seattle incident). "Reconciliation" is a term of art in the field of anti-Semitism, see Christianity and anti-Semitism. If you think "condemnation" is used more than "reconciliation" for Islamic efforts, Aminz, I'd be interested in seeing the relevant secondary sources. Thanks. HG | Talk 09:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems that I don't know the technical meaning of the term "Reconciliation" :P If a typical English speaking editor would understand it in its technical sense then we can use the term of course. HG, please let me know what secondary sources you are referring to and I'll do my best to find them. Cheers, --Aminz 10:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, it's common in Christian and academic/theological circles. See google scholar on /Christian reconciliation anti-Semitism/ or /"Jewish-Christian reconciliation"/ or /"Christian-Jewish reconciliation"/ or the links in this tertiary source :P HG | Talk 11:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see. To be honest with you I haven't seen this technical usage of reconciliation in the context of antisemitism, Islam and Judaism (though I myself support all reconciliation efforts at any dimensions :P) It seems to me that condemnation of antisemitism is a possible title and is more a focus of say [21]. But if one can show that "reconciliation" is a better title, we can use it. It is not a matter of correct or incorrect, but rather good and better :) --Aminz 10:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know which is better. "Reconciliation" happens to be a rather significant phenomenon among Christians. Islamic communities appear to be far less involved with a parallel phenomenon, whatever it's called. For Christians, "Reconciliation" seems to cover theological rethinking, dialogue & condemnation. Islamic groups don't seem to be doing the theological work, and limited activity with the other two. So condemnation might be better, I don't know. HG | Talk 12:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So, maybe we should provisionally use "condemnation". We can always switch as we go on. But thanks for bringing up the term "reconciliation". I learned something from this discussion. Regards, --Aminz 01:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it very difficult to accept that the "Free Muslims coalition" is a genuine reflection of the beliefs of any Muslims (even though I agree strongly with most of what is presented here). It sounds very much like a propaganda source funded by elements opposed to Islam. Statements such as "The Free Muslims cautions that imposing democracy on the Middle East without first promoting secularism and destroying terrorism may lead to the creation of Islamic extremist states that will ultimately reject the democracy that brings them to power." simply don't ring true. PR^talk 19:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

relevance for spain section

What the golden age of the Jews has to do with anitsemitism is very unclear, so I am terefor adding the relevance tag to that section. Yahel Guhan 00:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It is cited by scholars as examples of lack of antisemitism in the Muslim world.Bless sins 14:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No. It isn't. It is cited by you as lack of antisemitism. Besides, if it were cited as an example of lack of antisemitism, the scholar would specificly say something along the lines of "what happened in spain is an example of how muslims weren't antisemitic", which no scholar currently mentioned says. If I am wrong, please provide the exact quote. Yahel Guhan 21:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the source? If not I won't bother, because, in theory you can dispute every source on this page forcing me to spend hours in the library typing paragraphs up.Bless sins 00:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? Yes, I have seen what the source is called. Again, I am saying the way it is presented within this article, relevance is not established? Do I need to clarify this point further? Yahel Guhan 00:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are the sources for the section.

1. Poliakov (1974), pg.91-6
2. Frederick M. Schweitzer, Marvin Perry., Anti-Semitism: myth and hate from antiquity to the present, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, ISBN 0312165617, pp. 267-268.
3. Granada by Richard Gottheil, Meyer Kayserling, Jewish Encyclopedia. 1906 ed.
4. The Forgotten Refugees
5. The Treatment of Jews in Arab/Islamic Countries
6. Kraemer, Joel L., Moses Maimonides: An Intellectual Portrait in The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides pp. 16-17 (2005)
7. Maimonides, ‘’Epistle to the Jews of Yemen”, translated in Stillman (1979), pp. 241–242
8. Mark R. Cohen (1995) p. xvii-xviii

Tell me which one you have a problem with.Bless sins 00:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I have a problem. Sources 3 and 4 don't mention "antisemitism" as motive at all.Bless sins 00:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I will clarify my point. Does Poliakov specificly say something along the lines of "the golden age in spain is an example of how muslims weren't antisemitic?" If so, provide the quote. Otherwise it is irrelevnat, and its inclusion violates WP:SYNTH. Yahel Guhan 01:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

We are back to the original argument. If Poliakov doesn't mention antisemitism in the same sentence/paragraph, then, according to you, it's not antisemitism. I think we need to establish some criteria over what is related to antisemitism and what is not.

My proposal: any source that makes a discussion in the context of "antisemitism" should be considered relevant. Examples include sources (articles, books, chapters of books) that are entirely on antisemitism, or sources that try to make an argument about antisemitism. Ofcourse they have to be relevant to Islam as well.

Let's see you propose some criteria.Bless sins 02:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your proposal, is anything written in a book which happens to have antisemitism within the title is somehow relevant to that topic, which is not the case at all.

My proposal: It is relevant only if the source specificly states x as related to antisemitism (or synnomym for antisemitism like anti-judaism, persecution of jews, etc.). It should be clear from the source that x is related to antisemitism. Background given by a source is not relevant.Yahel Guhan 03:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

SO let's be clear here. Must the word "antisemitism" be mentioned in the same paragraph? Does it suffice that the author declares the entire book is on antisemitism and then doesn't use it regularly throughout?Bless sins 03:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

antisemitism or a synnomym. Not everything in a book with "antisemitism" in the title is relevant. Some things are, some things are not, and saying otherwise is a major hasty generalization. Title does not mean subject. If a scholar thinks some event is specificly related to antisemitism, he/she would say how it relates if it is not blatantly obvious (like persecutions and hate crimes). The relevance of the Golden age of Spain is not blatently obvious, so if it really is related in any manner to antisemitism, some scholar has got to have explained so somewhere; a situation which hasn't been proven yet. Thus it is not related according to scholarly views. Yahel Guhan 03:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to note that the literature on community relations in medieval Spain is extensive.Itsmejudith 09:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Again you are avoiding the real questions by making vague explanations. What is "blatantly obvious" supposed to mean? Is it supposed to be mean, perhaps, whatever is "blatantly obvious to Yahel Guhan"? What are synonyms and antonyms for antisemitism? "Antisemitism" is a common word, so I see no reason for a scholar to avoid it.Bless sins 23:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

By blatently obvious, I mean it specificly discusses persecution of jews. Synnomyms for antiesmitism are anti-judaism, persecution of Jews, hatrid of jews, prejudice of jews, etc. Yahel Guhan 03:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

By the same reasoning antonyms for antisemitism will be "Judeophilia", "tolerance of Jews", "respect for Jews", "praise for Jews" etc.Bless sins 03:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

None of which are terms Polakov is using to describe muslim spain. If I am wrong, please provide the quote. Yahel Guhan 00:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Islam_and_antisemitism#Providing_quotations.Bless sins 04:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on what you said, it is char that Polakov himself did not establish relevance, but rather you took his words and liked it, and just assumed it was relevant because of the title. This is improper logic, as title does not equal subject. Thus it isn't relevant to the topic. Yahel Guhan 02:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

From my understanding of what I read, Poliakov was discussing antisemitism. Besides the entire book is about antisemitism, so what's the problem?Bless sins 03:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the entire book is not about antisemitism. Much of the book is about historical and ideological background, and the subject of the book is more accurately history of the jews, rather than antisemitism. I am basing my conclusions on what you wrote as the summary, and that does not convey any relevance. Yahel Guhan 03:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse the entire book is not about this topic. The parts of the book that discuss "Judeophilia", "tolerance of Jews", "respect for Jews", "praise for Jews" are certainly relevant. You know Yahel, if you don't trust that I'm correct, go get the book yourself. I know its difficult, but its difficult for me too.Bless sins 03:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, it isn't all relevant. At least we are making progress here. What that means, is we must determine what is relevant and how it is relevant. And based on what you have mentioned so far, neither of those points are clear from reading that section of the article, and it is pretty clear that Polakov himself doesn't establish relevance of the Spain section; rather Bless sins wants it included, and claims it is relevant even though it isn't. Yahel Guhan 01:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, ofcourse, the parts of the book that don't discuss anything about Jews or Muslims (or Islam or Judaism) won't be relevant. As far as I know the only parts of the book that won't be relevant are: parts that discuss European antisemitism, or the introduction and preface.Bless sins 04:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The formula for relevance isn't that black and white. There are tings in the intro that are relevant, but not everything. Likewise not everything about the relationship between jews and muslims is relevant. Relevance is determined by whether a scholar specificly makes the connection, something Polakov doesn't do.Yahel Guhan 07:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the Poliakov book? Unless you read it, you can't claim "something Polakov doesn't do". Secondly, most (if not the entire) of the book is about history of antisemitism.Bless sins 16:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)