User:Doright/Archiveof/Category talk:Antisemitism (People)

---

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Antisemitism_%28People%29&action=edit"

Speedy Deletion

DELETE - This is a duplicate Category of Category:Anti-Semitic people In addition see discussion here: 1. SirIsaacBrock 01:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not Delete This is NOT a duplicate category. It is not a list of Anti-Semitic people, although antisemitic people may be a subset of this category. This category is the super set that contains all people important in the historical development of antisemitism. For example, some may argue that Martin Luther was not an Anti-Semitic person, but none can deny that his works are quoted by antisemites to justify their own antisemitism. Therefore, the goals of Wikipedia are served by having this category index available to the reader.Doright 06:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

DELETE because it is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to pervert its authority into tagging persons with epithets that are matters of opinion or degree. The inventor of this slanderous category, who defends it in the comment above, tries to define it as an even more insidious mischief maker may saying that "although the individuals may or may not be antisemites themselves" being accused of antisemitism by others is sufficient cause to be listed here. She also gives being associated with the development of antisemitism as a trigger, one which would make the inventor herself eligible because of her extensive work in the Wikipedia of trying to characterize others in that manner. Such POV name-calling categories are unencyclopedic, and are used to push POV. Should Jesse Jackson be listed under [[category:racists]] or [[category:extortionists]], and should Jimmy Carter be put under [[category:worst U.S. presidents]]? Should Ramsey Clark be tagged as [[category:subversive people]]? Such classifications are a matter of degree and opinion, and we should not allow their use. --StanZegel (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

StanZegel You tagged the category with "This article may contain original research. See the talk page for details

User:StanZegel, I believe it is customary to identify what it is you are claiming as original research. In fact, the tag says, "See the talk page for details." If you continue to refuse to identify the specific instance you are claiming, then the tag will be deleted.Doright 06:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

MERGE' with Anti-Semitic People or DELETE since the two catagories are close enough to be confusing. I'd recommend merge, bringing over the definition here to the other page. There is already quite a bit of discussion there about renaming the catagory. Some there have opposed it and this page may be seen as a dodge to them. Also, since a large number of folk are somewhat annoyed at having their articles linked here. a discussion on their talk pages should happen first. --CTSWyneken 11:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Persons Deleted From Category by Editor Name

===Deleted by User:StanZegel=== [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]]

Since not a single explanation was provided for the deletions by User:StanZegel, one looks to the below comments from his user page for explanation.

Luther and Anti-Semitism

No one knows the vicious blasphemy that prompted Luther's book. I guess Luther over reacted because He was a deeply religious man. The Jews must learn to forgive. There was an interesting play in the 60s called something like The Man in the Glass Booth about the trial of a Holocaust perpetrator. The man was not a Nazi or a Holocaust perpetrator at all: he had one of those concentration camp numbers tatooed on his arm. He was a Jew, who was consumed with his hatred.

Dave, as I look more into this, and read the summary of the 1543 pamphletOn the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther), I cannot help but see the parallels in those recommended actions in context with those done against the Palastinians since 1948. I guess it matters whose ox is being gored. --StanZegel (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC) You are so right about this. It had even been discussed in Israel about deporting all of the Palestinians out of the region. I remember my professor Dr. Erich Kiehl, who spent many years in the Holy Land, who said that the Israelis should not have been simply given the land of others, namely the Palestinians. Both must seek to coexist. Thank you for your even temperedness and editorial genius. drboisclair 11:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

A Biblical Archeologist told me that in today's Holy Land, Christians do not count at all. I think we are only 3% of the population. This was brought home to me in the aftermath of a massacre by a militant Zionist at the Tomb of the Patriarchs: Jews and Muslims were henceforth to use separate doors, reserved exclusively for them. No door for Christians who might want to visit. (I think that for our $3 billion sent there annually, we might be allowed in the door?) --StanZegel (talk) 11:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Notice: The above text has been repeatedly deleted from this talk page by CTSWyneken.Doright 20:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Material from Personal Talk Page Deleted

Adding this material to a public forum constitutes a personal attack. Some users consider it a violation of their personal privacy to have their conversations on user talk pages quoted in open forums. Anyone who wishes to find out about a user can visit these pages themselves.

As for user Stan Zegel, he has made his views abundantly clear on the talk pages of Martin Luther, Martin Luther and the Jews and On the Jews and Their Lies.--CTSWyneken 11:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Material on this Talk Page by CTSWyneken

• I fail to see where the "personal attack" occurs. The text was cut and pasted from the Luther_and_Anti-Semitism section here [[10]]. Please note that Martin Luther and all others were deleted by User:StanZegel without explanation. You may want to review yourself for the possiblility of bias. For example, on this talk page we see other examples of material from user talk pages included here. Yet, you do not delete those. According to you, "Adding this material [ie, material from a user talk page] ... constitutes a personal attack." Is there something specific in User:StanZegel's statements about Martin Luther and Antisemitism that you object to [[11]]?
• Since you did not delete the material copied here from Mushroom's user page, one is left to conclude that the fact that User:StanZegel's analysis of Martin Luther came from a his talk page is a ruse.
• You claim this is a "Violation of personal privacy?" Yet, you contradict yourself in your very next sentence by stating, "Anyone who wishes to find out ... can visit these pages themselves." What does "privacy" mean if anyone can already see it? One is left to conclude that the "privacy" claim is another ruse. Furthermore, not only can any editor already see it but absolutely anyone on the internet can see it. There is no expectation of privacy when you publish comments for the entire world to see. Just click here for a google search of the "private" Luther_and_Anti-Semitism analysis by User:StanZegel [[12]] .Doright 20:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If you will look above, you will see that you claimed it was from his user page. In good faith, I accepted this as the correct state of affairs. Text from article talk is fair game, but it still uses ad hominem to distract from agruing the case itself, which is a personal attack -- as is your words about me above.

You also didn't seem to notice that I called attention to your personal attack before you copied the material from Mushroom's talk page. Since he had added to that section on this page, I gather he is OK with that.

Also, just because you can do something, doesn't mean you may do something. User talk pages are for semi-private conversations. Users feel free to share with each other, blow off steam and in other ways work through things. No, they are not absolutely private, but they are intended to be out of the way, like moving into a corner of a room during a party. It is not proper to destroy that little bit of out of the way space, just becuase you do not like the user. It could be interpreted as stalking.

You've also missed the point that argument is weak when you do "exposè" rather than answer the arguments. Did you notice Stan Zegel's explanation as to why he wants this catagory deleted? Why not try responding to his argument, rather than trying to paint him -- and others -- as not worthy of your high expertise?

Finally, if you had bothered to check the Martin Luther talk page, you'd notice that I don't oppose listing Luther on an antisemitism page, providing a good definition sensitive to scholars who believe a distinction between anti-Judaism and racial antisemitism is maintained. Your definition is very close. But, instead of reaching out to someone often on the other side of issues from you, you've chosen to put them down.

This is the last time I will address you directly until you correct your behavior or I take formal steps under wikipedia rules. --CTSWyneken 02:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken, note here that the truth content of your assertions can easily be verified as well as your context swizelling. For example right here you can see that Stan Zegel had not provided any explanations or arguments to respond to at the time I posted the material that you repeatedly and improperly deleted from this talk page, nor had he explained why he tagged the article page with "original research". See it here [[13]].I really have no interest in responding to your repeated attacks.Doright 06:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted by User:Zoe

[[14]] [[15]] [[16]] [[17]] [[18]] [[19]] [[20]]

Deleted by User:Pepsidrinka

[[21]]

Doright 07:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Mushroom User Page and included here to document history and discussion of category

You Deleted Category:Antisemitism (People)

• It appears that you deleted Category:Antisemitism (People) without any notice. I need to recover the text that was on that page. A considerable amount of effort went into that text. Where is it?
• Your edit summary stated it was an empty pov category. First of all, it was empty because a couple editors pushing their own POV deleted all the article links to the category. I documented that fact on the talk page. Did you read the talk page?
• Your assertion that it was a POV category is false. The category as the text stated was to provide an index to key figures in the history of antisemitism. That one thinks that is an improper category is suggestive of a non-encyclopedic approach to editing.
• Please restore the category along with its text immediately.

-Collegially yours,Doright 02:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Doright. I deleted that category because it was empty, in accordance with the criteria for speedy deletion. I also think that category is POV, so I won't recreate it. You can file a request for undeletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I will put here the text that was on the page. Mushroom 03:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This category provides an index to prominent individuals that are linked to Anti-semitism including both historical and contemporary figures. Although the individuals may or may not be antisemites themselves, there are at least a “significant minority” of historians, scholars or commentators that associate them or their works with antisemitism or its development. Antisemitism in this context includes Anti-Judaism and is defined as hostility toward, discrimination, or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.

Mushroom, thank you for your prompt reply and recovery of the text that you deleted. However,

• Your deletion of the category was done in violation of wikipedia official policy.[[22]] You should correct your own violation yourself. The policy states:

1. Empty categories (no articles or subcategories for at least four days) whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories. .

• The category had only been empty a few hours as documented on its talk page. The criteria specifies that it be empty "for at least four days."
• Please immediately correct your violation of official wikipedia policy and restore the category now.
• Your unexplained and unfounded claim of POV does not support the violation of wikipedia official policy by an admin. If you want to push your own POV, you should do so as an editor not as an admin.

-Collegially yours,Doright 08:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, it seems you were right: it was a mistake and I shouldn't have done it. Since I already violated the deletion policy, it wouldn't be fair on my part to nominate the category for deletion. Probably someone else will. Mushroom 08:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This category has survived (1) deletion attempt(s).

Candidates for Inclusion

This section is an alphabetical list of article pages of the people. Please use this section to discuss individual article pages.

---

Al-Jahiz

Al-Jahiz (d. 869), a ninth century Islamic zoologist and belles-lettriste who authored The Book of Animals, writes that the mouse, cheetah, eel, white ant (termite), and lizard were originally sinful Jews. (See Al-Jahiz, Omar bin Bahar, Kitab Al-Hayawan. Cairo: Mustafa Al-Bai Al-Halabi and sons (1943), Col. I, p. 309.)[[23]]Doright 01:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

John Chrysostom

"His accomplishments as a preacher and theologian are marred by a virulent anti-Semitism." [[24]]Doright 10:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC) "Regardless of Chrysostom's original intent, his writings have been circulated by many groups to foster anti-Semitism or opposition to Christianity. One of the groups to do this was the Nazi Party in Germany during World War II, who tried to use his work to legitimize the Holocaust in the eyes of German and Austrian Christians. See also: Christianity and anti-Semitism" [[25]] Doright 10:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Edward I of_England

To help finance his war to conquer Wales, Edward I taxed the Jewish moneylenders. However, the cost of Edward's ambitions soon drained the money-lenders dry. When the Jews could no longer pay, the state accused them of disloyalty. Already restricted to a limited number of occupations, Edward furthermore abolished their right to lend money at interest with the Statute of Jewry, [1] and eventually restricted their extra-curricular movements and activities. Edward decreed that all Jews wear a yellow patch in the shape of a star attached to their outer clothing to identify them in public (compare Star of David, Yellow badge). In the course of King Edward's persecution of the Jews, he arrested all the heads of Jewish households. The authorities took over 300 of them to the Tower of London and executed them, while killing others in their homes. Finally, in 1290, the King banished all Jews from the country. [[26]]

Doright 10:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther

Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric and doctrines are often described as anti-Semitic [[27]]

Martin Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies "may be termed the first book of modern anti-Semitism, and a giant step forward on the road to the Holocaust.

In his Letters to Spalatin, we can already see that Luther's hatred of Jews, best seen in this 1543 letter On the Jews and Their Lies, was not some affectation of old age, but was present very early on.//there is little doubt that Christian anti-Semitism laid the social and cultural basis for modern anti-Semitism//On the Jews and Their Lies goes beyond theological anti-Judaism; it calls for state-sponsored violence against the Jews; and therefore it contributed to a historical climate of German opinion in which genocide was conceivable.//The Nazi publisher of the antisemitic Der Stürmer, Julius Streicher, cited this work during the Nuremberg trials.[[28]]

The above citation is in error. The words are from a published source and should be cited anew here.

It is a ruse to say that the citation is in error. I cut and pasted from the article page and provided the link for easy verification. That's it, no error.Doright 17:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It is also incomplete, not representing the argument of other scholars. For example:

It is complete enough to demonstrate that Luther is a person whose works are cited as very significant in the history of antisemitism and even at the Nuremberg trials.Doright 17:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"Luther never organized any campaign against the Jews, and, as Heiko Oberman has said, despite the ferocity of his tirades against them he never truly renounced the notion of coexistence between Jews and Christians. But the fact that Luther's hostility to Jews was not the same as modern anti-Semitism does not excuse it. It was as bad as Luther could make it, and was bad enough to leave a legacy that had hateful consequences for centuries." (Marius,Richard Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. 380)

The above quote again demonstrates that Luther's works are significant to the history of antisemitism (i.e., "hostility to Jews").Doright 17:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Others can be cited. This points to what is the one weakness I see in the category's scope statement. Some times "significant minorities" will exist that say a figure is or was antisemitic, and an equally significant minority that the figure is not. If this category remains, then I'd add, "unless a significant minority of scholars contends he or she was not antisemitic." --CTSWyneken 13:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Another Straw man. What part of "this category does not label anyone an antisemite or an antisemitic person" do you not understand? Please read the quote from the intro to the catetgory.Doright 17:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The purpose here is not to label anyone an antisemite or an antisemitic person. There may be other categories for that. The purpose here is to identify individuals whose works, statements or actions play an important role in the continuing history of antisemitism, whether they intended it or not. This category does not attempt to convey any meaning about the state of mind or what was in the heart of the individuals. This is a strictly empirical category.[[29]]Doright 17:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wilhelm Marr

Wilhelm Marr (1819-1904) was a German agitator and theorist, who coined the term "anti-Semitism" as a euphemism for the German Judenhass, or "Jew-hate".[[30]]Doright 10:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

---