Category talk:Anti-Semitic people/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Creation

This category was created as the Category:Anti-Semitism was filling up with individual people, thus it would be better to place the people in this Category Battlefield 22:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Only if they're anti-Semites! you seem to have put at least one Semite into it as well. Please be careful! Palmiro | Talk 01:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
"Anti-Semitic People" would be "people hostile to Jews" this could include people with jewish heritage such as Bobby Fischer. anti-Se'mitic a. (a person) hostile to Jews Battlefield 01:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
That's exactly how I understand it, and also why I fail to understand how it could be applied to victims of anti-Semitism such as Itzik Feffer, or persons opposed to anti-Semitism such as Romuald Spasowski or Martin Luther King. Palmiro | Talk 01:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The entries you have noted are now corrected, they were placed in the Category by mistake Battlefield 01:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
It might make some sense to split up that other category, the current name of this one is suboptimal however. It invites a lot of trouble while adding the categories to the various people (which is probably the reason while you ducked the issue on Luther), a better name would have avoided that. --Yooden

Anti-Semitic People is an unnaceptable titile, first question: who determines who is Anti-Semitic. If you are going to list all members of the Nazi Party then thats over several million articles. (At a point you were either a "member" or a "trator" I think). This is like Category:Terrorists. Unacceptable as a title, sorry. I am re-listing this for categories for deletion. Do not remove the tag. Simply vote. --Cool CatTalk|@ 13:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello CC, the majority of these people were listed in the Category:Anti-Semitic which was beginning to overflow with peoples names, so they were moved to the Category:Anti-Semitic people nothing more nothing less. There is nothing to vote on, these people were already tagged. Cordially Battlefield 14:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Category:Anti-Semitic does not even exist as I write this. So your point is? --Yooden
Category:Anti-Semitism, he means. Battlefield, it's irrelevant how valid or useful, or otherwise, the category is. Someone has nominated it for deletion. The deletion procedure requires that people coming to look at it can see that it is being voted on; thus they can form their own judgement and go aand vote. If it really is a good category, then the people who have actually seen it will presumably be more likely to vote to keep it. So if you're happy with it, you should be happy to keep the deletion vote notice on it. But even if you're not, the rules say it must stay. Palmiro | Talk 15:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, so why isn't the new category named Category:Anti-Semitism People? Because it wouldn't make sense maybe? --Yooden
Regardless this (Anti-Semitism as a category) is quite unaceptable. This is like category terrorism. --Cool CatTalk|@ 06:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussing this here probably is somewhat counterproductive. You should vote and contribute to the discussion on the deletion page instead. --ssd 08:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes it's pretty bad. Take German Rudolf, for example: neither the article, nor its talk page contains any kind of proof (or mentions) of anti-semitism, but he's in the list. That's just one example I see, I wonder how bad is it in general. As far as I can understand, deletion as of now has been refused because lack of consensus (sorry, not really experienced with deletion). I don't know about deletion, but this certainly deserves a stong disclaimer, as it is not (and probably can't be) fully NPOV, IMO. --Poison sf 23:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


I read this Poison sf guys contribution list, he is a new comer and only posted at racially motivated articles. I read many of his posts and he has clearly anti-Semitic leanings. Please be careful when you read comments around here, many of the people are racists or they have issues SirIsaacBrock 23:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Is this ad hominem or what? I'm always quite open in my opinions and (I would like to believe) acting in good faith, but I doubt I'm obligated to go on a long defensive here - it's probably what you intend with a personal attack. I don't wanna be a detective like you and run background checks on you - let's assume you are a long time member with a big history of productive contributions. Anyway, here you have thrown in few short sentences in a "commanding" tone & then tried to character assassinate me. What are YOUR issues? I suggest better we both stick to rational arguments instead.--Poison sf 02:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to define and rename

An attempt to delete this category has failed. Let's define who is qualified to be included here. I noticed that some of those who voted have only some fuzzy idea on the subject. As a FAQ, may I suggest article Anti-Semitism and its links.

I propose to rename this into Category:Anti-Semitism (people) or Category:Anti-Semitism (individuals). It may include those individuals who were mentioned in connection to antisemitism, either as a victim or as a perptetrator. An alternative would be Category:Anti-Semitism (victims) and Category:Anti-Semitism (perpetrators). ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This was already discussed and determined there is no concensus and the Category should be left with the same name. The name Category:Anti-Semitic people should stay the same. SirIsaacBrock 13:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
This result doesn't mean discussion should cease. In fact, last time I checked, lack of consensus indicates exactly that more discussion & research would be to a great benefit.--Poison sf 03:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I missed that bit. Could you point to the discussion about renaming this article, please? --Yooden

A definition of who should be included and on what grounds would be nice. As it is some people just add articles to the category for fun or whatever other reasons. // Liftarn

Compromise Proposal

I recently participated in an interesting discussion on this category on #wikipedia. I've supported keeping this category because I think that it is useful to have a category that encompasses all the historical movements of anti-semitism. However, this category poses some significant epistemological problems. How do we determine who is an anti-semite? Personally, I think that there is a pretty good objective definition of anti-semitism, namely hostility or prejudice towards Jews, the difficulty is figuring out who meets that criteria. Some have suggested that only self-avowed anti-semites be added, but I don't think that someone's opinion on themselves is any more objective than other people's opinions about them. Clearly John Nash is a mathematician, but as a result of his schizophrenia he might deny that fact, should we then not call him a mathematician? On the other hand, a judge determined that David Irving was an anti-semite, something he denies. Surely someone whose job is to be objective should be a better source than the person himself, who cannot objectively evaluate himself because of possible delusions, or a fear of the world's reaction. Further, the self-avowed test would exclude historical anti-semites who any reasonable person would conclude clearly meet the criteria but never explicitly called themselves anti-semites. Clearly there needs to be a standard criteria for inclusion into this list, so here is a proposal:

To be included in this category, either

  • A The person must be dead for at least 25 years AND Historians must have reached a consensus that this person was an anti-semite. This doesn't mean that one lone historian objects to that classification, but that the person is identified as an anti-semite in nearly all reputable historical accounts
  • OR, if the person has not been dead for 25 years than either
  • B. The individual must have an indisputable record of persecuting or participating in the persecution of Jews because they were Jews
  • OR
  • C. The individual must have a lengthy and indisputable record of hostile and inflammatory comments made against Jews on the basis of their religion
  • (B and C) are designed to include only the most blatant anti-semites such as perpetrators of the holocaust, it should not be used casually and editors who are not sure if a person should be included under this criteria should lean on the side of not including them).

These criteria would be stated explicitly on the category page.

Based on these criteria, Adolph Hitler, Alois Brunner, and Bobby Fischer would be acceptable entries in this category but David Irving would not be.

I'm curious to hear people's thoughts. GabrielF 20:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

One word - NO - SirIsaacBrock 23:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, "mathematician" is different IMO, because with it, the focus lies more on real life manifestations so to say. I.e. a person's actions define it, if somebody possibly has an ingenious grasp on math in his mind, but doesn't create new theories, solutions etc and doesn't work as professor, then I guess he's not called a mathematician in an encyclopedia.
Now, with anti-semitism, it's largerly trying to get into people's heads often. Of course, in cases when somebody willingly engineered or participated in large scale policies directed against jews as such, then it's pretty clear. Substantially less clear it is when it's based on words, as in many cases it's controversial what may be a legitimate critique of beliefs and behaviours dominant (or perceivably so) among jews, or among a visible minority of jews etc. Take anti-Nazi critique vs "anti-German" or omnipresent "racist prejudice" vs "anti-White", as an example. But it doesn't end here, and often becomes not even judging of words, but guessing of motivations and other such divination! Take German Rudolf. I didn't see any mention of anti-semitism (except the category name) in his article at all. I'm guessing the key is in the sentence describing him as a "holocaust denier". Now I did hear such heuristic "the evidence of the Holocaust is overhelming, therefore the denial proves an anti-semitic motive", but how is this for bad? IMO way too bad.
GabrielF, your criteria is pretty sensible (except that I'm nore sure about usefullness of " on the basis of their religion" passage) for a "hard" one, it would certainly filter out most outrageous cases. Now, POSSIBLY, being even a "suspected" anti-semite or accused of it may be the information somebody may be interesting in. Say, while studying anti-semitism, to also look into the controversy surrounding it, find some disputed cases, maybe even examples of unscrupulous / slanderous / wrong usages of the term. Because of it some kind of collection of people with a "weaker" (in general) relation to anti-semitism may be useful.
I'm not quite sure what exactly to do, but the present form can certainly use improvement. Maybe even two categories somehow can be made so that people German Rudolf or David Irving are not "Hitlerized" by placing them in such a list. Or maybe a disclaimer, that some people inside have pretty weak, controversial, or even just alleged association with anti-semitism. --Poison sf 23:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A couple of quick points. By saying "on the basis of their religion" in C I am trying to weed out somebody adding John Smith to this category because John Smith thinks Woody Allen is jackass. The problem is what to do if John Smith calls Woody Allen a money-grubbing jerk with a big nose - that sounds like an anti-semitic remark to me. The question is how many times does John Smith get to say something like that about Jews before we can reasonably conclude he's an anti-semite and add him to the category? Once? What if Woody Allen coincidentally happens to be greedy and has a big nose? Clearly your example (if I understand it correctly) of a Nazi who rants about an assault on the white race should be listed as an anti-semite here because the historical consensus is that that is anti-semitism. The problem is that if a neo-Nazi said that same stuff today he couldn't be listed under the criteria. I think that criteria C needs to be amended to include speech that is clearly anti-semitic but veiled, but I just don't know how to do it while disqualifying the guy who calls a Jewish guy who happens to be greedy greedy.
  • A holocaust denier who did not say anything about Jews but only challenged the facts of the holocaust would not be included in this category even though that person is probably an anti-semite. From the point of view of an encyclopedia this is probably a good thing since we wouldn't be labeling someone definitively when that person might not deserve those labels (although I really hope that the article page mentions whatever the ADL has to say about the person). GabrielF 00:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Well I agree to most of what you say. About religion - what I mean, is that, for example, Nazis couldn't care less if a jewish person is religious or not. Could be an absolute atheist, no difference. Perhaps "or having jewish ancestry" or something like that has to be added.
"Clearly" is in fact where the problem lies, since I doubt a criteria can be formulated about what is clear enough. For some, holocaust denial clearly indicates anti-semitism. Or critique of Israel etc. For criteria that only undisputable cases will pass, this is IMO unacceptable ambiguity, unless "veiled" means only something simplistic, like referring to jews via some other name or description.--Poison sf 02:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
okay, I must have misunderstood you. I meant religion in the sense of one's heritage rather than in the sense of what one believes. 03:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
If the person is clearly Anti-Semitic with references in the article then they should be put in the category. These "compromise proposal" rules are wrong and unacceptable. SirIsaacBrock 23:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Eh, Mr. Isaac Brock I think the point is that it is usually not so simple to determine that someone is "clearly antisemitic". For you, perhaps, but not for everyone and certainly not based on any standard, widely recognized criteria. I think GabrielF's compromise solutions, if implemented, would possibly salvage this category, would prevent it from becoming a playground of ad hoc, unsourced and unverified judgments made by random editors in random articles. So I think his suggestions are very sensible. Thus, I predict they will garner little to no support. Babajobu 01:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The judgement over if a person is an anti-Semito or not should not be left in the hands of editors. If we have a reputable source saying that a person is an anti-Semite it's one thing, but to have any random editor adding persons to the category would be a misstake. For instance Pope Benedict XVI was a member in Hitlerjugend. Should he be added? David Icke is suspeced of being an anti-Semite because some people thinks he is refering to Jews. Should he be added? Zvi Mazel have called former foreign minister Sten Andersson and Sweden's UN ambassador Pierre Schori "professional anti-Israelis". Ahould they be added? Perhaps J Random Editor thinks Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite. Should he be added? // Liftarn 17:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate GabrielF's thoughtful input on this thorny issue and his effort to come up with a compromise. However, I think it is far too restrictive (e.g., excluding David Irving). Better to simply follow Wiki's existing policies, such as WP:V. --Mantanmoreland 17:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

One problem with the category is that it's binary. It's no problem witht the clear-cut cases, but some a dubious. If it would be Category:Allegedly anti-Semitic people or Category:People claimed to be anti-Semites I don't think we would have the same problem. // Liftarn

Purpose, Function, Utility

Resolved: The purpose here is not "name calling,” rather, it is to provide an index to individuals that are linked with antisemitism.

  • Noteworthy individuals that have at least a "significant minority" (see NPOV ) of historians, scholars or commentators that associate them or their works with antisemitism should be eligible for inclusion.
  • I think the problem of category inflation is overstated, since inclusion requires tagging of the individuals' article pages, other editors will naturally limit their inclusion. For example, see John Chrysostom [1], Martin Luther [2].
  • The name of this category should reflect its purpose, function or utility. I agree that consideration should be given to renaming this as "Category:Anti-Semitism (people)." The introductory text would clarify that names listed have been associated with antisemitism by virture of their contributions, etc. to it rather than defense against it. Hitler and David Irving might be acceptable entries in this category but Simon Wiesenthal would not.Doright 20:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The discussion and vote has already occurred. The Category remains as it is, no changes will be acceptable. SirIsaacBrock 21:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
You were already pointed out that nothing is set in stone. There was no consensus, and we resolve such issues by discussing them. Please either constructively participate or move on someplace else. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
You move on SirIsaacBrock 22:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Prior discussion and vote Archived here: [[3]] that shows no consensus for deletion but some interest in renaming.
-Doright 22:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I would like to propose that the category be renamed 'Anti-Semites', a perfectly comprehensible term, rather than the present clumsy title. We don't say 'communistic people' for 'communists', after all. But the page is protected, so I can't even put this up for discussion. Where do we go from here? --Smerus 17:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If anything, your proposed rename would make the category into even more of an epithet. Something like "people typically considered anti-semitic" would be better. Of course there'd still be the issue of what exactly constitutes such a threshold, but at least Wikipedia wouldn't be officially taking the position that they were anti-semitic. Generic69 19:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Smerus, calling this category Anti-Semitism (people) as DoRight proposes just pushes things towards more obfuscation. If we're going to provide an index of people who are anti-semites we should call them what they are. Personally, I'd rather rename the category to 'Anti-Semites' and specify exactly what criteria should be used to determine inclusion (i.e. a consensus of historians agreeing the person was anti-semitic, or participation in persecution of Jews because they were Jews or a lengthy history of remarks attacking Jews) - this wouldn't eliminate the subjectivity issue, but it would allow us to add unambiguously anti-semitic people to the category while leaving the ambiguous ones up for debate. See Compromise Proposal above GabrielF 20:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
A Judge once stated: "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it." The Oxford dictionary defines it this way "anti-Se'mitic a. (a person) hostile to Jews". I KNOW IT WHEN I SEE IT !!! Cordially SirIsaacBrock 01:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I know anti-semitism when I see it too. Sadly, the average wikipedia user is not nearly as experienced in seeing things objectively as the average supreme court justice so "I know it when I see it" is not an acceptable criteria. GabrielF 01:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
WRONG - two statements to be understood "a person hostile to jews"..."I know it when I see it". Nothing further to be analyzed. If there is an person that gets added to the category that you disagree with then prove they are not the above. Too easy SirIsaacBrock 01:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I fail to understand the controversy my proposal has unleashed. I hope no one is using it to grind their own axes on topics that have nothing to do with what I propose. It would be disheartening to find people indulging themselves by seeking to railroad straightforward, non-controversial, proposals.

Once again then: I propose in the interests of the English language, that this category be re-named 'Anti-Semites'. The category exists - I am not entering the debate as to who or what is an Anti-Semite. But as it does exist, it should have a title which is in concordance with English usage. There is no category for 'Communistic People', 'People who live in London', etc. etc, because there are perfectly good English words such as Communists, Londoners, etc. etc. 'Anti-Semitic People' is a dictionary definition for 'Anti-Semites' - but it is not a phrase which would be generally used in writing or conversation. Example: Very rarely someone may say/write 'Hitler/Wagner/ (or who ever) was an Anti-Semitic Person', 95%+ of the time they say/write '...was an Anti-Semite'. Therefore any debate on my proposal should not involve any debate as to 'what is an Anti-Semite?' but should stick simply to the issue of English usage. And I would like someone to explain to me the WP mechanism for formally proposing this name-change for debate when the main page for the category is locked, as in the present case. Hope this is now clear: thanking you all in advance (optimistically)--Smerus 10:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

NO SirIsaacBrock 13:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
No what? No, as in you refuse to explain to me how to make the proposal? Or No to the proposal itself? And what's with the capital letters? Nearly all WP users can read lower case as well.--Smerus 15:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


Smerus, I agree with your point on the name change. However, please consider "Antisemites" instead of "Anti-Semites." I trust you are familiar with the issue of the usage of "Anti-Semitism" versus "Antisemitism." Also, your contributions to a related category that has a different purpose and that User:SirIsaacBrock has proposed for deletion, are invited. Please see [[4]] and its talk page.Doright 19:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Uh? There's an issue about Antisemitism with or without a dash? This is a new one on me. I am a graduate student at the Department for Hebrew and Jewish Studies at University College, London, and the official line there is that these are just alternate spellings, equally valid. Frankly I don't give a flying frankfurter which spelling is used and I definitely don't want to be dragged down in to some hair-splitting, navel-gazing debate on the topic. As regards the other debate, I will just try to stick with this one, as long as it can be kept on the rails. I am still waiting for someone - anyone - please - to explain how to organise a proper debate and vote when the page itself is locked. Wearily, --Smerus 22:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
If this [[category:Anti-Semitic people]] has any valid encyclopedic function, then its supporters will surely agree that a parallel listing, using the new [[category:Jewish people]] should be added, wouldn't they? --StanZegel (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Antisemitism (People)

A new category, Category:Antisemitism (People) has been created. Comment on this page would be appreciated. The question in my mind is whether we need two catagories. --CTSWyneken 12:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The only proposal so far that I have liked is Humus Sapien's one of 7 january (above) to create two categories, one Category:Anti-Semitism (victims) and the other Category:Anti-Semitism (perpetrators) They could be perhaps more elegantly named "victims of anti-Semitism" and "Anti-semites". I really don't like the idea of shagging the two groups willy-nilly into a single category. Palmiro | Talk 22:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Palmiro, as mentioned above, I too like your idea. However, what CTSWyneken is proposing is killing a category that has a completely different purpose. The purpose of the Antisemitism (People) category is explained on its page and is very different from the category of anti-semitic people or perpetrators. Here is one of many CTSWyneken attempts to kill antisemitism related pages working in concert with User:StanZegel. For example Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies here. [[5]]Doright 22:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Your category is a duplicate of this category, all the entries but one are the same, because the one that is left out does not have proper citations in it, yet you put it in your new category. SirIsaacBrock 00:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Almost none of the names are the same. Here is a partial list of some of the names that were in the category before your new found friends deleted them. Al-Jahiz , John Chrysostom , Edward I of England , Martin Luther , Wilhelm Marr, Philip IV of France, Edward I of England, Philip III of France, Pope Gregory IX, Stephen Langton, Philip II of France, Nikita Khrushchev, Mahathir bin Mohamad, Umar II, Heraclius, Sisebur, Reccared, Justinian I, Yazdegerd II of Persia, Constantine I (emperor) Antiochus IV Epiphanes. These are the same ones that will be working to have this category deleted too. They despise this category even more than that one. They capitalized on your lie that it was a duplicate category to justify the removal of any category that identifies contributors to antisemitism
User:SirIsaacBrock, you nominated the category for deletion, solicited antisemitism deniers to vote, attempted to copy articles from the Antisemitism(People) category into the anti-Semitic people category and now you do not tell the truth, as shown above. Funny though how your same pals that have voted to delete the category are the same ones that reverted your own edits when you copied names from the Antisemitism(People) category into the anti-Semitic people category, for example, Martin Luther.
-Doright 08:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I want to say that ppl that are critical of Israel is not necessarily anti-semitic. Neither are ppl that are critical of Jews. Being critical doesn not equate to being racist. __earth (Talk) 09:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Category Antisemitism (People)

Info icon This section does not cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations. (help, get involved!) This article has been tagged since August 2006.
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Doright 08:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Doright, plagerism consists of using the work of others in such a way as to make it appear that the plagerist was the original author. The item above bears only your signature. Are you the original author? --|StanZegel ]] (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
User:StanZegel, your continued harrassment in violation of WP Policy is noted. Interesting isn't it that you now come for me. Yea, I wrote one of the most famous poems from the 20th century. Try to get a life.Doright 06:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
In support of User:StanZege's continued harrassment, User:CTSWyneken, as an unsigned edit on 09:47, 26 January 2006, has tagged this discussion section on this talk page as follows, A fellow editor requested that someone provide references or sources for the information in this section. User:CTSWyneken, your continued harrassment in violation of wikipedia official policies is noted. You make very clear your role in this poem, First they came...Doright 00:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Doright, asking for a citation and confirmation that we are not in violation of copyright is in no way "harassment." Not only is it not harasment, it is required by Wikipedia policies. Provide the citation and copyright information if someone asks for it. Otherwise, the material may be deleted in order to comply with our policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I think you're a bit off on this one. First, if you actually read my reply you would see that I provided a link to the wikipedia page from which the poem was cut and pasted. In fact the poem is so famous that it has its own Wikipedia article. It is one of the most famous poems of the 20th century. Second, you know or should know that the editors, in fact, knew who the "original author" was. Of course, that's exactly why the editors issued their edit "Plagerism challenge." Your attempts to justify the editors' evil speech has no connection to reality. The editor states his purpose explicitly. Their edit summary is labeled, "Plagerism challenge." What's the challenge except to show I'm the original author of one of the most famous poems from the holocaust? By the way, I'm also the "original author" of The Gettysburg Address. Suggesting that I'm trying to take credit for authoring this famous poem is transparent mean spirited harassment. That this is not clear to you is a bit surprising. Eariler, the editor wrote, " ...I think the best way to deal with these high school kids with such bad attitudes is to ignore and not respond to them. Perhaps in a few years they may acquire some maturity, but in the meanwhile they are not worth the time to explain why their edits are reverted ... "; then StanZegel writes to CTSWyneken: "An anonymous editor is like a sniper in a tree top, taking pot shots at those trying to do serious work on the ground, and dropping his waste matter into the work in progress. I'm not sure that anything such a person attempts to add is worth verifying but should be summarily deleted on the basis that a responsible person would identify himself. If the material is truly worthy, a responsible scholar will get around to adding it. In the present case, I believe we are dealing with a sock puppet for an editor who has been banned previously for similar activity and may be on probation right now. If so, that probation is being violated, and keeping his edits or wasting time on his "contributions" simply enables continuing violations.--StanZegel (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)." The editors also write: 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) --Best Regards,Doright 17:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
A link is not a citation. Simply because some editors know a famous poem does not mean that all do. So it is important to, at the very least, indicate the author to whom the work is attributed. Since that author is mentioned in the first paragraph of the page about the poem, this is very easy to do. This is especially important when the resource is an internet source. These files move. Sometimes they're deleted. Wikipedia editors should take the time to be sure they cite even these resources as fully as possible. That way, if the link breaks, the information can still be traced. --CTSWyneken 20:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Now it's not enough that I had provided the link to the Wikipedia Article about the poem. A full and complete citation is required for this talk page quip. Here's the link again First they came... . But, this link is no good, even though it is done throughout Wikipedia for every other page, because according to you the page might move or the link may break. Really? Since the link is to a Wikipedia page, if it "moves" a redirect will be implemented. Not to worry. If you or your mate actually had that concern, then why suggest I was trying to take credit for this famous poem? Also, you could have just as well fixed the alleged "problem" yourself. But, you did not. Further, If this is still such a problem, why did you again and again and again not fix it? If a name is required, "if the link breaks," why have you not added the name? Afterall, you now admit, "that author is mentioned in the first paragraph" of the linked article. BTW, are you aware that this is a talk page, not an article page? Seriously, try to focus on the articles and not me. I'm flattered, but am I really that important? That you don't like being identified with antisemites is understandable, but that is your choice and burden, not mine. I did not call you an an antisemite. However, repeatedly censoring, deleting and whitewashing antisemitism makes Wikipedia less valuable. Antisemitism denial is similar to holocaust denial, and flows from the same stream, IMHO.Doright 00:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not watching this discussion closely, but I feel that it has deteriorated into ad hominem attacks. Surely the requirements for citations in talk pages are not the same as in the articles. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Please look at the poem above. When it was added to this page as an attack on fellow editors, user Doright did not even identify the author, which he has not done to this moment. It was suggested that he do so. He followed it up with more personal attacks, which you have noticed above. Since this user has a history of not attributing material to its sources, misattributing them, etc. (See the talk pages for Martin Luther, Martin Luther and the Jews, On the Jews and Their Lies) I think it's reasonable to ask him to do this much. --CTSWyneken 10:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, I ask you to focus on the WP articles and not me.
  • Is it my “history of not attributing material to its sources, misattributing them, etc.” or is it my history of pointing out your documented falsification of references that is the reason for your attack? See below for an example from last month.

"CTSWyneken, Concern with proper citations is nice. However, then you falsify the citations provided by other editors. Stripping the citation, as you did, of the authority it garners by being cited in "Luther's Works," you diminish its authority. POV so extreme that leads to plagiarizing references surely cannot be considered proper. Please correct your falsification of the reference you edited in the first paragraph. The citation was clearly to On The Jews and Their Lies footnote 173 in "Luther's Works." I even had a link to it so that it would be completely unambiguous. Of course, you removed that too. Doright 17:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC) By the way, this is similar to the intellectual dishonesty and misrepresentation exposed here. [6].Doright 18:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC) "

  • I thought the poem pointed to the fact that deletion of that category is related to deletion of “category:Anti-Semitic people.” Yet, you take it as a personal attack? Methinks thou dost protest too much. (Must I also cite the source of the last sentence, lest I also be accused of trying to take credit for Shakespeare?)
  • Again you have not added a name yourself thereby fulfilling any altruistic motive that may exist ( First they came... ). Instead you choose to use this as a venue for personal attack against me.
Please stop your harassment. I hope my offering my apology for any misdeeds or deficiencies you attribute to me will help you get over your special interest in me.Doright 19:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Humus, I agree with your concern regarding the ad hominem nature of the discussion and your observation, "the requirements for citations in talk pages are not the same as in the articles." Hopefully, more need not be said on this topic and if other editors want to correct any perceived deficiencies in the posting of the poem, they will avail themselves of their ability to edit it. For example, CTSWyneken has deleted entire portions of my talk section contributions in the past, surely then he can add the "original author" if he thinks it's required. However, as noted in the poems article section titled, "Controversy over origin and text" , "The poem's exact origin is unclear."[[7]] Cheers,Doright 20:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


  • This is one of the most rediculous, petty, and vidictive things that I've ever seen here on Wikipedia, and that's saying a whole lot. For someone to make an official complaint over the fact that User:Doright forgot to put a citation on his quotation of an extremely famous poem a on talk page is beyond rediculous. I'm incredulous that people would waste so much time arguing over something so stupid. Obviously the complaint was motivated by some other personal hostility and not by any bona fide concern about plagerism. Generic69 20:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Update 2 ½ months later (4/21/06)

I stated 2 ½ months ago:

" I thought the poem pointed to the fact that deletion of that category is related to deletion of 'category:Anti-Semitic people.' Yet, you take it as a personal attack? Methinks thou dost protest too much. "

The poem was a warning. Now, I’m not claiming to be Nostradamus, however, now they come for this category. Please note the related discussion hereand here and that they are the very same Wikipedians. It may also be helpfull to note that their work on the Martin Luther and related article concerning antisemitsm have at times been characterized by various administrators as a "whitewash", as astonishing, and that "You will have to stop this POV pushing or you will end up before the arbcom, and they could stop you from editing these articles completely. When you're here, your loyalty has to be to Wikipedia, not Martin Luther."Doright 20:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Loyalty to Wikipedia also means abiding by WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. This category does not help Wikipedia one iota. Drboisclair 19:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin Please Add

The vandalism protection will not allow me to add the following Category:People Category:Lists of people, can an admin please add them, thanks SirIsaacBrock 03:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


To this list, I would add Professor Griff, Voltaire, Shakespeare, and possibly Radcliffe Hall.

Copied Over

this category was deleted through consensus on Jan 23rd's log. Please see other discussions on Category talk:Anti-Semitic people. --Syrthiss 13:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Germar Rudolf

Could you explain, why he is listed as "antisemitic"???

Read the article. SirIsaacBrock 13:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
That's why I am asking. According to the article he is not antisemitic".
I don't read it that way and sign your post with four tildes ~ SirIsaacBrock 15:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


Martin Luther

Please look here , here and here for evidence that the wikipedia text related to Martin Luther clearly indicates that he should be in this category.Doright 10:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther has again been deleted from the Anti-Semitic people category [8].

Since some editors have expressed an interest in the background of the Martin Luther and antisemitism discussion, I thought gathering some of the views of the participants will be helpful.

I agree that the Jews should learn Christian charity: forgiveness and not consuming hatred. Yes, insults may have been given, injustices may been done, but that happens to everybody. Get over it! Get on with life! Competitive Victimhood is so unbecoming. --StanZegel (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

copied from drboisclair 10:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC) on :[[9]]

Perhaps what should be done is get rid of Against the Jews and their Lies while leaving the historical notice that it was mean and ill-tempered. 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.

I believe that we should keep the title page of Against the Jews and their Lies out of the article.

Dave, as I look more into this, and read the summary of the 1543 pamphlet, 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)

copied from --CTSWyneken 02:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC) on [[10]]

It is proving very difficult, since I'm the sole Lutheran voice here at the moment.

copied from --CTSWyneken on [[11]]

Thanks for the Luther Page Revert

copied from [[12]] Admin tells Drboisclair Do not turn this into a Jewish versus Lutheran thing. What matters is Wikipedia policies and our compliance with them: NOR, NPOV, and accurate articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

there is a difference between antisemitism and antijudaism: the arabs, too, are semites.--StanZegel (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

As pointed out by other editors Anti-Semitism comprises prejudice not only against Jewish people but also against other "Semites" like the Arabs. IMHO, drboisclair 17:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC))

Doright 04:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther was deleted from both "anti-semitism" and "anti-semitic people" categories. I restored them, however, Drboisclair immediately reverted my restoration of the "Anti-Semitic people" category to the Martin Luther article, claiming in his edit summary (as though it's a settled matter) that this category is being renamed.--Doright 20:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Singling fellow editors out in this manner borders on a personal attack. Please stop dropping my name in your posts, thank you--Drboisclair 20:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Jan Guillou

Guillou should be removed from this list. I cant´t find anything that would make him worthy of being on this list. Well if you equal some anti-israel opinions as antisemitism you maybe could. But of course some of you will state as Israel often do. That saying the nation Israel has done wrong in a matter is the same as being against jews.

"I'm an optimist, I hope that Israel will cease to exist before Armageddon."– Jan Guillou, Svenska Dagbladet, 1977-03-13.
Hoping for the elimination of the Jewish state is a clear example of anti-semitism. /Slarre 23:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not. Just as hoping that France will cease to exist is anti-French. // Liftarn 17:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, that sounds very logical.. or not. Slarre 23:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You and Slarre are both incorrect; your logic is fine but your premises are false. "French" is not a race. "Jewish" is. "French" is defined as "a citizen of France", therefore to be anti-France is to be against French people by definition, because since France is democratic in nature, the actions of France are decided by the French people. "Jewish" is not defined as "a citizen of Israel", and therefore it is possible to be against Israel without being against Jews specifically. Kasreyn 02:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of false premises, claims that "Jewish" is a race went out of style with Adolph Hitler.Doright 08:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't claim to have invented the definition. I really couldn't care less about how many angels can stand on the difference between the terms "ethnicity" and "race". I must applaud you on the sheer inventiveness of your insinuation, though. Why, I can't remember the last time someone was so droll as to compare me to such an obscure historical figure. ¬_¬ Kasreyn 09:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Only you compare yourself to the racist doctrine. On the other hand, I pointed out your argument contains similar premises. Please note the distinction between you and the argument you make. Please review WP:CIVIL. "In Nazi Germany, being a Jew was considered as a racial designation." This is a quote from the link you provided. Please note that it is contained in the only section in the entire article that uses the word "race." Perhaps that explains why the comparison of your argument to that of the Nazis is so obvious? Compare it to your statement that Jewish is a race.Doright 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I cannot see any point in attempting a serious reply to that. The sheer chutzpah of accusing me of incivility when you're jumping all over me like a junkyard dog (not to mention making offensive insinuations) is staggering. You seem to be utterly impervious to irony, so I'm all out of tools to work with here. I see now there is no possible productive way for me to engage in civil discourse with you, much as I would like to. You seem to be very erudite and well-spoken, but also too willing to assume the worst of anyone you disagree with. If you want to convince anyone of the rightness of your views, Doright, you must first treat them and their views with a modicum of patience and respect. This is the very essence of the concept of "civility" which you are so fond of mentioning. Otherwise, you will only "win" arguments because people will give up on talking to you and stop listening. I can assure you, their silence does not indicate agreement. You also might want to do some research on Hanlon's Razor. And if by that you want to assume that I have conceded whatever point you are trying to make, go ahead. Whatever makes you happiest. Cheers, Kasreyn 18:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Attack the arguments, as I have, and not the person. Please see WP:Attack. Indeed, I could have ignored your argument. But, we have learned that it is not wise to let statements, such as yours, that Jewish is a race, stand unanswered. Cheers, Doright 18:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of the Anti-Semitic people category

Click on link and related discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Martin_Luther&diff=49242441&oldid=49229629 Doright 10:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This was already voted on and the +cat stays ! Vote SirIsaacBrock 20:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I counted an even number of keeps and deletes, so wasn't it inconclusive? I recounted it was 13 keep vs. 12 delete, so the majority were for keeping the category.Drboisclair 23:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The decision was No Consensus, which you just confirmed; therefore, it stays, the vote was done and the decision was made, the +cat stays. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 13:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As a Luther Scholar I object to his name on this prejudiced category

The question of whether or not Martin Luther engaged in the crime of antisemitism is a matter of debate among Luther scholars. His inclusion here is at the behest of an editor, who is pushing his POV. This characterization is debatable. With all of the posturing about being an NPOV online resource, the existence of this category on Wikipedia is the establishment of a POV. I object to Martin Luther's being listed here, and I would be glad to discuss the matter with anyone. His name could appear under the Category:Antisemitism, but it is inappropriate here. Drboisclair 14:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The placing of people into this category is also a violation of WP:NOR in that by such an action an editor is making a judgment about an historical figure, which may or may not be supported by scholars. Drboisclair 20:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

Could someone flag this for deletion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.239.134.165 (talk • contribs).

NO... now go anony SirIsaacBrock 20:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


List of Nazi Party leaders and officials

I am certainly aware that anti-semitism and far worse, the Final Solution was part of the NAZI ideology. My question is, is it accurate to have an all-inclusive list of NAZI party leaders, and say each and every one of them was anti-semetic? I have little doubt that many (most?) of them were, but I don't know that they all were. Please forgive me for witholding my name, but I really don't want to be flamed by someone incorrectly accusing me of holocaust denial. 68.11.51.44 07:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

-What nonsense page this is! What is a Semite?! Thus what is an anti-Semite?! Jews hate Arabs, Arabs hate Jews--fellow semites murduring each other? Semitic is a a linguistic term--not the definition of a people! Furthurmore, since when were Khazars (Eastern European pagans) converts to Judaism ever the descendants of a Semitic-speaking people of the middle-east? This whole category is absurdity to the extreme. Do you know how many Jews would fit in this category if you were to take even the slightest criticism of Political Zionism, Judahism and Talmudism?!! Will they be categorised as anti-semites too?! I suppose those Jews who belittle the holocaust (one of the gravest sins of "anti-semites") should also be categorised as such. This is garbage issued by Know-nothings and so-called "Semites"! --68.146.186.180 23:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)antinutjobs

Standards?

Looking at the pages listed in this cat, I see some obvious ones and some non-obvious ones. I'm very concerned as to whether there are any objective, impartial guidelines in place for deciding upon whom to bestow this badge of infamy? Claims of anti-semitism carry great negative power, and Wikipedia must have guidelines to prevent the use of such labelling to smear and libel.

When a person reads a page like this, or any of the articles on the people listed here, and reads the term "anti-semitic", I'd suppose their immediate mental image is of a person who hates Jews and constantly speaks ill of them. But some of the names here seem to have been added to the cat on the strength of one sourced anti-semitic comment. I have no intention of apologizing for anti-semitic comments, but a single negative comment is hardly a way of life. People can change, or say something they later regret. Wikipedia's standard should be, a person who has a known habit of making anti-semitic statements, or has repeatedly stated, or published, material with a pervasive bias against Jews. It is irresponsible of us to have lax standards here; by doing so we merely open this category up to being used as a tool for ad hominem attacks.

Respectfully, Kasreyn 11:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Which page should be removed from the category? Which "have been added to the cat on the strength of one sourced anti-semitic comment?"Doright 12:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Kasreyn, makes a very good point here. This category can be used as a tool for ad hominem attacks, so it violates WP:CIVIL in certain instances, WP:NOR in certain instances, and WP:NPOV in certain instances. This is a good argument for removing it completely.--Drboisclair 14:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry it has taken me so long to reply. The evening of the 16th I had a major hard drive crash and I've only just today gotten back online. As to which was sourced by only one comment, I must admit I can't remember which one I meant. I remember coming to this category from an article on a person with one sourced comment, and I remember thinking that one source was not enough to make such a broad accusation based on. But now I can't remember or figure out what person I was linked here from. If I find it, I will let you know.
One different example I have found, though, is Martin Niemoller. From reading his bio, I feel a very clear picture is shown of a man who conformed to prevailing anti-semitic notions and later learned of his folly, overcame his prejudices, and became an opponent of anti-semitism. There can be no greater admission of guilt and shame than his immortal words "then they came for the Jews, and I said nothing, because I was not a Jew." Yet there are sources supporting that he was anti-semitic at one point in his life, and there he is on the list with Eichmann. I think that most people, when exposed to a list purporting to detail "anti-semitic people", do not have a mental picture of people who reformed in later life. I'm not saying Niemoller was added as a deliberate smear or anything like that. I'm just saying that "anti-semitic" is awfully powerful language, and there needs to be a strict and clear guideline for inclusion in the category, both to prevent deliberate abuse and to deal with questions like the issue of reform. Of course, the problem with this is that that decision itself is a subjective matter, and probably best avoided by not even having the category. Kasreyn 14:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Please note that Drboisclair is a Lutheran and some claim the founder Martin Luther had anti-Semitic beliefs. I assume he is worried the Martin Luther article will be tagged with this +cat, hence his continued attempts to have the +cat deleted. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 02:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Cordially replying I say that calling Luther or other people before the 19th Century anti-semites is oblivious of history. This is a matter of debate whether Luther's anti-Jewish writings are either anti-semitic or anti-judaic. Perhaps we should have a anti-christian category for all of those that hate Christians. Something to think about. As to whether Luther is in this category he might be in good company because I read that there are some on this website that are thinking of putting William Shakespeare in this category. This category is prejudicial. I imagine that even Jesus Christ might be put into it before long. I am only asking that people be given the benefit of the doubt. Hitler, Goebbels, Himler, yes. But Shakespeare and Luther, no. No other encyclopedia has such a category. Well, some have posted, they do not have our WP:NPOV policy! Well, that is all the more reason for removing it. Thankyou. BTW, I wonder if we should point out the religious persuasion of all who advocate the keeping of this prejudicial category.--Drboisclair 12:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Drboisclair, you accuse others of being "Oblivious of history." However, the question is better put regarding antisemitism and why you repeatedly ignore the obvious. Professor Shmuel Almog of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem states, "it is currently established procedure to use 'antisemitism' for all types of Jew-hatred."

Antisemitism is "applied not just to the modern brand of Jew-hatred but ... to all kinds of enmity toward Jews, past and present." Thus we now say 'antisemitism', even when we talk about remote periods in the past."[[13]]Doright 00:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander." My religious persuasion was brought up, so I wanted to know how it felt to put the shoe on the other foot. You are like the man in the glass booth. --Drboisclair 13:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Drboisclair, I'm sorry but I just don't understand what "the goose" and "the gander" have to do with the fact that you repeatedly ignore that Antisemitism is "applied not just to the modern brand of Jew-hatred but ... to all kinds of enmity toward Jews, past and present." Thus we now say 'antisemitism', even when we talk about remote periods in the past."[[14]]. And, then you proclaim "calling Luther or other people before the 19th Century anti-semites is oblivious of history." Please also read antisemitism.Doright 01:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Drboisclair question of religious persuasion of Wikipedia editors

Drboisclair, Also, of what significance is (and I quote you), "the religious persuasion of all who advocate the keeping of this prejudicial category?"Doright 00:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Doright, you always create a bad feeling on this website by your incessant accusations. You are just simply mean, and you are not as intelligent as you claim to be anyway. Another good word to describe you is rude as well. --Drboisclair 13:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Since your explanation is nothing more than a personal attack, one is again left to suggest you please review WP:ATTACK and WP:CIVIL.Doright 17:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, come off it! You violate these policies as well as every policy on this website. Review them yourself, Dowrong. Drboisclair 22:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

New Attempt to Delete Anti-Semitic people Category

Vote here [[15]]Doright 04:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The polarization of insisting on this category

I would like to make a few observations on the general result of insisting on this category. The vote to delete it seems to be going in favor of those who want to keep it. Be that as it may, keeping it may be a win for them, but a Phyrric victory in the polarization that it continues to cause here on this website. Instead of building bridges it widens chasms between all of us. Why not make a compelling argument on by understating a thing rather than overstating it? You get your point across better. Keeping this category plays right into the hands of an antagonist like Doright who delights in setting people the one against the other. It is the pushing of a POV when NPOV is touted as the soul of this website. Well, some of us may throw up our hands and say, "Keep your category, and much good may it do you!" --Drboisclair 14:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if the vote goes in favor of keeping it, I'm not going to stop pushing standards of inclusion. Kasreyn 14:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


Deleting this category would create a bad precedent

I fail to see why keeping the category would be "polarizing" and deleting it would not be "polarizing." I fail to see why the very existence of this category could be considered offensive. After all, I am sure we would all agree that there are anti-Semitic people. While subjective human judgment is required in creating such a category, that is true for all Wikipedia articles.

I think that singling out this category for deletion for the reasons stated on the Rfd page would create a very bad precedent.

If uniformly applied, it would mean that similar categories would have to be deleted as well. I just stumbled upon this discussion on a user page and to be frank was not even aware there was such a category until today. I was, therefore, alarmed by the proposed deletion.

I also don't agree with the references in the preceding comments to the existence of this category being a violation of WP:NPOV. Perhaps the gentleman can explain. It seems to me that if a person is correctly included in this category, there can be no such problem to any reasonable editor. Yes there will be debate, but I don't believe a debate on this category is inherently more polarizing than debates on anything else.

I have been involved in discussions on esoteric securities trading issues that get extremely heated, believe me!

It seems to me that as long as the policy of WP:V is strictly applied, there should be no difficulty.

Yes, on all subjects of this kind there will be tensions, as indicated by the comments on this page, but that does not mean that Wikipedia should throw up its hands and abdicate its responsibility to tackle difficult and controversial subjects. --Mantanmoreland 21:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland, nicely stated. The claim that "keeping the category would be 'polarizing'" does beg the question why deleting it would not be 'polarizing'?" Re-reading Drboisclair's "Phyrric victory in the polarization," it appears to be more of a prayer over sour grapes than an argument. If history is a guide, there can be little doubt that Drboisclair's self-fulfilling prophesey is on its way. For example attempts to delete articles of their entire contents merge them out of existence or otherwise "whitewash" them. [16][17][18][19][20] [21][22] [23]Doright 22:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Formal Request to User:Doright to cease attacking fellow editors

I wish to post my objection to this new attack by User:Doright. All this kind of adversarial exchange via links causes bad feelings. Some of us like myself have made it a lifetime project of studying Martin Luther. We want Luther to be given a fair shake. Because I am a Lutheran I feel that putting him in this category insults my faith; however, since the majority of Wikipeers deem it necessary, I must defer—I will not engage in edit war. To help the reader understand what I mean I say that it would be similar to casting aspersions on persons like Rabbi Hillel, Akivah, and Shammai among the Jewish people and the Prophet Mohammed among Muslim people. We Lutherans are raked over the coals by User:Doright and his campaign to vilify not only Luther but us as well. We do not intend to whitewash anything. What User:Doright does not mention is that we have had to "grow" in our understanding of the consequences of what Luther wrote and did. The polarization comes with running roughshod over persons who are highly regarded by millions of people throughout the world. Other encyclopedias see the need of being more sensitive to others' religious feelings. By his activities User:Doright incites conflict and increases polarization. If User:Doright lifts me among others up for ridicule because we care about how Luther is presented, he reveals his own strong POV by relentlessly attacking us. At best, it is bad form to ubiquitously single out editors for accusation and ridicule as User:Doright does, and I formally request that he stop it. Sincerely,--Drboisclair 22:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The polarization comes with running roughshod over persons who are highly regarded by millions of people throughout the world.
Not if the checks and balances provided by WP:V are applied. I am not familiar with the article so I cannot say one way or the other.
The issue of whether Martin Luther was anti-Semitic is separate from the issue of whether there should be such a category. I would urge that the two issues be evaluated separately. Certainly it is not a good idea to remove this category just because of concerns that people may have re the inclusion of Martin Luther. --Mantanmoreland 17:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I concur with you here. There are people that may be appropriately placed into this category, and the issue of the retention of this category should be separated from the issue of who is to be placed into it. --Drboisclair 18:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well may I suggest then that you change your vote to keep it, rather than taking the position that because Martin Luther is in the category there should be no category. Just a friendly suggestion. --Mantanmoreland 21:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
If it were up to me, there would be no categories for -ism's on Wikipedia. People should have to read the article if they want to know about the person. It's this constant human urge to slap a label on everyone that bugs me. When you shrink a person down small enough to fit them in a box, you remove everything that makes them human. Categorization is a first step towards dehumanization, and if it were up to me, there would be no categories and labels at Wikipedia: just articles. Kasreyn 00:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, but there are categories for a wide variety of "isms" on WP. Singling out the "anti-Semites" category for deletion as "subjective" while leaving the other labels alone strikes me as troubling to say the least. Frankly I think it will be damaging to WP's reputation were that to occur. --Mantanmoreland 01:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Eh. If there were votes on the others, I'd vote to delete them, too. But WP:SNOW would seem to apply... my opinion is very much in the minority. It may seem cynical; perhaps it is, but I'm willing to settle for deleting at least the most harmful categories. And I consider this category to be indeed harmful, unless as I mentioned above, standards for inclusion were decided upon by consensus. However, from reading the arguments between Doright and Drboisclair, it appears there are more than one opinion on just what anti-semitism is. In light of this, how can we have a category when there is disagreement over what the definition is? The issues Doright and Drboisclair raise are new to me, and I haven't had time to study them and come to a decision, so my "conditional delete" vote is based largely on my feeling that the use of labels with loaded content have a tendency to reduce understanding rather than increase it. But now I'm beginning to think this category may also suffer from semantic problems as well. Kasreyn 01:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there are multiple definitions of anti-semitism. Anti-semitism is quite clearly defined in any dictionary -"hostility to or prejudice against Jews" in mine for example - and it is easier than people here seem to think to decide if someone should be included. Clearly Martin Luther fits the definition, to quote Martin Luther and the Jews "he wrote that Jews' synagogues should be set on fire, prayerbooks destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes "smashed and destroyed," property seized, money confiscated, and that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be drafted into forced labor or expelled "for all time." [3] He also appeared to sanction their murder." Clearly this is hostility to and prejudice against Jews! I think that what is happening is that people are changing the definition of anti-semitism in order to confound and obfuscate the issue of whether someone was an anti-semite. For example other editors argued earlier that Arabs couldn't be anti-semitic because Arabs are Semites, but this is simply not the definition of anti-semitism as it appears in the dictionary. I can understand why people do this - nobody likes having their heroes associated with racism. However, it runs counter to what wikipedia stands for. I would argue (see the compromise proposal section above for the whole argument which I made quite some time ago) that we should clearly spell out the definition of anti-semitism and a criteria for inclusion and judge cases based on that criteria. I think that if we do this we can clearly see that most of the listings in the category were in fact undisputably anti-semites under the dictionaries definition. GabrielF 04:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
GabrielF, thank you. I do find it remarkable with all the wild claims of abuse of this category that despite my request to identify articles that do not belong in the category, only two articles are currently being contested in this discussion, Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemöller and Martin Luther. I believe that anyone even marginally versed in the history of antisemitism would find them to be properly categorized here. However, I do welcome rational debate, but, as you point out, attempts to "confound and obfuscate" the issues are fairly transparent, for example, the title of this discussion section.Doright 05:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Gabriel. When I spoke of semantic problems, definition of terms was exactly what was on my mind. As I've said above, what we need are clear standards of what anti-semitism is before we can go applying it as a label to people. Your definition, for example, seems fine to me. But I'm not yet convinced that a consensus definition has been arrived at, which is what I meant when I said there were semantic problems. To my mind there is a vast difference between a person who says a single nasty thing about Jews, and someone who ordered their mass execution - yet as far as I can tell (and forgive me if I'm mistaken), both people are equally likely to be included in this category due to the fuzziness of standards of inclusion. I'd say the public perception of what an anti-semite is, lies somewhere between these two extremes (meaning example 1 is underqualified, while as we all know example 2 is definitely overqualified). I really have a hard time believing that a single term can cover such a wide possible variety of behaviors and attitudes without misrepresentations.
I would only be in favor of keeping this category if a.) there were a consensus on precisely what anti-semitism is (and let me point out, I have absolutely no ego staked on which definition is eventually decided on, as long as we pick one and stick with it), b.) clear policies were decided upon for measuring people by that definition, and c.) multiple reliable sources were absolutely required in order to win someone a seat in this hall of shame. I understand that many have a desire to see a category like this exist, but I remain very worried about it. If it lacks clear standards for usage, it will eventually be used in order to slander and libel. WP:V is one of the most important standards we have.
Of course, this is all included within my grudging willingness to go along with there being such categories at all. As I've already said, I think bio cats are a bad idea because they allow, even encourage, readers not to think about the people they are reading about. They are too blunt and generalized to convey any real information about a human being, and therefore they mislead. But I'm well aware no one agrees with me on that, so I'm willing to work to at least minimize this effect. Subjective categories definitely need strong guidelines. Thanks again, Kasreyn 05:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Kasreyn, you suggest "a person who says a single nasty thing about Jews" is very likely to be included in this category, so much so that they are "equally likely to be included as someone who ordered their mass execution." If that is the case, prove it. Please list below the people included in this category that meet the criteria of only saying "a single nasty thing about Jews." Doright 06:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
A preposterous notion. I am opposing weak standards as a matter of principle. Just because something bad may not have already happened is no reason for a thinking person to fail to put reasonable safeguards in place to prevent it. All I am saying is that there are not currently any consensus-based standards in place to prevent such a thing, and without such standards, I must vote to delete this category to prevent any possibility of such a thing occurring. Kasreyn 06:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Kasreyn, If that is all you are saying and there is zero evidence to support your claims, please don't repeatedly make claims like "a person who says a single nasty thing about Jews" is "equally likely to be included as someone who ordered their mass execution" or "names here seem to have been added to the cat on the strength of one sourced anti-semitic comment." I tend to agree with GabrielF that the very structure of Wikipedia already provides significant checks and balances and that there may be no need to become "overwrought." Furthermore, I would like to point out that improperly including an article in the category is only one type of error we may make (i.e., Type I error). The other is improperly NOT including an article (i.e., Type II error). I believe the empirical evidence supports the notion that Type II errors are more prevalent here than Type I. For example, see Martin Luther. Lastly, what notion are referring to as "a preposterous notion?"Doright 07:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
(sigh) Clearly you've misunderstood me. In your quote of my reasoning, you're leaving out the part where I said "as far as I can tell (and please forgive me if I'm wrong)", the exclusion of which gives a false impression of my statement. I have also never "repeated" it as you erroneously claim, and until now, that was the only time I'd said it. My statement was, indeed, based on the category's status "as far as I (could) tell". The Afd hasn't ended and I don't know of any change to the community's consensus regarding the article's standards, so, what I could tell "as far as I can tell" then hasn't changed, so it's still "as far as I can tell". This is the operative phrase which you keep glossing over.
The notion to which I refer as "preposterous" is your mistaken belief that I have claimed that a person who "said a single nasty thing about Jews" had actually been included, and that I therefore must provide a source for such a claim. I have not, and therefore it is preposterous that I should be required to provide such a source. I have merely claimed that without guidelines to prevent it, it could, and such a danger was in my mere personal opinion sufficient to warrant a conditional delete vote. My evidence is the lack of such guidelines. (By the way: there, that was me "repeating" it. Repetition requires two instances, you see.) Really, I don't get it. You're a bright guy, I shouldn't have to explain what I've already said. Kasreyn 09:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Kasreyn, you have to explain what you said only because you keep contradicting yourself and you don’t seem to remember what you say from one paragraph to the next. You did not merely claim that a person COULD be included who "said a single nasty thing about Jews." You said, they are as “LIKELY to be included in this category” as “someone who ordered their mass execution.” And yes, you REPEATEDLY make unsupported claims. First [here you say “some of the names here seem to have been added to the cat on the strength of one sourced anti-semitic comment.” ] AND THEN [here you say “someone who ordered their mass execution - yet as far as I can tell (and forgive me if I'm mistaken), both people are equally likely to be included in this category due to the fuzziness of standards of inclusion.”]. My parsimonious deletion of your Weasel word’s had zero effect on the meaning of your statements. Really, I don't get it. You're a bright guy, I shouldn't have to explain what I've already said. Finally, regarding what you referred to as my “preposterous” “mistaken belief” was neither preposterous nor my belief. What I asked for was evidence that supported your claim. If your statement regarding the probability of a person of a certain class being included were true, surely the fact that you can not find a single actual case where it occurred suggests that your claim (or hypothesis) is not supported by the evidence. Therefore, I respectfully request that you do not burden the reader by making such claims in the future. Regards Doright 10:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Kasreyn, thank you for your well thought-out reply. I agree with most of what you're saying. I added wikipedia's definition of anti-semitism to the top of the Category page, it is remarkably similar to the Oxford American dictionary (and probably every other dictionary in the world). I actually proposed a fairly strict standard for inclusion in this category some time ago (see Compromise Proposal above) and I addressed exactly the issue you brought up of including a person who might have made one anti-semitic crack. Now I think I should have taken the initiative and implemented it months ago. I absolutely agree that standards for inclusion are necessary, but I would argue that your fears about the category being used for "slander and libel" are perhaps overwrought. Given the extremely negative connotation of being labeled an anti-semite in our society in these days I find it hard to believe that an edit categorizing as an anti-semite would last very long if the evidence for that person's actually being an anti-semite was flimsy. Further, none of the names that I recognized in the category are disputable. Additionally, an advantage of categories over lists is that the debate over inclusion happens at the article page, where people who (hopefully) actually understand the subject of the article can discuss whether inclusion is appropriate, not at a separate list page which the most informed editors on the subject might not be aware of. I wish that categories were less black-and-white in their approach as well, but my approach would be to petition the developers to allow entries in categories to contain more information than just a name rather than to switch everything to lists.
Regardless, its an interesting conversation, and one I'm glad we're having. GabrielF 06:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed! I think we have a good understanding here. There is one example I can raise which seems to speak to the black-and-white aspect of the approach, which is Martin Niemoller. I certainly would not dispute that at one time in his life he displayed every sign of being anti-semitic, and if he had died during or soon after WWII, I wouldn't give it a second thought. But some of his actions and statements post-war - though these are disputed, as noted in the article on him, seem very out-of-character with the accepted notion of an anti-semitic person. His poem, "First they came..." (whose authorship has also been disputed) seems to me to express shame or guilt over his essential complicity in crimes against Jews. Expressions of shame and guilt are not part of the typical public perception of what an anti-semitic person is like. We don't have a category for "former anti-semites" or "reformed anti-semites", and with good reason: there are so few, and it's an extremely subjective thing to say. I know this is just my personal opinion; I believe Niemoller learned his lesson and reformed; I know others here don't. Let me just say I have a hard time seeing the author of such words given the same label as a man like Eichmann, who would have calmly executed Niemoller himself for writing them. I'm willing to come to a compromise, of course. And I think you're right, of course; here is probably not the best place to oppose such labelling, but on the individual pages, where one can find the editors who know the subject matter best. That being said, I should probably end this long tangent I've gone off on. Sorry to take up so much space with this. Kasreyn 07:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Not everyone shares your sanguinity or interpretation of “they came for the Jews, and I said nothing, because I was not a Jew." Some realize that many of those that “said nothing” said nothing because they are, in fact, antisemites, not merely because they are “not a Jew.” Secondly, even if for the purposes of discussion I granted the claim that Niemöller was a “former antisemite,” how much of one’s life has to be spent as an antisemite to meet your criteria? For example, is a deathbed conversion by Hitler sufficient to be excluded from the category? Interestingly, your argument for exclusion hinges on the claim that late in his life he reformed. Yet, others make the same argument for not including Martin Luther by claiming that he did not evidence antisemitism until late in life. So, what’s the deal? If at any point in one’s life they were not an antisemite they should not be included? By the way, I think you mentioned that you read a bio on Niemöller. Which one was it? Doright 08:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
My previous post in response to GabrielF was an attempt to sum up, close, and apologize for already having taken up too much space with my ramblings. I've already gone into more than sufficient detail about my beliefs. I can't think of anything I could add which wouldn't simply be repeating something I've already said. I'm not interested in being drawn into further debate when I have nothing more to say which couldn't be gleaned from what I've already written with a fair and impartial reading. Good night, Doright. Kasreyn 09:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

(If I may return take the liberty of restoring the left margin)-- this has been a fascinating and stimulating dialogue on the part of both sides. I understand Kasreyn's concerns, but remain troubled by the effort to remove this category. I think that this dialogue actually shows how important it is to retain this category.

Also I would add that all of us have to take a realistic view of our heroes. Martin Niemoller is one of my heroes. I read once that others of his compatriots in the German resistance, including Stauffenberg, also held anti-Semitic views. I have no opinion upon whether that puts them in the category of anti-Semites. If indeed that is an accurate description of Niemoller, those of us who admire such people need to accept that.

That being said, there needs to be logical limits to inclusion in this category. If person X wrote a book that was anti-Semitic, I can see how one can argue in favor of his inclusion. However, I am sure that one can find anti-Semitic statements attributed to Oskar Schindler, if one looked hard enough. Should he be included? However, such concerns should not be used as an excuse to simply toss out the category.--Mantanmoreland 13:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Chutzpah

Drboisclair states, "Keeping this category plays right into the hands of an antagonist like Doright."[[24]]

" After demonizing me, then Drboisclair has the chutzpah to say, Formal Request to User:Doright to cease attacking fellow editors, when I dare to provide links to relevant history related to the proposed deletion of this category. Furthermore, regarding whitewashing, other editors have expressed identical concerns. For example,

The article currently has a brief summary of a larger article, Martin Luther and Antisemitism, but it appears to me that several editors are trying to either whitewash the contents of the summary, or remove any summary at all, on various grounds which I see as spurious (e.g. we can't quote from works because that might be a copyright violation, or we shouldn't summarize at all because that will increase interest in the sub-article). Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[25]

Doright 03:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Doright, with all due respect - and I'm with you on this category in principle -- I really don't think that remarks addressed personally to other editors (by you or anyone) help the discussion very much. Thanks.--Mantanmoreland 13:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland, I too am with you on this category in principle, despite the obvious epistemic problems. I created another category to address those problems. It included a definition and criteria for inclusion that did not include labeling the totality of a person's being as an "anti-semitic person." However, without commenting on the veracity of the arguments, my recollection of the reasons for its deletion included, a particular historical figure should not be included in the category, no one should be in the category, it could include many of the people already in this category, and it was premature to create such a category because creation of the category requires a consensus among editors of this category.
After the current vote to keep this category from deletion is over, I'll continue to monitor the discussion to see if the time has ripened to properly address what are in my opinion valid epistemological concerns raised by User:Kasreyn and others. I thank you for your thoughtfulness and your attempt to keep the dialog constructive. However, I'm not sure what you mean by "remarks addressed personally to other editors?" Would this be an example, "Keeping this category plays right into the hands of an antagonist like Doright?" Collegially, Doright 19:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Doright, I was referring generally to comments of a personal nature. As a reformed edit warrior I know how passions can develop, and what we have here is a discussion where hard feelings are only natural. Actually I am struck by the intellectual level of the discussion. You used a word that I had to look up. This is broadening my word power, as Wilfred Funk used to say. --Mantanmoreland 20:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
This is no excuse for the personal attack, but my biliousness was the result of my strong religious convictions. The statement was inappropriate, Doright, and I apologize for it as well as any other ad hominem remarks I have made against you. You were correct to characterize them as "sour grapes" à la Aesop. That said, I would hope that in the future you might reconsider singling people out for accusation by copying and linking things in a bill of particulars. This battle is over. I defer to my Wikipeers who have seen fit to retain this category and to place Martin Luther into it. For Luther it is the consequences of writing such trash as "Von den Juden" and "Vom Schem Hamphoras" among other things. Doright, your cause has prevailed here, so as far as I am concerned the battle is over. Let's make a new beginning, and repair broken Wikirelationships. Humbly and Respectfully, --Drboisclair 20:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Very moving, I kid you not.--Mantanmoreland 02:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I accept your apology without reservation as I have in the past. For my part, I'm sorry. And, I regret any ill feelings my participation has engendered. Scholarship and collegial discussion should be a joy, a shared pleasure. While I have no idea which of your religious convictions you refer to, I am pretty sure it's none of my business. I'm just glad you no longer feel you're in a religious battle against "Jews consumed with hatred" perpetrating a vendetta against Martin Luther. I hope you might consider this not a battle lost, but the end of viewing participation as a war. It should always be about rational discourse, not imposing our wills. This is all I ever asked for and will always insist upon. Barely a day goes by where I'm not attacked by someone interested in disassociating Luther from antisemitism. You ask me to reconsider providing links to your/their previous discussions. You characterize this as "singling people out for accusation by copying and linking things in a bill of particulars." I assume this [[26]] is the most recent example of what you are referring to. It was extracted from here. I'm sorry. I hope you can see the difference between merely providing a link to, or text of, what you actually wrote versus the libel of, for example, repeatedly and falsely accussing me of being a "sock puppet for a banned editor." I think it important to not personalize the vote to keep this category, or Luther in it, as "my cause." The "cause" is the cause of scholarship and the Wiki process of creating an encyclopedia. As far as I’m concerned the only thing that should be personal is the personal respect we demonstrate for one another.
I delight in your offer to make a new beginning, and repair broken Wikirelationships. Towards that end, let's try to address one of the issues that concern you. You have argued that, among other reasons, Luther should not be identified with antisemitism because the term is modern, whereas Luther died a half of milenium ago. Regarding Martin Luther, you said, "I believe that On the Jews and Their Lies is Antisemitic," but because his antisemitism was based upon a different theoretical justification (i.e., religious) than that of the Nazi's, he should not be called an antisemite nor he or his writings associated with antisemitism. However, you have been provided with abundant evidence, for example, here,here here here and literally dozens of times elsewhere that your demand to limit the usage of the term to "racial" antisemitism does not comport with the generally accepted definition, usage or meaning. What say you?
-- Collegially, Doright 23:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
This has been a learning experience for me. The religious convictions I was speaking of have to do with my considering Luther an important religious teacher of my faith when he is not spouting hatred, which is against our faith. Luther has done much good, but he let his emotions get the better of him.
At the bottom of all of this there may be a difference between antisemitism of Luther's day and antisemitism of Hitler's day. I am reading a study of Luther in context of ancient and medieval antisemitism. All in all we cannot whitewash the truth. People aren't perfect, but that is no excuse for evil and hatred. I agree with you that we have to examine everything we can to get to the bottom of the matter. Thank you for your kind reply. This is a new beginning. Cordially and collegially, --Drboisclair 08:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
It’s a pleasure to address you in this collegial tone. I understand and respect the religious convictions you’ve described. No doubt, aspects of our shared humanity (yours, mine, Luther’s, etc.) can be a bitter pill to swallow, best followed with a large gulp of compassion and humility. Many great people have done much good, and have also done evil. Consider for example, King David’s dealings with Bath-Sheba and Uriah the Hittite. Torah says, “The deed that David had done was deemed evil in the eyes of Hashem.” Torah and Jewish scholarly tradition embrace shortcomings in how we deal with our humanity as an opportunity to learn and improve. Of course, antisemites have taken advantage of Jewish self-criticism as a fertile source of gathering “dirt” on the Jews. The same risk applies to Lutherans, when we discuss Luther.
Pointing to Luther’s emotions, obscures what I think is the more useful direction of inquiry. That is, what beliefs and biases against Jews does Luther reveal about himself and the tradition of Christian Antisemitism that was his milieu? Further, what did Luther uniquely contribute to the history of antisemitism? It is sometimes only in anger that we are compelled to tell the truth. Thus, allowing our underlying hatreds to be revealed to others. Wikipedia is not here to make a moral judgment about whether Luther was a good or bad person.
Sure there are differences in antisemtism and varying excusing provided by antisemties throughout history for their antisemitsm. In any age, you will find that the rationalization for antisemtism includes whatever is considered to be most heinous at the time, whether deicide, refusing to convert to Christianity, blood libels, poisoning the wells, or racism (as in “Zionism is Racism”). Since you would like to examine everything and get to the bottom of the matter, I suggest an excellent book written by a Christian scholar titled, Christian Antisemitism, A History of Hate, by William Nicholls, (ISBN: 1568215193).
Perhaps you could play a positive role in trying to get some of the others that continue attacking me on the Luther related pages to stop, so that we all might enjoy this new beginning together. It's such a big waste of time. In any case, I'm glad to see that you have not allowed yourself to get dragged into the current wave of attack. With new fondness, Doright 20:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
You have posted in other places that you are a newbie to Wikipedia. I would have to say that since I started in June, 2005, I am a newbie too. I have sensed that you have mellowed to some extent, you have not tended to be the "lone ranger" in editing lately. The open invitation for all to edit sometimes gives one the impression that they can be a lone ranger. Of course, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and really anyone can edit, there is much leeway here. I realize that we need to be to some extent anonymous. That is why I have deleted some of my info from my user page. However, if you shared a little about your background, they might see that you should be valued more for you views. I do not mean to say this in a patronizing way. You have obviously done much study in this field, and I, for one, respect you for it. Thanks for the book suggestion. I will take you up on it. Cheers, --Drboisclair 21:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you chose not to comment on the first three paragraphs that relate to the subject matter and only on the last. You respond by calling me a "lone ranger." Please do not characterise me as a "lone ranger." We are trying to mend and name calling doesn't help. The attacks against me by those interested in the Luther related pages started almost immediately after I stumbled onto them (after other editors indicated problems with it) shortly after my joining WP. This, no doubt emboldened others to pile on and do the same instead of addressing the veracity of my arguments. Indeed, anyone can edit. Now, with regard to my qualifications, I refer you both to my answer the last time you asked and also to WP policy on original research, Verifiabilty and NPOV. Does it matter that I have a Harvard PhD if my edits do not meet OR, VER and NPOV? Would it matter that I flunked out of the 1st grade, if my edits meet VER and NPOV? I think not. If you don't want to ask those attacking me to stop, that's your business. Therefore, I do not want to discuss it further. However, if you wish to address the subject matter of antisemitsm or the points I made in the first three paragraphs, I'm all ears. Cheers,Doright 22:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I did not mean to call you a "lone ranger". I am not trying to call you names. What I meant to say is that there is a temptation for those who are new to Wikipedia to edit things as a "lone ranger" or a "lone wolf." I acted in this way on pages, but I soon learned to work with other editors. There is no reason to get snippy about this. Yes, you are correct about your competency. I am sorry that I touched a raw nerve in asking you to give more information. I respect anyone's right to be anonymous.
That having been mentioned, I will respond to your first two paragraphs: I agree with you that Luther's milieu, and what motivated him to hate Jewish people in the end are a legitimate field of discovery. Unhappily we cannot talk to him to find out more of what his motivation was. You will note that on the Luther page I have added a study of Luther and antisemitism, which does a job of psychoanalysizing him. This is an iffy proposal: psychoanalyzing the dead. Unfortunately, all we have is what he wrote and what his contemporaries have said about him. We are also limited in not having as much of what others wrote in Luther's time than what he wrote.
We know that some of Luther's hatred of the Jewish people was related to his MISinformation on the Jews supplied to him via Antony Margaritha, Paul Burgos, and others. To a large extent he was simply passing along the garbage he read from others. He was an intelligent man, he should have known better. I wonder, though, but I am not quibbling, isn't keeping this category making a "moral judgment" about Luther or some of the other people in this category? I would say that through this category Wikipedia itself is making a moral judgment. Maybe that is necessary, I don't know. I am satisfied that the category is here to stay.
I agree with your statement: In any age, you will find that the rationalization for antisemtism includes whatever is considered to be most heinous at the time, whether deicide, refusing to convert to Christianity, blood libels, poisoning the wells, or racism (as in “Zionism is Racism”). I will get a hold of the book you suggest.
Please don't think that I am trying to be rude here. I'm not. --Drboisclair 22:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Drboisclair, why are you still repeatedly removing Martin Luther from this category, e.g., here and here. Drboisclair, there is a temptation for those who are new to Wikipedia to edit things as a "lone ranger" or a "lone wolf." Please work with other editors. There is no reason to get snippy about this. I am sorry that I touched a raw nerve by using your NIC in identifying you as the editor that is removing Martin Luther from this category. --Doright 05:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

How did the deletion vote go?

First I want to say how very impressed I am with the level of the discussion and collegiality, not to mention the obvious intellectual sophistication of the editors involved. However, I hope that people forget past statements and move on.

I also hope the deletion issue is settled and that this category is restored. Oh, and off-topic may I suggest that one and all should come to Watch Hill, RI this time of year. It is quite beautiful.--Mantanmoreland 15:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a consensus exists. Apparently last time no consensus could be found. If I remember correctly, Wikipedia is not a democracy and consensus is not necessarily established by a straight-up tally of votes on each side (though perhaps it could be). I also don't know who's supposed to "decide" what consensus there is or was - an admin? Kasreyn 15:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
In this instance it seems like a lopsided vote to retain, if my counting is correct. That's a consensus by any objective measure. Discounting the far larger number of "keep" votes for some arbitrary reason would be "subjectivity" in the extreme, if you'll pardon the expression. I trust that will not happen.--Mantanmoreland 19:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a backlog on processing of the deletion votes, so give it a little time. It seems that more people want to be admins than want to do admin chores. In any case, it's obvious that the category is not being deleted.Doright 07:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote Count Issues

I noted my complaint here Complaint

Category:Anti-Semitic people

I think there were enough KEEP votes to make this a consensus ! What is the issue ? SirIsaacBrock 19:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I count 34 KEEP and 23 DELETE and 3 LISTIFY. By the way LISTIFY should not count as a vote toward DELETE !
I think in this case you better make a post the +cat discussion page, so people understand your determination. Thank you SirIsaacBrock 19:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I've had a talk with Vegaswikian and I agree with his/her reasoning. Consensus is not established in this manner at Wikipedia, which is not an experiment in democracy. Admins are free to disregard the opinions of new and anon (IP) users, giving them little or no weight. Editors known to be particularly well-educated or particularly reasonable and fair on the given subject matter may conversely be given additional weight. This is one of the more overlooked powers that admins have on Wikipedia. Kasreyn 20:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Yah. There's not a Wikipedia consensus to delete or keep, which means maintain the status quo. I don't know what there is to complain about; it wouldn't make any difference if there was a consensus to keep, other than perhaps saying "Hey! We considered this already!" next time someone brings it up for deletion, which they will. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

34-Keep 23-Delete and 3-Listify

I get this count not 25 Delete! SirIsaacBrock 21:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm mystified by this determination. Only a minority wanted to delete and the vote was quite lopsided.--Mantanmoreland 02:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  • What difference does it make? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps none. But I remain mystified nevertheless. --Mantanmoreland 02:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, maybe it's easier to point out that ~60% doesn't count as consensus in the real world and it's still too low to consider consensus for Wikipedia. Especially when the effect of "consensus to keep" and "no consensus" are identical. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Hi Jpg, now you having me wondering out loud again. By your statement above, its much harder to have something removed from Wikipedia than it is adding it to Wikipedia?? If the vote was 'should this category be added to Wikipedia' it would have failed due to lack of consensus?? I am getting to deep, sorry. :) --Tom 17:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Yeah. It's harder to get something removed than it is to add it. Otherwise, growing the encyclopedia would be awfully difficult. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Jpg, thats actually the problem, imo, with this project right now. My very unscientific research finds that 90% of the material on here is UNSOURCED. I am not saying it is NOT accurate, just saying there is a TON of stuff that just "arrives" here WITHOUT sources and then stays. Isn't that one of the big "prime directives" of this project, ie NPOV, sourcing, NOR, ect?? I find that alot of editors want to "add" to articles. I am in a phase where I am really trying to remove questionable material, especially from bios, that isn't sourced. I have found a number of biographies that have gotten "worse" when I compare them to how the article was presented say a year ago. Anyways, I am just a spec of sand on the beach in this project so I'll just keep chipping away :). Have a pleasant day! --Tom 19:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/t/Category_talk%7EAnti-Semitic_people_Archive_1_a351.html"