Talk:History of antisemitism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page


Judaism Portal
History of antisemitism is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
History of antisemitism is part of WikiProject Jewish history, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history.

If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.
Project Jewish history To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
To-do list for History of antisemitism: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Expand stub sections
  • Find citations for all points
  • Check for neutrality
  • Improve style
  • Anything else to help work this article up to Good Article status
Priority 1 (top) 

/archive1

/archive2

NOTE. Add your text in the bottom of the page.

Contents

[edit] Disputed

I believe that the article cannot possibly be NPOV, since it attributes everything in history of Jews to Anti-Semitism. This is not fair. Most of historical nations experienced ups and downs. Jews experienced ups and downs + diaspora + anti-Semitism in last 2 centuries. Nevertheless, one can hardly attribute Roman invasion to Anti-Semitism. Cautious 17:59, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

One sober glance at Timeline of Jewish History will show that it is totally untrue. No one attributes Roman invasion to A-S. However, their attempts to wipe out Jewish people, religion and even erase Jewish names from the map definitely is. See talk in the corresponding articles before exposing your ignorance again. --Humus sapiens|Talk 20:12, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The entries in question

c. 250 BCE Egyptian writer Manetho alleges that Moses was not a Jew, but an Egyptian renegade priest, and portrays the Exodus as the expulsion of a leper colony. No AS. Simply 2 historians disagreed over historical events and their interpretantions.

% This was a step toward delegitimization of the Jews. This ancient libel persisted throughout the millenia. Try google and see for yourself.
Not being Christian nor Jew, I have no reason to believe in the Holy Bible oops, Holy Exodus Book. Not being historian I have no idea whether Exodus was right source or maybe Manetho was right. I would assume, that sceptic historian doubts in Exodus. For example there is no reason to believe in Gods hand behind Moses activity. Logic conclusion is that having doubts in Exodus version is and was perfectly right. From point of view of Egypt, Jews were small tribe. Cautious 01:16, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
% of lepers?

175 BCE-165 BCE Antiochus Epiphanes sacks Jerusalem, calls Judaism "inimical to humanity", prohibits brit milah, confiscates copies of Torah and erects an altar to Zeus in the Second Temple after plundering it. He is eventually expelled by the Maccabees, who were led by Judas Maccabeus. Jews celebrate Hanukkah in commemoration of their victory. No AS. Simply Hellenic imperialism.

% He bans Judaism. Not Antisemitic enough?
It depends on the reason behind the action. Antiochus simply belived that everybody must be Zeus, not Jahwe, followers. He didn't care if Jews were Semitic or not. Proper name would have been paganic religious fanatism. Cautious 01:16, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
% read the definition. Does it say that if hostilities are caused by "paganic religious fanatism", it doesn't count?

2nd century BCE: Mnaseas of Patros, a Greek author, reports that the Jews worship a donkey's head in the Holy of Holies. This legend was repeated by Apollonius Molon, Democritus, Apion, and Plutarch.

No AS. Simply ignorance.

% Sorry, "simply ignorance" is no excuse. See the definition of the term, it doesn't absolve ignorants.
I am sure that Mnaseas tried to show the top knowledge, Greeks had about Jewish culture. Do you have a proov that he did it deliberately to spread hate against Jews? Cautious 01:16, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
% The "donkey's head in the Holy of Holies" is a generally accepted AS myth. But you're entitled to your own POV.
% The donkeys head and the crucified donkey is true but they where refering to christians (they where refered to as Judeans) and it was later I think. Am I wrong? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Images_of_Jesus#Christian_images_of_Jesus

59 BCE Cicero denounces Judaism as barbara superstitio, describes Jews as people born to be slaves. No AS. Simply ignorance. Everyone except Romans were born to be slave, according to Romans (and vice versa).

% See above.
Normal in the era. Cautious 01:16, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
% Unlike other entries, I don't feel very strongly about Cicero.

66-73 Great Jewish Revolt against the Romans is crushed by Vespasian and Titus Flavius. Titus refuses to accept a wreath of victory, as there is "no merit in vanquishing people forsaken by their own God". (Philostratus, Vita Apollonii). This notion would accompany Jews throughout centuries.

No AS. Vae Victis=loosers must have been foresaken by their God. Romans didn't get the concept of martyrdom yet.

% "people forsaken by their own God" was a step to delegitimize the people and the religion. See supersessionism. The "concept of martyrdom" excuse is as irrelevant as ignorance here.
No. It simply stated the fact, that Jews were loosers. Romans believed in military strength, if Jews lost, meant their God failed to deliver help and the conclusion is that God turned out of Jews. Where do you see anti-Semitism? Cautious 01:16, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
% Did the notion of the "people forsaken by their own God" contribute to the subsequent hatred of Jews? It's a Y/N question.

1st century Fabrications of Apion in Alexandria, Egypt, including the first recorded blood libel. Juvenal writes anti-Jewish poetry. Josephus picks apart contemporary and old anti-Semitic myths in his work Against Apion. (e-text at Project Gutenberg)

Late 1st–early 2nd century: Tacitus writes anti-Jewish polemic in his Historia (book 5). He picks apart and rejects several myths of ancient anti-Semitism (including that of the donkey's head in the Holy of Holies); instead, his explanation for his view that Jews "regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies" turns on an analysis of the extreme differences between monotheistic Judaism and the polytheism common throughout the Roman world. No AS. It seems to me as an attempt to critical analyse foreign religion

% The Nazis & Commies "critically analyzed" foreign religions and races too. So what? BTW, anti-Semitism article (as well as ocean of other sources) mentions Tacitus too.
Tacitus makes an effort to understand Jews, but at the end he believed it is Romans and pagans that are right. He had right to draw such a conclusions. Cautious 01:16, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
% Not everyone mentioned here is an AS. It is important to trace the development of AS thought.

117-138 Roman emperor Hadrian bans Judaism and crushes the revolt lead by Bar Kokhba. Judea is wiped off the map, Jews are left dispersed and stateless. (See Hadrian in Judea). No AS. Imperialism

% He attempts to wipe out not only the nation and religion, but even the memory of Jews' existence from the map. Not Antisemitic enough?
If Jews hadn't fought, Romans would be much nicer. Romans were extremely cruel to their enemies. Cautious 01:16, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
% I see. It is all the Jews' fault. They "shouldn't have fought". BTW, Hadrian began with ban on brit milah, a crucial rite in Judaism.

c. 170 Melito of Sardis accuses the Jews of deicide, publishing a sermon On the Passion, in which he blames the Jews for the persecution and death of Jesus, absolves Pontius Pilate and the Romans from guilt or responsibility and thus encourages them to convert to Christianity.

[edit] The continuation of this heated dispute is in /archive2

[edit] RFC interrupt

I was asked for comments. I think that continuation of that personal discussion should stop (I am going to remove them to Archive) and we should focus on review of the listed entries in order to find out, what is their relations with the topic. Eon 22:39, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I inserted my comments above, on the lines beginning with % sign. See also archives. The User:Cautious' theory that AS began only in the late 19th century doesn't hold water. Please name any serious historian who supports it. It is silly to mix up the term's etymology and it's semantics. --Humus sapiens|Talk 00:59, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
answered. Cautious 01:16, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
So, when did it start? --Humus sapiens|Talk 02:25, 27 May 2004 (UTC)


[edit] "Dhimmi" laws

"From the 9th century CE the Islamic world imposed dhimmi laws on both Christian and Jewish minorities."

I suggest "dhimmi" in this context is an anachronism and should be changed, since the word is of recent origin. Marshall46 22:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 1274 Thomas Aquinas

I moved this long and winding paragraph (the longest entry by far), full of POV to talk. Perhaps it may be salvaged in the separate page:

1274 March. St. Thomas Aquinas writes in a letter to the Duchess of Brabant: "...in consequence of their sin, Jews were destined to perpetual servitude, so that sovereigns of state may treat Jewish goods as their own property, save for the sole proviso that they do not deprive them of all that is necessary to sustain life". Since this letter is not widely published, and then only in Latin, it is difficult to verify the authenticity of the quotation. In light of the fact that St. Thomas wrote over 6,000 pages of text in his Summa Theologica alone, one wonders why this obscure letter is used. On the question of whether Jewish children should be baptized against the will of their parents, Aquinas writes in his Summa Theologica: "Injustice should be done to no man. Now it would be an injustice to Jews if their children were to be baptized against their will, since they would lose the rights of parental authority over their children as soon as these were Christians. Therefore these should not be baptized against their parents' will." It is doubtful that Aquinas was promoting the idea of punishment for deicide, as implied by the fragment of the letter to the Duchess, since he nowhere else, in his many volumes of writings, ever hints at such an idea. It is more likely that the context of the letter to the Duchess was in regard to the complex question of whether it is lawful to deprive someone of property acquired through unlawful practices, such as usury. Another theory is that Aquinas was writing in response to a generally held principle of Kammerknehtschaft, or "Jewish servitude", common throughout Europe at the time of the Crusades. Originally intended as a protective measure bny the Holy Roman emperors against mob violence directed at Jews, it came to mean possession in the feudal sense. The idea is said to have been granted formal religious recognition by Pope Innocent III, who spoke frequently of the "eternal servitude" of the Jews, although no sources are cited. It is also proposed that the idea was apparently adopted in a moderated form by Aquinas, who cautioned the Ducchess to act in moderation regarding the Jews she possessed. --Humus sapiens|Talk 20:43, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The so-called "pogroms" of 1018 and 1113 did not occur

A section that is now in dispute reads as follows:

"1113 First recorded anti-Jewish myatezh (riot) in Kiev occurred in short period between reigns of Svyatopolk II and Vladimir Monomakh. The Vladimir's council calls to expel all the Jews out of Kievan Rus. The records of big fire of 1124 in Jewish quarter suggest that this decision was not fully implemented."

The source text actually says rioters attacked Putyata's Palace and the Zhidove (Jewish) DISTRICT of Kiev, not Jews as individuals, and were also threatening to attack the boyars' residence, monasteries, and the palace of the centurions, and to return to do further damage to the Zhidove district as well. These were not members of "Vladimir's council" but, according to the text, just "the men of Kiev". Also, this was not an anti-Jewish action, and no expulsion of Jews from Kiev was either threatened or implemented in 12th-century Kiev. For full textual analysis of the original sources and modern history books that misinterpreted them, see Alexander Pereswetoff-Morath, _A Grin Without A Cat: Jews and Christians in Medieval Russia_ (Department of East and Central European Studies, Lund University, 2002), volume 2, pages 106-108. On the equally false contention of a pogrom in Kiev in the year 1018, based again on a misintrepretation of a text and a misquotation of Jan Dlugosz's chronicle, see Pereswetoff-Morath, volume 2, pages 105-106. Indeed, the existence of a district called "Jewish" in Kiev does suggest that Jews inhabited that part of Kiev at some point, though Pereswetoff-Morath notes that onomastic heritages like that can linger for a while after the original people have lived there. We know from the Kievan Letter that Jews lived in Kiev as early as the start of the 10th century, but this 1113 reference to Zhidove is two centuries later, as he notes. Jews may have still lived there but we cannot say for certain. (The 1124 reference to the fire again only speaks of Zhidove as a geographical term and not to "houses of Jews" for instance.) And the source document, I repeat, says nothing about anti-Jewish attitudes or activities. Hence I have removed the spurious entry for 1113 from the article, so we will not further perpetuate wrong information. - KAB (Kevin A. Brook)

In his 200 years together, Solzhenitsyn (not a big friend of Jews, I must say) quotes Vasily Tatishchev (1686-1750), Russian historiographer, ethnographer and the author of Russian History Dating Back to the Most Ancient Times and another famous Russian historian, Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin (1766–1826), as well as old chronicles. He actually calls it a pogrom and writes that Svyatopolk II used Kiyevan Jews to extract taxes and loan interest (BTW, a typical practice throughout Europe). The reason of the hostilities was "лихоимство" (usury), so some Jews must have lived there at the time. It is also mentioned that they tried to defend themselves in a synagogue. Later, in addition to the decision to expel the Jews, Vladimir's council also prohibited excessive interest rates. By your theory, Jews did not live in the Jewish quarter (there were also Jewish gates at the time). Do your sources say: when, where to and why did they leave the capital city? Both Karamzin and Tatishchev say that the expulsion orders were executed. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Pereswetoff-Morath analyzes the works of Tatishchev and Karamzin and proves (by looking at the original texts) that they invented and misinterpreted a lot of things. An invention or lie repeated many times does not suddenly become truth. We must rely on actual documents, not on false statements of Tatishchev and Karamzin. See especially pages 111 and 112 of "A Grin Without a Cat" vol. 2 on Tatishchev's unreliability due to his embellishment of chronicles and facts. The bit about Jews being allegedly persecuted for allegedly practicing usury in Kievan Rus is also baseless; see Pereswetoff-Morath page 115. Solzhenitsyn (I read his book that you cite) can say whatever he wants, but it doesn't make it true. He copied his information from the other "authorities". And so the lies perpetuate themselves. We did not say that Jews "did not live" in Kiev at the time of Vladimir Monomakh, only that we cannot prove it, so maybe they did, maybe they did not. - KAB (Kevin A. Brook)
I appreciate your acknowledgement "maybe they did, maybe they did not", it is quite a departure from the title of this section. Let's try to analyze and sort out what we do and don't know:
  • We know there was a Jewish community in Kiev before the described events: there was a Jewish quarter within the city walls, there was a synagogue and Jewish gates.
  • Once again, do you have any evidence better than T's & K's as to when and why this community got destroyed? If you think it wasn't destroyed and the Jews just left on their own, please name me any warm place that Jews (or any other group for that matter) left for no good reason. At the time, Kiev was already a capital city, well situated at the trade intersection of Europe and Asia and let me assure you: before Chernobyl, the climate there was close to perfect.
  • We don't know whether T's & K's chronicles about the 1113 events were indeed "false statements". We know that during Tatishchev times, Poland was not yet divided and Jews were officially forbidden to settle in Russia. Why would T. (or an earlier chronicler) make up stories to smear the founding fathers of Kievan Rus?
  • Of course, Solzhenitsyn's book is not the last authority, as a matter of fact it is full of absurdities. However in this case he provides a quote which sounds convincing. I prefer to doubt everything and don't see a good reason just to believe your book beyond doubts. We still haven't heard any arguments. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:23, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Karamzin and Tatishchev artificially added to the storylines of several documents they worked with. That is why they cannot be trusted on this debate point - because the original document doesn't say what they claim it says. Now we know what the document really says. I did not say that Jews as a group left the city of Kiev voluntarily, and I understand the appeal of the city due to its climate, trade route connections, etc. Of course one of the problems that befell Kiev's Jewish community was the Mongol invasion of 1240, though a community was reconstituted shortly after that, and another problem came in 1655 when most of the Jews were expelled from Kiev for real (unlike the fantasy scenario of K. and T. from the 12th c.). I hope that you read the book under discussion because I am not going to reproduce all of its revelations and evaluations about K. and T. here except the one related to this direct point which I already spoke of. In short, I don't deny that Jews lived in various times in the Jewish districts of Kiev, but I am instead refuting that a pogrom happened in 1113 and that the events of that year were connected to anti-Jewish attitudes. - KAB (Kevin A. Brook)

[edit] Definition

How are you defining what is anti-Semitic and what is simply a usual hostility which would exist between two ethnic groups involved in strife with one another?

  • Simple. Hatred of Jews, for whatever justified or unjustified reason, by whomever, has its own special classification. They try to make it out as some sort of unique form of irrational hatred rather than the usual distrust and animosity that exists between people of different beliefs, especially those who have wronged each other in the past. In short, it's designed to divert attention from why this or that people dislikes the Jews (because then you might be curious as to the reason, and discover the Jews are again up to no good) and instead classify it all as one combined "persecution" on a "meek, innocent, peace loving" people (haha).

I wrote a bunch of stuff but decided to retract as I'm not satisfied with my comments. Too focused on Jewish people. I'd rather offend across the board. I need to revise a bit so I can say more accurately what I see and feel. I've been writing for the better part of a day and gonna repost again if anyone is remotely interested.

[edit] 1274 Yellow Badge in England

This article states that yellow badge requirements and usury prohibition was passed by Edward I of England in 1275. However, the yellow badge article states that this occurred in 1274. Could anybody check on this and resolve the discrepancy? Thanks. - Bryan is Bantman 23:37, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Zealand, 2004

I think some short description should stay here, especially since there's no standalone article with details. Pavel Vozenilek 19:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting note

Is there any significance to certain parts of the text being bolded? If it's being done for emphasis it's rather inconsistently applied. Extension 03:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I claim guilty. I've added it (long ago) in response to one particularly annoying editor. I agree, we can remove it. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emich/Emicho/Emico von what?

It is not clear why the notorious 1st Crusade leader Emicho should not be identified as Count Emicho von Leiningen the way most secondary writings describe him. Please see Talk. Myron 15:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Newer studies identify Emicho as an member of the Emichons (german: Emichonen) and not of the Leiningers; most sencondary writings use older literature and are 25 years or more behind the actual state of Diplomatics.
The Emichons were a house of counts in the Nahegau (along the river Nahe); the house of Leiningen seems to be related to this family, but there are no clear evidences. Toussaint attributes Emicho (the crusader) to Flonheim (a small village near Mainz) an not to the castle Altleiningen (build around 1110), which is about 60 km away.
If you understand german, I propose for further reading:
Ingo Toussaint: Die Grafen von Leiningen. Studien zur leiningischen Genealogie und Territorialgeschichte bis zur Teilung von 1317/18. Jan Thorbecke Verlag, Sigmaringen 1982. ISBN 3-7995-7017-9
--jergen 12:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Listed?

is there a list like list of Anti-Semitists/Anti-Judaists

Sheynhertz 21:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I would vote against a list of anti-Semites. We do have Category:anti-Semitism though. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Can some one list the terrorism at Kenya (2003?)? (Sheynhertz) 00:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • murder at Paris, March, 2006 --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 15:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced tag

What is unreferenced? There is entire section "References", and most entries are wikilinked, for example Nuremberg Laws. Is there a specific entry in question? ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Many of the events in every section are unreferenced and, thus, unverifiable. Consider just the first three entries. The first entry concerning Manetho has no references. The Wikipedia article on Manetho cannot be considered a reference because it makes no reference to the allegations against Manetho in this article. Even if it did there should be some external reference specifically regarding the allegations against Manetho. Likewise, the quote attributed to Antiochus Epiphanes does not appear in the Wikipedia article on him. There isn't even a Wikipedia article on Mnaseas of Patros, let alone a reference to the allegation against him.
You referred to the External Links and Books sections, according to the style guide for citing sources:
Sometimes — for example, when the article treats an uncontroversial or simple topic, and draws on a few, widely accepted general sources — it is sufficient to provide a "References" section at the end of the article, containing an alphabetized list of general references and authoritative overviews of a subject (such as textbooks and review articles). In other cases this is not enough, and in addition you should use in-line citations such as the Harvard references or footnotes described below.
Judging by the Talk on this article alone, it can in no way be said to treat "an uncontroversial or simple topic." IMO, each entry should be referenced separately unless the particular section is drawn from "widely accepted general sources" and then the section should so referenced. This will be a stronger article once it is properly sourced and referenced. I hope this helps explain why I added the tag.--DieWeibeRose 07:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


Unreferenced sections: "Expressions of attitudes to Jews in the New Testament," "Persecution of Jews in the Middle Ages," "Expulsions," "Eighteenth century," "Twentieth century," and much of the timeline. A few of the other sections contain references, but are missing some here and there.--Sefringle 03:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saufleisch, Rindfleisch and other meals

Can someone please provide references for all these German knights called Rindfleisch etc who engage in anti-Jewish acts. No doubt, these are possibly names but the frequency with which they appear makes me suspicious. Str1977 (smile back) 10:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It took me a second to find 1298 Rindfleisch ref. No idea about Saufleisch & co. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frankly, I'm appaled

For shame on such an organisation that promotes itself as an encyclopaedia, since there is a paragraph, may I say less than ten lines long, dedicated to Ancient Anti-semitism lacks the sort of detail necessary to create depth in Anti-semitism. All I could read of it was Egyptian anti-semitism, but clearly this is not enough...has everyone forgotten that Caligula and the Roman public in general were anti-semitic and amde no secret of it, but they are not mentioned, why is that? The answer is likely to be bias towards the Romans, but the point is that if Romans, who were Hellenistic pagans, were anti-semitic then that shows that there is more to it than the case of Christians killing Jews. Something should definitely be done about this.


RESPONSE!!! To the person who wrote the paragraph above. Thats why there are edit buttons. So you can add more information. So instead of being appauled. Add the information you know..thats the reason for this site.

You're not wrong! please, everyone remember to sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~, which automagically adds your name (or your IP address if you don't have a name) and the date and time. Itsmejudith 18:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change name to Timeline?

With the short paragraphs by date and division into centuries rather than periods, it is really a more like a timeline than a history. This is not a criticism BTW. Itsmejudith 18:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. This article is now 105 kB long and consists out of two distinct parts: History and Timeline. Should it be split? ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, since there have been no objections, I'll proceed to split it now. Itsmejudith 18:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Error

Their are several articals that have been misplaced to the very end of the artical after bibliogrophy, if an Admin could set things right, the problem will be fixed the micplaced articalss include:


October

   A nazi swastika was spray-painted to the side of Temple Beth El synagogue in Portland, Maine.

2005

   A group of 15 members of the State Duma of Russia demands that Judaism and Jewish organizations be banned from the country. In June, 500 prominent Russians demand that the state prosecutor investigate ancient Jewish texts as "anti-Russian" and ban Judaism. The investigation was launched, but halted among international outcry.

2005 December

   Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad widens the hostility between Iran and Israel by denying the Holocaust during a speech in the Iranian city of Zahedan. He made the following comments on live television: "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets." Continuing, he suggested that if the Holocaust had occurred, that it was the responsibility of Europeans to offer up territory to Jews: "This is our proposal: give a part of your own land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to them [the Jews] so that the Jews can establish their country." See Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel

2006 February

   A French Jew, Ilan Halimi is kidnapped and tortured to death for 23 days in what Paris police have officially declared an anti-Semitic act [1]
This was corrected in the Timeline of antisemitism article. Itsmejudith 10:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To-do list

I thought it would be a good idea to have such a list, but it may need amending and/or prioritising. Would be interested to read comments. Itsmejudith 14:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verification

This article has been tagged since Nov 2006 (Feb 2007 is just the date the bot found it unreferenced). There are also large sections I suspect of being WP:OR, such as in Expressions of attitudes to Jews in the New Testament. (Note, editors at WP cannot source claims about anti-semitism to New Testament-that's original research. Verses of the NT can be included as examples only if secondary published sources have used them as examples of anti-semitism, and those sources must be identified.) The many claims in the article need to be more specifically sourced with footnotes, and the WP:weasel words "some say" etc should be replaced with their "who"s.Professor marginalia 14:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. A key text would appear to be Paula Fredriksen and Adele Reinhartz (eds.), Jesus, Judaism, and Christian Anti-Judaism: Reading the New Testament after the Holocaust. Louisville, KY, and London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. This article and related ones really should draw from this and the other recent related scholarship. If anyone has time to develop the article(s) in this way it would be much appreciated. Itsmejudith 20:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fathers of Racism By Jose Rivera-Molina

This work, published by Taino Independent Press (which does not seem to exist)[[3]], was cited in this article. An editor of another article citing this worked removed a paragraph and the cite claiming this work was unreliable. I googled the book and found that the only two real hits for it were in Wikipedia itself. I concur with that editor's removal and have done the same here. If the book even exists (and it is not for sale anywhere on the internet) it certainly can't be cited due it containing original research.

[edit] Material lacking in Crusades section

I noticed the material detailing the pogroms against the Rhine valley Jews in 1096, but nothing is ever mentioned about the massacre of the Jews in Jerusalem. I am currently expanding the "First Crusade" section dealing with the massacre on the History of the Jews and the Crusades page. I will add info about them being ransomed later. What follows is a summary of the material I left on a user's talk pge in regards to their edit on Ashkelon:

"There was actually a lot more that happened between the Crusaders and Ashkelon than what you added to the article. Jews and holy relics were held ransom by the Crusaders. Somehow, news of these captives reached Ashkelon and funds were raised thanks to the Jewish community of Alexandria in Egypt. Some modern scholarly sources suggest that some of the city's Jewish defenders or even Jewish civilians were able to travel to Ashkelon along with Jerusalem's governor and the remainder of his forces. The payment for the first captives did not take place until early 1100, well after the Battle of Ashkelon. They were only ransomed a few at a time because ancient letters have the Jews of Ashkelon writing to Alexandria for more funds. I think most of them allowed to be ransomed were so by the summer of 1100. Sources state the number of Jews ransomed must have been "considerable" since even after all had been ransomed and some migrated to Egypt, at least 20 of the refugees remained in Ashkelon. Those who weren't ransomed (or killed while waiting to be ransomed) were sold into slavery. Some were taken to Antiochia, but most were taken to Southern Italy. A large portion of these never made it there as they were randomly beheaded or thrown into the sea along the way."

--Ghostexorcist 22:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This sounds extremely important. If you have access to good historical sources, could you add the necessary detail to the article, thanks. Itsmejudith 23:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I got the material from the Journal of Jewish History and Volume three of the Crusades journal. I will gladly add the info to the page once I've completed adding it to the History of the Jews and the Crusades article. I already added info about the Jews supposedly being burned in their synagogue. --Ghostexorcist 23:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Semitism in the Greco-Roman world

Copied from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 September 10 for processing. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I wonder if anyone can help me? I was watching Schindler's List on DVD recently and there is a scene in a restraunt early on in the movie where some SS officers are talking about actions against the Jewish people. One says to the other "They will weather the storm, that is what they have always done for thousands of years." The other replies "But this storm is not the Romans; this storm is the SS." This got me thinking, what was the attitude of the Greeks and the Romans towards the Jewish communities under their control? Did anti-Semitism exist in the sense we understand it today? Now, I know about the suppression of the Jewish Revolt in the first century of the CE and the suppression of the later Bar Kokhba revolt in the second century; but the Romans never treated rebels well, and I do not think their actions necessarily demonstrate anti-Semitism as such. I am looking for a more general set of beliefs that may have governed day-to-day attitudes. Sorry to be so wordy! Philo Alexander 11:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Philo Alexander, anti-semitism as we know it in the modern world did not exist in the
Greco-Roman world, but there was much persecution of the Jews mainly for their religious beliefs.
Because the Jews are monotheists this often put them in conflict with not only other religions
but with the political system that required them to worship their rulers. You can read a good
overview of societies relationship with Jews during that period in the Encyclopedia Britannica
article on anti-semitism: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9007807/anti-Semitism
Hope this helps. Kate Librarians--Ask Us, We Answer! Find your local Library at http://lists.webjunction.org/libweb/Public_main.html Ktg2 13:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktg2 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, something very like anti-Semitism existed among the inhabitants of late Hellenistic and early Roman Alexandria, where several large-scale riots occurred between Greeks and Jews living in the city, and there were authors such as Apion. See also the actions of Antiochus Epiphanes as detailed in the Books of Maccabees. AnonMoos 14:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, Philo, you might care to consult Philo! I am thinking specifically here of The Embassy to Gaius and Against Flaccus, in which he details the suffering of the Jews of Alexandria at the hands of the local Greek population, supported by the Roman Prefect, Flaccus. Yet, still, we have to be careful here, because the 'anti-semitism' detailed by Philo is quite different from the anti-semitism of the modern world. It lacked systematic application; it was more based on inter-communal rivalry, on the issue of citizenship and exemption from taxation, more than anything else. There was no transcendent racial element. In the end it all seems to come down to one basic thing-incomprehension. Flaccus did not have approval for his lack of even-handedness in dealing with the problem; and although Caligula failed to act on Jewish complaints, Claudius did. Even the actions of Antiochus must be viewed from its particular dimension: his attack was on Judaism, not on Jews. The Maccabean Revolt was a political and cultural reaction against Antiochus' heavy-handed Hellenism.

At root it was the strict Jewish adherance to monotheism that so perplexed-and angered-first the Greeks and then the Romans. It was even suggested, rather absurdly, that the Jews were 'god-haters' and 'atheists' because of their single-minded rejection of the wider aspects of the Greek and Roman civic cult. It is important to remember that this was a time when loyalty was measured by the extent to which one acknowledged civic or imperial deities; it wasn't so much a question of strict belief; it was one of nominal acceptance. In refusing even to pay lip-service to the accepted practice the Jews were political, not just religious dissidents.

Failure to understand the nature of Jewish exclusivness gave rise to all sorts of absurd stories, including one by Apion that they practiced cannibalism-"They would kidnap a foreigner, fatten him up for a year, and then convey him to a wood, where they slew him, sacrificed his body with their customary ritual, partook of the flesh, and whileimmolating the Greek swore an oath of hostility to the Greeks.". The ignorance of Jewish life and ritual was so entrenched that it is even suggested by one source that the scriptures were composed by a "Hebrew woman named Moso". Josephus, the Jewish historian, took pains to challenge some of the more absurd stories in circulation. Of all of the 'barbarians' the Jews were the most resistant to the dominant tradition in the Greco-Roman world, and from this all else was to spring. For, as T. B. Macaulay put it, "The Greeks admired only themselves and the Romans admired only themselves and the Greeks." Clio the Muse 03:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also section

I removed a few links that are already linked, can we remove the others that are linked and also some per relevance? Ideally per WP:GTL, they should all be worked into the article or removed. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image content clarification

Purported copy of the birth certificate of Michael Lucas (director)
Purported copy of the birth certificate of Michael Lucas (director)

Pages from a purported copy of the birth certificate (Russian: свидетельство о рождении, lit.,Certification of Birth ) of Michael Lucas (Andrei Treivas, or Treyvas), showing information about his birth. It lists his mother's surname as "Treivas" (or "Treyvas") and his father's surname as "Bregman." Under Russian Soviet law, a child automatically inherited his father's surname so long as the father is known and married to the birth mother at the time of birth. This document proves conclusively that Michael Lucas' parents were not married as of the date of his birth.--72.76.96.51 (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And is there any particular reason you're telling us this? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)