Jump to content

Talk:Gabriel of Białystok

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Antisemitism section

[edit]

User:Solntsa90, I must ask that you stop removing large chunks of the section regarding the Antisemitic controversy regarding this saint. The fact that the particular section of the article is longer than the rest is in no way a valid reason to remove cited material. Furthermore, the information is not a merely a "Jewish view of Christian Saint", it is a human rights issue. That section is not about theological debate, it is about the perfectly valid concerns of multiple secular human rights organizations as well as Jewish ones. They are completely relevant to the topic and I request that you stop removing them. Asarelah (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Way too much attention is focused on antisemitism, when the average Russian parishioner who follows this cult doesn't pay attention to the antisemitic aspect of it at all.

Should I go to the article on the Talmud and focus on all of the nasty things they say about gentiles and non-Jews? No, because obviously the Talmud is certainly a lot richer than that and it is ridiculous to say that the main focus of the article on the Talmud should be how it is full of anti-gentile, racist statements.

Saint Gavriil is the same thing: It is extremely insulting to Russian Orthodox believers to write a whole article on anti-semitism, when Saint Gavriil goes much deeper.

This article certainly needs work to condense the 'Antisemitism' section, as most of it is from Soviet Jewish organisations that took a militant stance against the ROC in the first place.

Solntsa90 (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Also, When I was saying it was a "Jewish view of a Christian Saint" I was referring to all of the Soviet-Union era Jewish organisations who condemned this saint as 'antisemitic', and such sources should not be considered impartial when discussing St. Gavriil.

It is good enough already that the article mentions antisemitism, but does not need to get into detail about it, especially when that detail is from Soviet Jewish or American organisations, of whom may have it out for the Russian Orthodox Church. Solntsa90 (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Why were my links to other child saints and other saints in the Russian Orthodox Church removed? I don't see why they were to be edited out...and the category 'antisemitism' can only be used for issues pertaining directly to antisemitism, since it is contentious what is antisemitic or not, and many Russian people would argue their faith in St Gavriil has nothing to do with antisemitism at all. Solntsa90 (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the article is wildly inaccurate, as there are few human rights groups involved in complaining about St Gavriil; in fact, the majority of the links seem to be US state department reports, and that needs to be mentioned lest it gives off the appearance there is some international widespread condemnation of St Gavriil.

This article is written from a WP:Systematic Bias POV that needs to be fixed. Also, I'm not sure why this article is a part of Project:Judaism, considering he's an Orthodox Saint...

Response

[edit]
"Should I go to the article on the Talmud and focus on all of the nasty things they say about gentiles and non-Jews?"
  • 1. If you've got reliable sources, go ahead.
  • 2. Jews do not "have it out" for the Russian Orthodox Church. Neither does the United States government. That has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard in my life. I am an American who was raised Jewish and is now agnostic. I can assure you, having grown up America and in a Jewish community, that neither Jews nor Americans as a whole care at all that much about your church and we certainly do not spend our time in some sinister plot against it. We are merely a bit nervous when people begin telling stories about how the Jews supposedly murder children for religious purposes. We have perfectly valid reason to be, given our history.
  • 3. The U.S. State Department is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. If you don't like that, tough. I don't know if the particular Jewish organizations that are being quoted meet the criteria of being a reliable source, but it is incumbent upon you to prove that they aren't, and the fact that they might be critical of the Russian Orthodox Church over its stances on interfaith issues isn't good enough to say that they aren't.
  • 4. A saint whose story is based around blood libel is objectively anti-Semitic, regardless of whether or not people who adhere to his cult identify as such.
  • 5. If the reverence of this saint goes "so much deeper" than blood libel, you have the option of expanding that aspect of the article, provided you have reliable sources. Nobody is stopping you.
  • 6. Its part of Wikiproject:Judaism because his narrative is centered around Jews. Its an interfaith topic.
  • 7. I'm certainly not going to stop you from making constructive edits. I have no idea why your links to other saints got deleted, feel free to reinstate them. I really don't care. Just stop blanking cited material or I will be left with no choice but to notify an administrator. Asarelah (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript

[edit]
I've examined your latest edits and they are okay. But I'm keeping an eye on this article. Asarelah (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You put a lot of words into my mouth and I do not appreciate that whatsoever. I will respond to this talk page as soon as I find the time to dissect each one of your points (And how does one define blood libel anyway? Are there any cases that are not blood libel, but are in fact true? Can you objectively prove that this was just the belief of a bunch of illiterate, stupid Russian peasants with no historical basis whatsoever or did someone really murder Gavriil Belostoksky who happened to be Jewish?

How do we discern?

Secondly, your sarcasm in terms of talking of St Gavriil ("so much deeper") makes me wonder if you really do just see this as a primarily antisemitic issue, when in fact as I will reiterate, this would be like writing a whole article on J Edgar Hoover and focusing only on his personal life, or writing a whole biography on some of the great Hungarian revolutionaries, but since they didn't like Jews or gypsies, all of their achievements or villanies are to be discounted for?

Finally, his narrative only focuses around Jews because the article has been written to reflect such a bias so as to reflect it around only Jews, despite being a Orthodox Saint who means so much more to Russian people than that! The modern orthodox literature rarely if ever mentions the killer's Judaic background.

Solntsa90 (talk)

Even if Gabriel's killer(s) actually did happen to be Jewish, blood libel is still libel because it presents the ritual murder of Christian children and the use of their blood as a religious sacrament within Judaism, which it absolutely is not. And no, I actually wasn't being sarcastic about the "so much deeper" remark. If you regard this article as unbalanced, fill it out. If the article about J. Edgar Hoover had only the negative aspects of his life within it, I'd urge editors to add this missing material. I would not, however, allow the article to be sanitized of properly cited material in the name of "balance". If you have more information to add about Gabriel of Belostock, I encourage you to by all means add it, provided you have reliable sources to cite. Asarelah (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A clearer wording should be used for the reports

[edit]

The reports merely read (all of them, verbatim): "The official 2003 Belarusian Orthodox calendar, printed in Minsk, marks May 20 as the anniversary of the 1690 death of Gavriil Belostoksky, a young child who is alleged to have been murdered by Jews near Grodno. A May 20 prayer for Belostoksky makes reference to Jews as 'real beasts' who allegedly kidnapped and murdered Belostoksky for religious purposes."

There is no mention about either a revival of his cult or such being "as a dangerous expression of antisemitism". I'm not turning a blind eye to the very real problems presented in the report or the prayer itself, but the stating (or wording it as if was worded as such) that the cult overall is inherently antisemitic is synthesis. Again, if someone has said this, the reference should be to that person or group directly saying it. 201.190.31.132 (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Truth

[edit]

Why refer to a TV programme which alleged that the story is true? Surely the onus is on people to say that the story is not true, for it is recorded as a real event, with names and dates. And even his relics.122.59.167.152 (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The linked article is using the program to illustrate the fact that anti-Semitism is still prevalent in the present day, and that government does not suppress and at times even facilitates anti-Semitism. I have attempted to revise this passage to make more sense. Ibadibam (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gabriel of Białystok. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Orwellian

[edit]

Just a quick observation that reports on "on human rights and religious freedoms" criticizing over the years the human right and religious freedom to venerate whomever one pleases are doublespeak Orwellian per se. Zezen (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zezen, your logic is flawed. The article and talk page commentators have not expressed the idea that venerating St. Gabriel is a violation of human rights or religious freedoms. The issue is that the veneration of St. Gabriel is used as a tool for the purpose of inciting violations of human rights and religious freedoms. Jyg (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Recent Edit

[edit]

I have attempted a clean up of this article, especially the section on antisemitism, both, because the language was strained and probably written by a person for whom English is not their first language and also because, in places, it was hyperbolic and POV. For example, the UNHCR report does mention the veneration within the context of antisemitism but it does not call the cult "dangerous antisemitism" as the article does, it only talks about it as one unfortunate thing among many others which might feed into a general mood of antisemitism. These distinctions are important. Likewise, the TV airing of the story should emphasise what notable figures thought about the programme rather than what the article editor thinks about it. There were also repeated citations of the International Freedom Report but in each citation the information relating to Gabriel is the same, meaning that nothing has changed in the intervening year for the DRL to report. One citation of the report, the most recent, is sufficient. Lastly, calling the veneration "just a blood libel" does diminish a fairly nuanced practice where the role for those participating in the veneration is less on the religion/ethnicity of the supposed murderer and more on themes of innocence and loss. Reframing it as entirely a "blood libel" only overemphasises antisemitic aspects of the cultus and disregards that complexity which is likely to have adverse effects for everyone. Nuance is crucial here. Add good quality sources as they are found - some of what is here is out of date. 2A00:23C6:1406:4E00:70C5:A09C:86F4:CF06 (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blatantly biased language

[edit]

173.190.155.55 (talk) "Some authorities have expressed concern that veneration of Gabriel of Białystok may be used to foment anti-Semitism."

The Church is the authority. Anyone else is just some guy with an opinion that is not noteworthy in the revealed sense but only error. Error has no rights.

It means "authorities" from the perspective of scholarship not religion, as in expertise (US federal bodies definitely come under that heading). Sure, you can believe that "error has no rights" and that the Church alone has access to the truth but you're going to be spending a lot of time editing Wikipedia, getting into a lot of heated arguments, if you want this website to reflect that belief. 2A00:23C6:1405:B600:3565:F43A:7475:758F (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where?

[edit]

Where is the evidence that this is a false accusation please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6582:8580:C00:D16B:270C:1B28:6683 (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gabriel_of_Białystok&oldid=1207337626"