Talk:Timeline of antisemitism/Archive 1

[Untitled]

Is this an attempt to write down ALL of the events? "two synagogues were vandalized".. this is a very common phenomenon. 80.178.61.11 16:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to define a clear line of noteworthy events. If a kid draws a picture of German ww2 tank, would this qualify? a swastika on a desk? The page is becoming a little unwieldy in current form. Maybe a separate page on murders or something that is clearly measurable.

This article begs the question why are the Jews persecuted everywhere they go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gambori (talk • contribs) 01:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my lengthy study of the topic, it seems the result of them being a minority target, a prefrred target because they tend to achieve a large amount of political/financial power wherever they go, and easily identifiable. Even 20% of Nobel Prizes are won by Jewish individuals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates "As of 2017, Nobel Prizes[note 1] have been awarded to 892 individuals,[1] of whom 201 or 22.5% were Jews,[note 2] although the total Jewish population comprises less than 0.2% of the world's population.[2] This means the percentage of Jewish Nobel laureates is at least 112.5 times or 11,250% above average" So, when fear sets in, the Jews are the scapegoats (due to their success). So, when times get really bad, and you are Jewish like me...keep an eye out.

Note the recent slew of markedly anti-Semitic crimes in Germany, France and Canada -- purely coincidental, I'm sure, that this rise in crimes occurred during the recent Israel-Gaza conflict, and were universally started by Arab emigres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.17.194 (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong to make blanket statements like "the Jews". Many Jews are respected and even loved Einstein is just one member of a very long list.

This section was previously deleted as anti-Semitism despite containing feasibly relevant later reference to the Israel-Gaza conflict. I deleted specific content from this version Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with the antisemitism. This is no place for it. Insisting on the use of "anti-Semitism" over "antisemitism" here, and every where else, is just another form of antisemitism. That you are undeleting other antisemitism fairly well gives it away. Geofferic ^T•_C✡ 18:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statue protest

This seems relevant to the article so it should not be removed. Offliner (talk) 06:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not relevant, it's a disruptive coat some editors have began to hang here. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why. It is very similar to other items in the list. Offliner (talk) 07:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about acts of anti-semitism, not about news reports of misguided non-factual accusations of anti-semitic behaviou. Alfons Rebane was never a volunteer in the Waffen SS (having been drafted in April 1944 from the Wehrmacht which he joined in 1941), nor was he "a Nazi executioner that was responsible for the slaughter of thousands of Jews". This is just hyperbole. The only people he killed were armed Red Army soldiers. It is un-encyclopedic to insert non-factual data, even if it was reported in a primary source like a newspaper. --Martintg (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's rules in this respect are "verifiability, not truth." Perhaps you do not consider Alfons Rebane responsible for the deaths of thousands of Russian people and Jews – but the Jewish community's organizations certainly do, and if newspaper reports and notable community members considered the erection of a statue to Rebans an act of antisemitism, or something considerably fuelling it, it should be described here as a relevant event vis-a-vis what this timeline attempts to do. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All this primary source does is to verify that Russia's chief rabbi Berl Lazar and Yevgeny Satanovsky, president of the Russian Jewish Congress, both known for their close ties with Putin, have made some accusations. There are plenty of secondary sources which verify that there is no substance to these accusations, thus there is no consensus that erecting a memorial to Rebane constitutes an act of antisemitism. Wikipedia is not a battleground or soapbox for Russian government inspired propaganda. --Martintg (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but there is substance to Rabbi Lazar's and Mr. Satanovsky's claims that has appeared in non-Russian Jewish organizations – for instance, his funeral was protested by American Jewish organizations 1, and the Estonian government has been provided with evidence of crimes against humanity committed by Rebane and others from the Los Angeles, United States - based Simon Wiesenthal Center. 2. (To date, none of the Estonians accused of war crimes have been turned over for prosecution by the Estonian government - the last one occured in Soviet Estonia.) In this Israeli article, Eliahu Salpeter is making another condemnation of commemmorating Nazi-allied officers as acts of antisemitism: 3. Estonia's commemmorations of Rebane in particular has also been discussed by European government commissions, such as in this excerpt from the working papers of the Parliamentarians: 4. No words minced in instances like that.

The English headline I am giving you here, "Estonia accused of antisemitism", appeared in The Independent, a newspaper of the United Kingdom. This is a notable event.

Your WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a rationale for removing incidents related to the Baltic countries. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are drawing conclusions that are not in the sources, I'll list the issues according to your numbering of the sources:

This source explicitly states at the beginning of the paragraph "According to the leader of the local Jewish Community there is no state anti-Semitism in Estonia". In the same paragraph it goes on to mention the American Jewish Congress protesting the re-burial of Rebane with state honours and also mentions the Russian Jewish Congress accusing the Estonian authorities of "pro-Nazi sympathies", but there is no claim that the act of reburial was an act of anti-semitism.
This is just a link to a mirror of some old version of Wikipedia content, and therefore is disqualified as not reliable, and seems to have no relation to the context.
The Israeli article makes no mention of Rebane let alone his re-burial was an anti-semitic event.
And finally the Parliamentary Assembly working paper is a collection of submissions by vested interests, and the part that mentions Rebane was an opinion written by Mikhail Margelov pushing the Kremlin line, not the viewpoint of the Parliamentary Assembly.

--Martintg (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martintg, you are clearly misreading all the documents provided here to your own advantage – which is to wipe Estonian situation of any unpleasant realities contained therein. In the first place, every link I have provided here deals with the commemmoration of Estonia's SS veterans and their alleged status as collaborators in the Nazi Holocaust. In the second place, your questioning of Mr. Lazar (Russia's apolitical and Italian-born Orthodox Jewish Chabad Lubavich Chief Rabbi's interpretation of the situation is misplaced here: we include all reputable sources, regardless of their country of origin. (Ie, there is no hard-and-fast rule on Wikipedia excluding the opinion of Jewish organizations which so happen to be based in Russia.) In regard to Estonia's Jewish representative, Ms. Cilja Laud, is officially registered as representing Estonia's Jewish community as a "non-governmental organization" in Estonia – so if there are any charges of impartiality with regard to this antisemitic incident to be addressed, they're right here. (Do you have any claims from Ms. Laud with regard to this event particularly? Because you are free, you know, to include them over here.) Since you have decided to include an anti-Semitic Holocaust denier's opinion at Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states, it would be a logical extrapolation that you would not hesitate to include the opinion of an Italian Orthodox Rabbi representing the largest Jewish community on the territory of the former Soviet Union. Moreover, nowhere did anyone write that Mr. Rebane was guilty or innocent – Offliner and I simply reiterated the accusation, put into print in the British press, that SSman Alfons Rebane was accused of killing thousands of Jews and Russian citizens. In regard to your last "point", the European Parliamentary Group's statement – authored by Mikhail Margelov, as you correctly note – was adopted by the European group. (See Page 13 of the book reference provided.) I have no intention of Wikilawyering with you over this, but if you find any of the simple statements contained herein inaccurate, please don't hold yourself back. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Here is an additional source which treats the commemoration of Alfons Rebane as an act in an antisemitic context: The Israeli Stephen Roth Institute's Antisemitism Worldwide 5. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erecting a monument to a dead person (even if someone does not like that person) can not be anti-semitic, it can not be anti-Russiian, and it can be anti anything.Biophys (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: "Monuments erected to Adolf Hitler cannot be antisemitism." Thanks for that. (That is, at least, the logical translation of what you are arguing here.) PasswordUsername (talk)

Of course that would not be antisemitism. That would be only a monument to Adolf Hitler. Antisemitism is an action or a propaganda against Jews as an ethnic group. Erection of a monument is not against anyone. This is "pro" action.Biophys (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. The sources given disagree with assessments like yourds. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument you cite belongs to Reductio ad Hitlerum.Biophys (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument I'm citing belongs to the statements adopted by the Council of Europe. PasswordUsername (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The document you cited is just a working paper and bit about Rebane is part of Mikhail Margelov's submission, I already mentioned this. The only thing adopted on page 13 was the agenda of the working group. Read the first line of this article: "This timeline of antisemitism chronicles the facts of antisemitism". There is no consensus that Rebane's reburial is a fact of antisemitism. All you have offered is an accusation of antisemitism. Another of your own sources state in the paragraph about the reburial of Rebane: "According to the leader of the local Jewish Community there is no state anti-Semitism in Estonia". All these accusations are originally sourced from Russia. We know there is intense rivalry between Berl Lazar and Yevgeny Satanovsky and their attempts to gain the favour of Putin, where some foreign observers have detected whiffs of antisemitism in the prosecution of Khodorkovsky and the crack down on other Jewish oligarchs, these two Russian Jewish leaders say this is a step forward in the battle against anti-Jewish bigotry!! --Martintg (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are mistaken. The statement made by Mikhail Margelov is the statement adopted (and published) by the working group: read the good print on page 13, which reads – quite clearly – "Adopted on 21 and 22 May 2007, Doc. 11292". If there have been sources questioning Rabbi Lazar's judgment in protesting the commemoration of a Waffen-SS Officer accused of mass murder as an act tantamount to serious fuelling of anti-Semitism, you're welcome to cite theme here – by all means, let us discuss. Other judgments would be nothing other than pure speculation (read WP:OR) on your part – very convenient in light of your strong track record of defending Estonia against accusations on practically every account. If you believe that the Chief Rabbi of Russia is an unreliable source, file a report at the WP:RS noticeboard. (I do not, however, think that you are going to get very far.) Moreover, I have already demonstrated that Ms. Laud (the leader of the Jewish community in my source) is officially registered with the Estonian government as the leader of the Jewish community as an NGO – as though the Jews of Estonia were some kind of think-tank sanctioned by the Estonian government. You know as well as I that hers was no reference to the widely detested Rebane memorial. I see as well that you have not given the date for Ms. Laud's comments - if I am not mistaken, I have seen the remarks quoted in statements from as early as 2001. The incident in question occured years afterward. What other interesting objections, by any chance, have you got here to point out? PasswordUsername (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia has been accused of fuelling anti-Semitism and glorifying Nazism after a memorial was erected there to a colonel in the Waffen SS who is alleged to have the blood of thousands of people on his hands.[1]

This simply belongs here. No valid reason has been given for its removal. Please do not censor Wikipedia. Offliner (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same source also states that Rebane was never convicted of war crimes, and the CoE in 2007 has defined when erecting a monument constitutes anti-Semitism or not. PasswordUsername's point about the Estonia Jewish community organisation is registered as a NGO proves what? That Ms. Laud's opinion is more unreliable than Mr. Lazar's? Please. As for the CoE, it is just a working paper containing Mikhail Margelov's viewpoint. The final text adopted by the CoE states: "12.11. not endorse the construction of monuments and the holding of ceremonies celebrating those guilty of genocide or crimes against humanity during the Second World War". Rebane was never found guilty of genocide or crimes against humanity during the Second World War, therefore construction of a monument to him does not qualify as antisemitism. Rebane was held in detention by Allied forces until 1947 and his activities thoroughly investigated, and he lived openly in the UK and Germany until his death in 1975, not hiding in some rat hole in South America. In all that time he as never charged with genocide or crimes against humanity, even the Soviets did not bother charging him and trying him in absentia during the Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia back in 1961, so the claim he is guilty of these crimes is nonsensical. --Martintg (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point about Ms. Laud's denials of antisemitism in Estonia is that she is beholden to the Estonian government as an officially approved NGO president – something to take into consideration when Efraim Zuroff, representing the Israeli-based Nazi-hunting section of the American-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, says that Estonia's Jewish community is intimidated about protesting against the construction of SS war memorials for fear of provoking greater antisemitism. (See this Ukrainian press interview.) If Ms. Laud has commented that the erection of the Rebane war statue wasn't an act with antisemitic overtones, you are welcome to include it here. (For that matter, do not hesitate to add the Estonain government's point of view on this.) You have still not given the date of the "no state antisemitism in Estonia" remarks – and I very much suspect that both of us know why. Rabbi Berl Lazar, whether you like it or not, still represents one of the largest Jewish communities in the world – one that has been augmented by former Estonian Jews coming in after Estonia's passage of citizenship laws described by Jewish writers like Zvi Gitelman and Robert Wistrich as conforming to the ethnic model of nationhood. This isn't a dispute about Rabane's war record – it's a dispute about the act of placing a memorial to said SSman as an act of antisemitism in Estonia. And major Jewish organizations have stated their view. PasswordUsername (talk) 12:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a very odd idea about what NGOs are. As Wikipedia's own article on NGOs states: Non-governmental organization (NGO) is a term that has become widely accepted for referring to a legally constituted, non-governmental organization created by natural or legal persons with no participation or representation of any government. Mr. Lazar is also Putin's appointee as head Rabbi in Russia, so it can be argued that he is beholden to the Russian government. The only major Jewish organization to claim Rebane's memorial is an act of antisemitism happens to be located in Russia. Efraim Zuroff is Efraim Zuroff, but we are not talking about SS war memorials, but a memorial to an individual that for most of WW2 served in the Wermacht and was drafted into the Waffen SS in April 1944 (and the Nuremburg trials explicitly exempted those who were drafted into the Waffen SS in its judgement), and who devoted his entire life to the restoration of the independent Estonian republic that had some of the most liberal laws in regard to its Jewish citizenry in Europe during the 20s and 30s, and which the current Estonian state is the legal continuation of. It must be noted that all the freedoms that Estonia's Jewish citizenry enjoyed in independent Estonia ended with the Soviet occupation, and was restored with restoration of independent Estonia. The bottom line is that CoE has defined what constitutes a fact of antisemitism in regard to the erection of monuments, and this article is not called Timeline of accusations of antisemitism. --Martintg (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NGOs are NGOs, and you apparently don't seem to focus on the fact that Laud is the officially designated representative of the NGO who gets an audience from the Estonian government.

I don't see Nuremberg making distinctions between those drafted into the SS and those volunteering for it. As for the rest of your claims here, I'd like to point your attention to the fact, Estonia didn't have as many freedoms as you'd like to think – Konstantin Pats ruled an authoritarian dictatorship, and that, fortunate as it was, was only after the majority had declared its support for the fascistic Vaps Movement: "little Estonia has the dubious distinction of having given her fascists the majority of the vote in a free election" -- from Politics, Economics and Power by Nathaniel Stone Preston, Page 242. (And Pats still retained a number of fascists in his government.) Not that this has much to do with the argument at all. You have completely ignored the fear of protesting these monuments testified to by Efraim Zuroff (whose own arrival in the country, if you consult a source like Google, was met by an unprecedented anti-Semitic wave among the Estonian populace – 93% of it aghast at the thought of commmemorating the Holocaust according to polls from several years back.)

"Estonia ended with the Soviet occupation, and was restored with restoration of independent Estonia. The bottom line is that CoE has defined what constitutes a fact of antisemitism in regard to the erection of monuments..." – where are you getting this? The CoE doesn't anywhere say it has defined what constitutes anti-Semitism as far as putting up the various monuments. See WP:OR. PasswordUsername (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Nuremberg making distinctions between those drafted into the SS and those volunteering for it.

Your failures too see things are not surprising, but anyway in last paragraph. Although considering you liberal usage of the term, Jewish Virtual Library is probably just another radical fascist organization for you.--Staberinde (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the source states "the entire organisation was declared a criminal organization by the International Military Tribunal during the Nuremberg Trials, except conscripts, who were exempted from that judgement due to being forcibly mobilised." We're not talking about Nuremberg absolving SS conscripted officers of guilt – the source talks about the designation of the entire military body as a criminal organization. It's a good thing to read things a bit less tendentiously sometimes. PasswordUsername (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The memorial is to the individual, Rebane, not the organisation he was drafted into for twelve months. Here is an image of it here, slightly larger than a regular tomb stone, but nothing on it that appears antisemitic. The symbol with the "E" within the bent arm (forming a letter "V") holding the sword is an old Estonian War of Independence symbol meaning "Eesti Vabariik". --Martintg (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Jewish organizations the statue incident was anti-Semitism. No amount of explanation or attempts to muddy the waters will change that. Verifiability, not truth. Offliner (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Jewish organizations based in Russia, however the local Estonian Jewish organization disagrees, according to one of the sources provided by PassportUsername. But PassportUsername tells us to discount that view because of his strange OR theory that the local Jewish organization is registered as an NGO and thus according to him/her NGOs are beholden to the government. Were is the verification for this OR theory? --Martintg (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recall when Bäckamn wanted SWC to give him a blessing. So, Bäkcanm worked out a weird story with clear antisemitic motiffs in it but without much basis in reality, phoned SWC, and read his story, to a result of SWC saying "How horrible! We condemn this!". According to sources, Bäcmkan was kind of blacklisted in SWC for this stunt, once the Centre realised what had happened.

Maybe something similar is behind Mr. Lazar's misunderstanding. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some of the largest Jewish organizations considered the act anti-Semitic. Please provide a source where the anti-Semitism alleged by Rabbi Berl Lazar and the Russian Jewish Congress were denied by Ms. Laud. Please do not bring in vague statements in general, especially those made years before the incident in question. The incident was judged as anti-Semitic by top organizations within the Jewish community, and so far that's that. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

!votes

We've been discussing it for a while; it's time for some closure. Let's take votes.

I propose we remove this tombstone from this article, under WP:COAT. This article is meant to give the reader a detailed understanding of landmark cases in antisemitism's history, and as this tombstone has nothing to do with antisemitism, it's irrelevant. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't agree with this approach. You have many friends in WP and I already know how they are going to vote. An RFC to gather opinions from uninvolved editors would be a more constructive solution. Offliner (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make this into a battleground. Ever-lasting commenting can help nobody; let's find out what the rough consensus is. Then, we can go on improving this and other articles. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per Digwuren. --Martintg (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per my arguments provided above.Biophys (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has a lot to do with antisemitism in Estonia, not in the least for the reason that it is part of the same phenomenon cited by key figures such as Efraim Zuroff and others. See WP:DEMOCRACY – Wikipedia is not a democracy. Your removal of a report about a strong current of antisemitism sweeping Lithuania in April of 2009 is similarly conspicuous here too. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Timeline is about anti-semitism, but all the fuss around that tombstone is about allegations. Different things. Anti-semitism is very serious matter, empty and unproven allegations cheapen the whole concept. Põhja Konn (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has more to do with Offliner and PasswordUsername battling across multiple Estonia related articles injecting their particular Russian nationalist POV. As I said previously, Estonia was and is one of the least anti-semitic places in Europe. Let's not forget that the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a forgery created by Tsarist Russia, or that Russia has more neo-Nazi skinheads than the rest of the world combined. --Martintg (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have what you call a "Russian nationalist POV." I am an American Jew – perhaps what I have is a Jewish POV, which is quite relevant to anti-Semitism. Apparently, this one is shared by the major Jewish organizations. I thought that Digwuren's compromise version, established after very much haggling, was acceptable, although I don't see why he (or maybe you?) also reverted a major incident about a rising tide of antisemitism in Lithuania in 2009. Perhaps you guys simply pour out too much time battling over Baltic-related topics? Any coincidence in your striking out more material by Dr. Efraim Zuroff you just happened to wipe from the Estonia-related section in the Antisemitism in Europe article? Stop trying to muddy the waters with the Russian accusations.

- PasswordUsername (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you claim to be an American Jew, but we can never be sure. Odd you seem so focused on soapboxing alleged anti-Semitism and discrimination in tiny Estonia, looking at your edit history. That is something banned ultra-nationalist editors like User:Roobit used to do. When did you start editing Wikipedia? Any reason why you haven't created Neo-Nazism in Russia yet? You seemed to have found time to ~~create~~develop Neo-nazism in estonia which was made a redirect and salted by an admin, and developing Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia, until another admin turned that POVFORK into a redirect. You claim to be a fluent Russian speaker, did you emigrate from Russia to the USA at some stage? --Martintg (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create "Neo-nazism in estonia." Are you confused or lying here? You mean only nationalists complain about Nazism in Estonia? Is Rabbi Berl Lazar a Russian nationalist... or do you have a conspiracy theory about how he is being manipulated by Putin? PasswordUsername (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you now claiming to be Rabbi Berl Lazar, or is he editing Wikipedia under another identity? So when are you going to create neo-Nazism in Russia or Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Russia? --Martintg (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the subject is covered by Radical nationalism in Russia and Racism in Russia as a pair. To answer your question directly, lest you keep trolling: I am not Rabbi Lazar. Do you have more trivial objections to hand out? PasswordUsername (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriateness of "allegations" in a timeline of major events

A timeline consists of major events. Protests associated with allegations, whether about a person or a memorial to a person, are not material appropriate to a timeline. The choices are:

if keeping in allegations regarding individuals, then if there is indication of lack of evidence, that also stays; OR
the mention of the incident regarding controversy regarding the individual gets removed from the timeline.

There are very few mentions in the timeline of "allegations", and in other cases they are allegations against Jews which presumably were not proven but the individual(s) suffered regardless, which would then qualify. Perhaps we can keep this discussion where it belongs. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 19:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems these allegations are WP:UNDUE given the magnitude of other events described in the timeline. The discussion above called for removal, so I have removed it. --Martintg (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above did not call for any removal. See, Martin, anti-semitism is not a physical object, like a cup or a chair. It is a social phenomenon, so descriptions of anti-semitism come from trustworthy sources, like those with deep background and understanding – meaning, the experts. In this instance, we have Russia's Chief Rabbi calling the commemoration of a pro-German volunteer and decorated SS officer who allegedly participated in the killings of thousands of Jews and Russians an anti-semitic act. Of course the physical object itself, here the memorial to Rebane, is not the anti-semitism: the anti-semitism is the act, given the context of Rebane's historical role. The determiantion is made by as good a source as any: what you can do is give a statement from a reliable source refuting it, if any exists. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of June called for removal on the basis of WP:COATRACK. I think including this here is WP:UNDUE, it diminishes the seriousness of the other real anti-semitic events that have occurred throughout the ages. Calling the reburial of a professional soldier who served Britain's MI6 (don't believe that organisation is anti semitic) an "anti semitic event" in a country that has historically had one of the lowest levels of anti-semtism is just WP:SYNTH. If you actually read the source, it states the event may lead to anti-semitism, not that the event itself is anti-semitic. So in my view, not only is it undue, it is synthesis. --Martintg (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion wasn't accepted as valid even then. Wikipedia is not a vote. How can material about anti-semitism be a WP:COATRACK in an article on anti-semitism? There's nothing undue about mentioning Eastern Europe's publicly-funded heroization of pro-Nazi soldiers suspected of killing Jews. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed the SYNTH issues. Got any reliable sources that state this Waffen SS draftee was pro-Nazi? He was a front line soldier, so he no doubt killed plenty of Red Army soldiers in combat, whether some of them were Jewish would be impossible to determine. BTW, Estonia is considered to be in Northern Europe. --Martintg (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which synth issues, Martin? Everything I put into the article comes from one source: The Independent, a reliable source of British journalism, which published the article I cited [2].

The reliable sources for his service for Nazi Germany (for which he volunteered right after the German invasion of the Soviet Union) are well-documented: you can find on the article in the article for Alfons Rebane). And since you're so interested, this is just my speculation, but I suppose it's not just his war service, of course, although that is a part of the picture: he's also been accused as acting as an SS executioner. Western writers (e.g., Patrice Chairoff, the French journalist and author) have been describing him as a Nazi war criminal as early as the 1970s. At any rate, I do not want to debate the merits or demerits of Alfons Rebane: if major Jewish organizations and Chief Rabbis call the incident anti-semitic, then it is anti-semitic. By the way, Estonia is also considered to be part of Eastern Europe by a hell of a lot of classifications. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you read that one source (which will also mentions the event was privately funded, not publicly funded as you erroneously state above), the Chief Rabbi speculates that the event "may serve to escalate anti-Semitism", no where does it state the actual event itself was an anti-semitic event. Hence this entry is WP:SYNTH, as it is WP:UNDUE given that the other events described in this article is of a more serious nature. --Martintg (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article is called "Estonia accused of anti-Semitism after memorial is erected to 'SS executioner'". Its opening paragraph reads: "Estonia has been accused of fuelling anti-Semitism and glorifying Nazism after a memorial was erected there to a colonel in the Waffen SS who is alleged to have the blood of thousands of people on his hands." This accusation isn't just made by the Russian Chief Rabbi. It is also made by others, and the article itself mentions Yevgeny Satanovsky, president of the Russian Jewish Congress. That is, most emphatically, not synth, and these comments are made by respected members of the Jewish community who surely know what they're talking about. The only dissenting opinion cited in the article is that of an Estonian newspaper editor. I don't think it matters extremely much, as he is neither a historian, specialist on WWII history, nor a an anti-semitism scholar. But I'm reachng out to you, Martin: we can include his opinion per WP:NPOV as a compromise, if you like. Remember, Wikipedia is not censored. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article quite clearly writes that some people believe the event "may serve to escalate anti-Semitism" or "fuel anti-Semitism", but nowhere in the article does it actually claim the event itself was "anti-Semitic", at most Yevgeny Satanovsky called the event "anti-European". Inclusion here is WP:SYNTH. Assaulting Jewish people verbally and physically, burning synagogues and the Talmud are anti-Semitic events which this article documents, holding a Christian memorial service at the graveside of someone with an unblemished war record is not. Inclusion here only serves to belittle the real and serious anti-Semitic events documented here. --Martintg (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, the title of the article is "Estonia accused of anti-semitism..." I already explained to you that anti-semitism is not a physical object but a social phenomenon, so anti-semitism is referenced when there is a claim from some reliable source for it. The relevant claim, as I have explained to you, comes from reliable sources: Berl Lazar, Russia's Chief Rabbi (ie, the leader of the former Soviet Union's largest Jewish community and one of the largest Jewish communities in the world) as well as Yevgeny Satanovsky, leader of the Russian Jewish Congress. These are highly respected figures who know a hell of a lot more about anti-semitism than you, in all likelihood, happen to, so I am going to stick by the viewpoint of these reliable sources – as opposed to tailing the opinion of one Martintg on this question. I've already told you that if you have any reliable source that dispute the well-publicized assertions of Estonia's unfortunate heroization of such persons as Alfons Rebane (also mentioned in the Jewish press by Efraim Zuroff among others), you are free to include it as an opposing viewpoint per WP:NPOV. But what actually builds Wikipedia are the viewpoints of WP:RS. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have not addressed the SYTHN issues I have raised. The Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism, based in Israel, does not list Rebane's memorial service an antisemitic event. This definitive source for listing antisemitic events lists 658 articles related to Russia[3], 23 articles related to Estonia[4], none of which mentions Rebane's memorial service.[5]. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, there is no consensus in the sources that this event is worthy of inclusion. --Martintg (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have not raised any synth issues. I shall repeat again, since you've stonewalled against this point: I have only included material from one article, an article published in The Independent, an article called "Estonia Accused of Antisemtisim after Memorial is Erected to 'SS Executioner'". There can be no synth when you only use material from one article, material that is directly from that one article. Contrast all of this to the explanation of what synthesis actually is, per WP:SYNTH's instructions on what not to do –

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article."

Additionally, if you are seriously claiming that the Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism is obligated to list every antisemitic event in the world, you are mistaken. WP:NOTNEWS simply states that "not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." The one or two sentences for Rebane here are certainly not glaringly out-of-proportion to the topic.

And let me put things in perspective: Estonia's attitude towards World War II has been criticized for years. The Jerusalem-based Hebrew University historian Robert S. Wistrich writes that the "primary objective" of the post-Soviet-era governments of the Baltic states is "to further the interests and well-being of the majority ethnic groups in these republics." (Wistrich, Robert S. Terms of Survival. London: Routledge, 2004. ISBN 0203204832, ISBN 9780203204832. P. 209.) Wistrich observes that "many Jews in these republics sensed that they had become second-rate citizens," with those who had "fought against Soviet rule...[and] had been directly or indirectly involved in the murder of Jews during the Nazi period of occupation" now lionized as "symbols of Soviet occupation." (Wistrich, Robert S. Terms of Survival. London: Routledge, 2004. ISBN 0203204832, ISBN 9780203204832. P. 209.)

Likewise, Martin, Jerome A. Chanes, author of Antisemitism: A Reference Handbook, writes that Estonia's "annual commemmorations of World War II events continue to have antisemitic overtones." (Chanes, Jerome A. Antisemitism: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2004. ISBN 1576072096, ISBN 9781576072097. P. 181.) Anti-Nationalist (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What have these books you have cited got to do with Rebane specifically? What has Wistrich's comments got to do with antisemitism? What has Chanes' comments have to do with Rebane? The only source that actually mentions Rebane, the Independent news article, doesn't actually claim that Rebane's memorial was antisemitic. This is an example of the synthesis you are engaging in, to present a position that is not actually in the sources. --Martintg (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comments by other Jewish scholars address the prominence of issues similar and related to that of the memorial raised to Rebane in the context of modern-day discussions of anti-semitism in the Baltic states, debunking your prior claims that such activities need not be anti-semitic or that such a phenomenon is not a serious concern to Jews (since it appears that the words of Berl Lazar and Yevgeny Satanovsky were not enough for you). The point is that such phenomena, sad as they may be to behold, do occur in the Baltic states, as unfathomable as they might seem in most other places of the West, while you claim that the words of Chief Rabbi Lazar and Mr. Satanovsky should be discounted as full of hot air – although as of now you have not yet anywhere specified why. I am well aware that the comments were not made by The Independent: the newspaper is a medium for reporting the opinions of reliable sources. If you observe carefully, you will notice that the text reads

"Russian Jewish organizations and leaders protest Estonia's erection of a memorial on the grave of Alfons Rebane, an Estonian SS officer who had allegedly acted as "a Nazi executioner responsible for the slaughter of thousands of Jews and Russians between 1941 and 1945."[32]

– not

"The Independent protests Estonia's erection of a memorial on the grave of Alfons Rebane, an Estonian SS officer who had allegedly acted as "a Nazi executioner responsible for the slaughter of thousands of Jews and Russians between 1941 and 1945."

Are you truly not seeing this, Martintg? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Once again, a timeline of major major events over two millennia does not include controversies over allegations. The only allegations included in the timeline, appropriately, are those made against Jews who were then made to suffer at the hands of the accusers. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 20:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're going after a straw man, if you're going after what I believe you are. These are not some mere "allegations": these are relevant acts described by reliable sources (ie, the experts). Please see my reiterated clarification that "acts of anti-semitism aren't physical objects" above. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However there is nothing in the source you cite that claims the event regarding Rebane as a act of antisemitism, rather the source made general claims that the event may fuel or lead to antisemitism, i.e. it isn't even an allegation of "antisemitism", but an allegation of potential antisemtism, which is being synthesized into an "act of antisemitism" here. I've stated all this above, not only is it WP:SYNTH, but given the scope of the article it is WP:UNDUE and its inclusion only serves to diminish and belittle the seriousness of the other real acts of antisemitism described here. --Martintg (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the title of the article – nicely summarizing the statements of Berl Lazar and Yevgeny Satanovsky: "Estonia accused of anti-Semitism after memorial is erected to 'SS executioner'". Since any kind of manifestation of anti-semitism is not a physical object or, say, some sort of chemical compound to be discovered by the processes of the scientific method, all ascriptions of instances of anti-semitism are, in a sense, essentially claims about the world – we might easily say, for our simple purposes, claims made by experts or scholars/reliable sources. And by that exact same token, if reliable sources discuss a phenomenon as an act of anti-semitism, we present it per WP:RS and WP:V. What is unclear here? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The titles are usually chosen to grab attention, it doesn't accurately reflect the content of the article in this case. The even was a private memorial service, not a public event, so how can "Estonia" be accused of anything? This argument, which you have repeated now several times, of "antisemtism is not a physical object" is a strawman. I've always agreed with you that antisemtism is an act, and nowhere in this article is it stated that this event is an act of antisemitism, that is just your synthesis. All this article claims are allegations that this event may fuel or lead to antisemtism. There is a distinction, just like there is a distinction between gas and fire, gas may fuel or lead to fire, but necessarily so. --Martintg (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martintg, the article title is clearly the summary of the accusations. If there were no accusations of anti-semitism towards Estonia, whereas The Independent came out with article headline "Estonia accused of anti-Semitism after memorial is erected to 'SS executioner'"... you know, that would be a pretty bad case of journalistic irresponsibility. You might have such inaccuracies in the yellow-press tabloids, but The Independent is a serious and very reputable news source. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of complaints filed with the Press Complaints Commission against The Independent is related to issues of accuracy. This topic is concerned with a timeline of concrete cases of verified antisemitism, not "allegations" published in a newspaper with a history of inaccuracy. --Martintg (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you go to the RS noticeboard and get confirmation that the Independent is not reliable from neutral parties, if this is the angle you wish to take on WP:RS and WP:V. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Nationalist nèe PasswordUsername, again, allegations do not belong in a timeline of events. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 14:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vecrumba nèe Vecrumba, you obviously missed the earlier discussion, very philosophically and clearly made right here. All claims about anti-semitic events come from people making claims about anti-semitic events. What kind of straw man are you fighting with? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

spanish examples missing

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/spanish-village-called-kill-jews-considers-name-change-9257279.html In the artice is mentioned 2 dates and also a gerneal antisemitism at Eastertide - how does that fit in here? Becasue of this I have not added the events either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.49.48.216 (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:3D Test of Antisemitism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not antisemitic

Ok, I see that the Bar Khokba revolt is not considered anti semitism. Instead, you said "crushing of..." The Jews had just finished a murderous rampage in the Roman Empire, and there were obvious tensions. Should we view this by current laws of war? How are two nations to come to peace with eachother, after a war, when they live amongst each other? It's obvious that the Roman counter reaction was a rational response of fear, and the event was a continuation of the Jewish Wars, which are not anti semitism. 70.16.68.227 (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)JohnDee[reply]

External links modified

List of modified links

External links modified 1

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Timeline of antisemitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified 2

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Timeline of antisemitism. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified 3

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Timeline of antisemitism. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051028115503/http://www.joshuarubenstein.com:80/rubenstein/stalinsecret/intro.html to http://www.joshuarubenstein.com/rubenstein/stalinsecret/intro.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/upload/91214_1.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310213751/http://www.memri.org:80/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sr&ID=SR01503 to http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sr&ID=SR01503
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bc.edu:80/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/catholic/Vatican_Notes.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2997616.stm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=c61ce061-50b2-42a5-bb2f-a7bbaecccceb&k=32537
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090904093310/https://jta.org:80/news/article/2009/08/31/1007549/hamas-condemns-un-for-teaching-the-holocaust to http://jta.org/news/article/2009/08/31/1007549/hamas-condemns-un-for-teaching-the-holocaust#When:14:44:00Z

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) 02:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified 4

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Timeline of antisemitism. 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) 13:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified 5

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Timeline of antisemitism. 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) 17:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified 6

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Timeline of antisemitism. 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) 10:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified 7

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Timeline of antisemitism. 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) 10:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page length

Due the massive size of this page (as was), I've split out the 20th and 21st century sections into separate articles. They're still too long, as is this article, but it's a start. A bot should shortly clean up any misplaced refs. I've added sub-headings to the 20th C. article; should they be kept, and added to the 21st? Note also that the year 2000 is part of the 20th century, and 1900 of the 19th, so that content should be moved. It may be worth thinking of a navbox or succession templates to cross-link the articles. Finally, I've also cleaned up some of the list markup (per WP:LISTGAP), but more work is needed on that too. I'll return to all this later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the one on loxism?

Where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.241.46 (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too narrow in its scope

This article seems to be all about the jews. But the jews are just one subgroups (and not an especially large one) of the semites. 31.48.245.78 (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about semites. It’s about antisemitism, which means opposition to Jews. Ari1891adler (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Virtual Library

Per decision at RSN, JVL was tagged as mostly unreliable, specially when discussing sensitive issues about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in its "myths and facts" section. It should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. These are non-controversial events completely unrelated to ARBPIA. They are not disputed by historians or academics as far as I'm aware. If you must, add a "better source needed" tag like Iskandar323 usually does, as a reasonable approach. Massive deletions are not acceptable, which are only applicable when a source is deprecated (which is NOT the case with JVL).--Vitamortisachla (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]