Talk:Antisemitism

Sourcing issue
Arisboch/Kugel just added a huge "History" section. The problem is, it is replete with fact claims that are: 1. Unsourced, or, 2. in he least few paragraphs, simply refer to the reader to "see" various WP entries. That's not really proper. Specific claims should not generally, through-out an article, simply refer to another wiki. Arisboch has always refused to "do sourcing," but if that is how he wishes to operate, then he shouldn't be drafting significant amounts of text.

Some if not most of this material is, as far as I know, accurate and relevant. I'm not arguing it's all necessarily something that needs to go. Just that it really does need sourcing, as well as proper sourcing.---Mona- (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't write resp author it, I re-inserted it after you or PB (too lazy to look at the page history) deleted it. You give me credit for things I didn't do, again (but now, strangely, for something positive instead for the deeds of some morons vandalizing the RW).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 02:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 02:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, a BoN edited it in, Pb3 reverted for lack of sourcing, and u reverted Pb3. Sorry for the misstatement. SoT: yeah, as I say, this all seems familiar and echoes my general understanding. It's just very poor form not to source any of it, and/or to rely so extensively on WP.---Mona- (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I never understood the prejudice against linking to Wikipedia. It's usually the easy way to provide context for  subjects that will never be missional here. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 05:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of the section seems reasonably accurate to me and free of obvious fanaticisms. I had not heard of the blood libel existing before the Middle Ages, though. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * AFAIK the Christian blood libel has it's precursors among similar nasty shit thrown around by the Ancient Greek (Joseph wrote in Against Apion about it).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 02:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 02:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

A notice to this page's antisemitic editors
You are welcome to continue to post your appalling and racist whitewash of Muslim and Arab antisemitism. I will continue to erase it, as any decent person would do. That is all.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 79.179.0.66 / talk / contribs

Antisemitism
Well, you could just file everything the antisemitic cheerleader mona posts under antisemitism. Like suggesting that jews were not expelled in hundreds of thousands from the Arabic countries even though compelling evidence suggests otherwise.
 * On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. CowHouse (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Jewish lobby
Under "Left wing antisemitism", there is this claim: "Talk of a "Jewish lobby" and its supposed or real influence on the governments of the West is also a frequent antisemitic trope employed by leftists." So does even the mention of such a lobby itself become antisemitic? Jewish and pro-Israel lobby groups do exist (at least in the US, but probably other Western countries too, I'm not familiar). I realize of course that this can be pushed into antisemitic territory (such as in the Zionist Occupied Government canard), but this seems like a bit of an overreach.Mcc1789 (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

If there is a lobby supporting the interests of Israel seeking economic and military aid and it seems to call attention to the interests of American Jews, and is open about its composition, then it is a Jewish lobby. Such a phrase is thus neutral. This is as neutral as calling a group such as the National Rifle Association a "gun lobby". Pbrower2a (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Joyce Ireland quote
There's this quote from a character in the Ulysses, which I found interesting the first time I read it: "Ireland, they say, has the honour of being the only country which never persecuted the jews [...] Because she never let them in". (https://www.online-literature.com/james_joyce/ulysses/2/). As far as I can tell Ireland has indeed persecuted jews and Joyce is more depicting than supporting antisemitism. I find it interesting mostly because the quote is from a renown piece of literature, it predates WW2 and shows how widespread antisemitism was. I haven't even read the whole Ulysses, so I'm letting someone else judge if and how it's worth including it in the article. --176.247.191.213 (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)