Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

circumcision

I added a section on circumcision and antisemitism which was reverted by user:Jayjg. I feel this is important and needs to be mentioned in some form or another. I also do not understand why my splitting the new anti-semitism stuff into a separate 21st century section was undone. Is it not the 21st century now? Please comment. Thank you. Sirkumsize 05:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why is it "important"? Is there now a great deal of anti-Semitism as a result of the practice of circumcision? Is it a commonly held view? If so, do you have a source for this idea? Please review Wikipedia:No original research carefully. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, "21st century" is entirely too restrictive and narrow. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Abouth the 21st century thing I feel that it fits in following the 20th century, you have the 21st century.--PinchasC 05:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Circumcision is an excuse for anti-Semitism, not a cause, as is quite obvious even from the edits in question. Despite all the phony rationales people like User:Sirkumsize come up with to try to legitimize Jew-hatred, ultimately, the one and only cause of societal antisemitism (the real focus of this article) is hatred of Jews for being Jews, specifically, for their practice of Judaism. (Nazism was only an apparent aberration from this trend, but even Nazi Jew-hatred was based thereupon.) All of that said, the abuse dealt out by User:Sirkumsize on User talk:Jayjg should be nipped in the bud. As for the quibbling about for which century this irrelevant discussion fits best in, I submit to you that Christians have been using circumcision as an excuse for antisemitism for the past two millennia, rendering moot any discussion of for which century this excuse is relevant. Tomer ^TALK 05:57, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

I find your downplaying of the issue of circumcision to be very very disturbing. If anti-semitism activists take this view it is grossly unproductive. People have to take a serious look at the reasons behind this phenomena and be willing to take action to correct it. I am not making stuff up. I do not know what to say other than I am extremely offended that you my work here as an excuse for anything? I am sorry about my language! Sirkumsize 15:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS: If you feel that circumcision is an excuse for anti-semitism and not a real reason I invite you to find a source for this and to add it to the article. Also note that this is disputed.

As I'm guessing you already have animosity toward Jews, I'm gonna go ahead and pull a logic and legal argument on you: since you're making the claim, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, the burden of demonstration that this crap is not merely your own personal POV, YOU ARE THE ONE REQUIRED TO BRING EVIDENCE, not those whom you willy-nilly accuse of "stifling your free expression" or whatever you imagine is the injustice being done you. Wikipedia is an online ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a forum for people to spread their OPINIONS. Tomer ^TALK 16:04, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

I RESENT THAT! I do not have animosity towards the Jews and you have absolutely no right to make that accusation. I am trying to help. It is not helpful for you to simply discard what I am saying. If you are offended by my use of the word fuck then I invite you to consider how offended you make users feel to accuse them of anti-semitism simply because they make meaningful additions to the article. Sirkumsize 17:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS: I found a reference to back me up. I hope you are damn well happy.

If anything about this article can be legitimately disputed, it has to be that your diatribe against circumcision is a "useful" edit. Islam mandates circumcision just as Judaism does, yet nobody runs around blathering on about how "inhumane" or "abusive" Islam is, only when Jews engage in circumcision are allegations of child abuse made. Like I said, excuse, not reason. If it were a reason, the circumcision of islam, certain hindu sects, and a great many animistic sects would be used as an excuse to "hate" such groups as well, yet it never is. Even in the discussions about female genital alteration in Africa, these "alterations", which would count as actual abuse in any and every western country, never are the ethnic groups who practice these "alterations", for whatever religious or cultural reasons, singled out for hatred. Like I said, excuse, not reason. As for your purported reference, please present it so that its worth and legitimacy as a reference can be evaluated by the whole wikicommunity. Tomer ^TALK 02:14, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

@Tomer: Yes, I do think that the practice is just as dispicable when the Muslims do it. And please? No one critizes the Muslims? Ever heard of Islamophobia? I have no wish to center out the Jews in particulair but the distinction of a separate term for antisemitism from other kinds of discrimination has already been made by other people so I have little choice but to go along with that idea. Furthermore I do not feel that I will put up a similiar article about circumcision and islamophobia given the poor reception that this article received. Believe me though, I feel that circumcision IS a factor in islamophobia as well! Sirkumsize 03:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your statement is quite telling. "You feel" is insufficent grounds for a contribution to Wikipedia. It is, in fact, the quintessential definition of POV...something which has, almost to the point of nauseum, been made very clear to you, has no place in Wikipedia. Tomer ^TALK 10:03, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

The circumcision hence anti-semitism hypothesis requires Freudian analysis to give it any support at all. It makes a little sense...the argument goes like this: most guys are terrified, in their heart of hearts, of being castrated, and fear and/or hate anything that might castrate them; when most non-Jewish guys first hear about circumcision, something in their head thinks they are hearing about castration; unconciously, this turns Jews into a race of castrators, and phobia ensues. (I'm paraphrasing from that Ginzburg magazine that Sirkumsize pointed out to us a few days ago.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's wonderful, and yes, I looked at the article, and yes, I got the same kind of nonsensical theory from it...but that doesn't change a number of important things, especially wrt this particular edit and its relevance.

• It's not a "current issue" except apparently in 1966, when "free love" still wasn't a fully-developed idea.
• It's one particular (most likely Jewish, as it happens) author's POV opinion piece.
• It is still not a cause of anti-semitism, it is an excuse for it, and here I'm arguing with the wording of the "contribution", since the only real cause of anti-semitism that can't be shown to be anything other than an excuse, is the practice of Judaism, not specifically circumcision, although that might be a small part of it...that minor concession notwithstanding, to lay it all at the feet of circumcision is irresponsible from the perspective of an encyclopedia article, and indeed, plays into the poorly-dealt intellectual hand of anti-semites who happily accept excuse as rationale.
• As I pointed out, not to beat the crap out of a dead horse, but against nobody else in the world, as much as they might be castigated or admonished, or regarded as backwards or savage for engaging in circumcision, or even "grosser" "genital alterations", is circumcision used as fodder for hatred, only where Jews are involved. Again: excuse, not reason.

All that said, I'm not opposed to including the circumcision thing (although I think to say that it is a "modern" issue is moronic, given that in the so-called "New Testament", Christians were already then using it as an excuse to denigrate Jews)...what I am opposed to is anyone making edits to the wikipedia that will turn it into an online purveyor of uninformative, misinformative, disinformative, or outright WRONG information. There are valid criticisms of the Wikipedia as it is...I think that supporting someone who does his best to add further legitimacy to those criticisms, as User:Sirkumsize has done, should feel like the shmuck he's made himself out to be, and that any scrutiny of his edits should be encouraged, not in a spirit of vengeance or censorship, but in the spirit of doing whatever is necessary to minimize the legitimacy of the criticisms against this project.

As for the resentment User:Sirkumsize claims to hold wrt my accusation that he holds negative opinions about Jews in general, which is very different from the antisemitism he claims I accuse him of, I can't help that, and can only assume that it's a guilty conscience that makes him think I was accusing him of antisemitism. I have negative opinions about Canadians and the French. I don't hate either group/nationality. It's a very different thing to have negative opinions and to have unfounded vitriolic hatred. I accuse Sirkumsize of the former, not the latter, although he apparently accuses himself of the latter. Tomer ^TALK 02:43, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I accuse myself of nothing and its interesting what you say since I am a Canadian for matter of fact. Sirkumsize 03:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good Lord. Could we stick with the subject? I didn't say you were Canadian. I said I have negative opinions about Canadians and the French, as a means of illustrating that you can hold negative opinions without holding grossly misinformed generalistic hatreds for people/s. I never thought, to say nothing of said, that you were Canadian. Nor, in light of what I hope has been a clarification, should you think that whether you are/n't is of any relevance whatsoever to the discussion as a whole, nor more specifically, to what I've said. If I've said anything that you take as an attack on your professionalism, please don't impute unprofessionalism upon me just because my thoroughly impartial, indeed antipartial views obliquely offend your sensitivities. Tomer ^TALK 04:43, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

This is all surely a joke isn't it. —Christiaan 09:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Totally disputed message

Because this article does not take the issue of circumcision seriously it is highly incomplete. Intactivism is real and people truly do see circumcision as sexual assault. I certainly do and am not the only one. If anti-semitism activists ignore this issue than believe me it does no one any good. If you feel that this issue has been argued before and is invalid then please add a reference but I tell you one way or another it must be mentioned in this article if it is to be Wikipedia:NPOV and if it is not to omit any information. Sirkumsize 16:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS: I am deeply disturbed by the treatment that I am getting from other wikipedia members for my input to this encyclopia. There is certainly no reference provided for every possible fact in this encyclopia and I feel that I am being held to a higher standard than other contributers. Also I am positive that there are references that can be found. Please do not do any reactionary reverts. Thank you.

• If it's not original research -- that is, your personal opinion -- that the Jewish tradition of circumcision is a cause for anti-Semitism, you'll need to provide sources. Me, I think the main cause for anti-Semitism is envy for Jewish copulatory prowess, but I can't back that one up either. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

once I finished guffawing, I had to agree with your assessment. I can back it up with numerous sources, but I'm not sure they'll agree to be witnesses, plus I think it might violate the "no independent research" clause. Meanwhile, I'll continue to collect data... Tomer ^TALK 16:20, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Jayjg ^(talk) 16:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On a related note, Sirkumsize has put Arabs and anti-Semitism up for VfD; you'll find the vote here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Arabs and anti-Semitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• This is a complete coutrage! I cannot believe the way that I am being treated! I am not a vandal and do not wish to be treated like one! I have no choice but to put this up as a separate article. I am sure it will be listed on Wikipedia:VFD but it will give it enough time online to at least accumulate some signficant work and citations! See Circumcision and Anti-semitism. Sirkumsize 17:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Rather than waste your energy being outraged, why not provide citations here? That's all that's being asked for. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • My new article does contain at least one citation AND IT WAS NOT HARD TO FIND. You people are just moaning about nothing. Also someone deleted my article shortly after it was created without proper process even though it contains citations and is well formed. Who is being unprofessional here? I listed this page under requests for arbitration. Please someone help me out here. I AM NOT A VANDAL YET AM BEING TREATED LIKE ONE. Sirkumsize 17:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't a source, it was a link. When I hit the link, it went nowhere. Moreover, the article was incredibly poorly written (what is a "Judaism activies" or an "aAnti-Semitism activist?") Slrubenstein | Talk 17:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• well, the link was malformed. The article he was trying to cite does exist (he's fixed the link). The article, though, appears to be the only existing citation supporting the thesis; the article does make the claim that it is a truism in psychoanalytic literature that circumcision is a major cause of anti-Semitism. So perhaps a well-written paragraph describing this particular viewpoint would be acceptable. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The link mistake was my fault and its fixed, or at least was until the entire article was deleted inexplicable THE SECOND TIME. You people aren't out to get me? An antisemitism activist is someone that works against antisemitism like the Jewish antidefamation league. If you don't like the term EDIT IT do not delete my page. I do not know what a "Judaism activist" is. I did not write that! Sirkumsize 18:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is an opinion piece from 1966, published in an obscure journal. If there is any substance to this "phenonemon", you should be able to find more and better sources than that. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not all that obscure; Ralph Ginzburg was a very important figure in the 1950s-1960s free speech arena, involved in several Supreme Court cases involving censorship, and FACT magazine (along with his EROS magazine) was at the center of these. (He lost.) He did have a penchant for publishing inflammatory and controversial material. However, this is indeed an opinion piece being cited. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not only is it an opinion piece, but its publication in 1966 hardly qualifies it as a "current issues" source. Also, for those who are following this discussion, please see my last edit in the previous section of this talk page. Tomer ^TALK 02:19, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)