Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Islam and antisemitism

Forgive me for involving myself, but I find it ridiculous that these issues even need to be mediated. The only questionable listing is number 5, and I would probably say no' to that one. What good reason is there not to include such information? I'm afraid that it seems the only possibility is that someone simply doesn't like what's being said. These things occurred, and they deserve to be covered as much as any other historical even which remains on Wikipedia. Please, this whole thing is a waste of time. The 5th issue is the only one anyone should bother discussing (or mediating, in this case).--C.Logan 04:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably the phraising of the issues is what gave you that idea. I made some corrections to better represent the issues.--Sefringle^Talk 05:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You're correct. I'm already on one side of a few of these. However, issue 4 would certainly need to be shown some elaboration, because as it stands, it makes a curious contradiction to the article's subject matter.--C.Logan 06:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Issues to mediate

According to Sefringle, the issues listed on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islam and antisemitism are under dispute themselves.

To try and sort this out so we can begin, can both parties please note which of the issues they believe should be included in the scope of this mediation. This gives me a platform to work from in trying to resolve this dispute to a compromise solution.

So, could I have both of you write either "Agree" (meaning "yes, this should be covered in mediation proceedings") or "Disagree" (meaning "no, this shouldn't be covered in mediation proceedings") below each of the following. They're listed in the order they were listed on the main RfM page.

• What should be done with the section entitled "Judaism in Muslim theology"?
  • Bless sins: Agree. We should not only discuss the existence of this section, but also the content within it.Bless sins 21:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Sefringle: Agree. This is clearly under dispute--Sefringle^Talk 22:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Should material regarding the relationship between antisemitism and tolerance shown to Jews be included?
  • Bless sins: Agree. This is mainly the "Tolerance" section in the "Qur'an" section, and also a few sentences here and there.Bless sins 21:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Sefringle: Agree with modifications. The section is not about antisemitism; it is about Islamic tolerence toward Jews, which is not exactly relevant.--Sefringle^Talk 22:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Should material regarding the treatment of Jews by medieval Muslims (in relation to antisemitism) be included?
  • Bless sins: Agree. This is basically content in the section of "Antisemitism in pre-modern Islam".Bless sins 21:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Sefringle: Agree with modifications. Much of the material is not "in relation to antisemitism". So the issue of what is relevant or irrelevant is an issue here. Basicly, this is the same issue as the above issue.--Sefringle^Talk 22:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Should material regarding the history of Muslim antisemitism during modern times and its present status be included?
  • Bless sins: Agree. Bless sins 21:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Sefringle: Disagree. Not really under dispute, or at least I'm not completely sure what the dispute over this is.

• Should material regarding the future of antisemitism in the Muslim world be included?

• • Bless sins: Agree. This is the two sentences attributed to Professor Johannes J. G. Jansen.Bless sins 21:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Sefringle: Agree. Section doesn't belong; it is just repeated, irrelevant POV that attempts to predict the future.--Sefringle^Talk 22:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Should material that is irrelevant to the topic of antisemitism be included?
  • Bless sins: Agree. We have to discuss which material is relevant to the topic and which is not.Bless sins 21:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Sefringle: Agree. This is the main issue; what is relevant and what is not.--Sefringle^Talk 22:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• NPOV issues
  • Bless sins: Explain what exactly is under dispute.Bless sins 21:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Sefringle: Agree. Much of the additions are poorly sourced, and create POV disputes.

• Should opinions that create POV disputes be added to the lead?
  • Bless sins: Disagree. Actually we don't have a lead, nor have I tried to insert one recently. This may be an issue later on, but not right now.Bless sins 21:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Sefringle: Agree. Bless Sins has been trying to add one-sided opinions to the lead, which has created this dispute.--Sefringle^Talk 22:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

After this has been dealt with, I can start to help you with resolving the issues you both agree on (as mediation and its' participation is voluntary, issues where a party disagrees that it is actually an issue won't be mediated). Thanks. --Deskana (apples) 10:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Per your responses, it seems the following issues should be mediated.

• What should be done with the section entitled "Judaism in Muslim theology"?
• Should material regarding the relationship between antisemitism and tolerance shown to Jews be included?
• Should material regarding the treatment of Jews by medieval Muslims (in relation to antisemitism) be included?
• Should material regarding the future of antisemitism in the Muslim world be included?
• Should material that is irrelevant to the topic of antisemitism be included?
• NPOV issues

I would like to invite you to both make a brief statement on what you think about the issues above. Please only comment on the issue and what you think of it. Please do not comment on what you believe other editors think at this stage, nor comment on the editors themselves. This can be used so I can clearly see where you two disagree, and where you both stand on the issues, so that I can help you better. --Deskana (apples) 13:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Bless sins

• What should be done with the section entitled "Judaism in Muslim theology"?

• I think it should be kept. I have said numerous times, that I'm willing to modify it's title and content in accordance with some compromise. I believe it is scholarly and relevant to the topic of antisemitism. The section is sourced to nine scholars, not including it is a violation of NPOV.Bless sins 15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Should material regarding the relationship between antisemitism and tolerance shown to Jews be included?

• Yes. Again this section is sourced to reliable sources, all of which discuss it in the context of antisemitism. I can't see why we shouldn't include this.Bless sins 15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Should material regarding the treatment of Jews by medieval Muslims (in relation to antisemitism) be included?

• Yes. All of this content is sourced to reliable sources, which discuss these issues in the context of antisemitism.Bless sins 15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Should material regarding the future of antisemitism in the Muslim world be included?

• Yes. It is sourced to a reliable source, and does not violate WP:NOT#CBALL. It is clearly relevant to the topic of antisemitism.Bless sins

• Should material that is irrelevant to the topic of antisemitism be included?

• Of course not. I think we shoudl come up with a sensible guideline to decide what is relevant and what is not. Then, we should apply it equally to all content.Bless sins 15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• NPOV issues

• I don't know what exactly is meant by this. If it means whether I want to make this article more "NPOV", then I agree.Bless sins 15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Sefringle

• What should be done with the section entitled "Judaism in Muslim theology"?

• I think the section should be removed. It adds nothing but irrelevant material, has major WP:SYNTH issues, and is very POV and one sided. Not to mention, it is just a selective repeat of what has already been mentioned in the article to push a certian POV.--Sefringle^Talk 02:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Should material regarding the relationship between antisemitism and tolerance shown to Jews be included?

• Partially. The material specificly related should be. However most of the material that Bless Sins claims is related to the topic of antisemitism and tolerence is not related to antisemitism and tolerence at all. It is general comments about occurances when some muslims were tolerent to jews, that has nothing to do with antisemitism.--Sefringle^Talk 02:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Should material regarding the treatment of Jews by medieval Muslims (in relation to antisemitism) be included?

• yes. But again, the issue is whether it really is "in relation to antisemitism"

• Should material regarding the future of antisemitism in the Muslim world be included?

• Absolutely not. It is just an attempt to predict the future, and add a one sided POV to the article, and thus dilute the actual facts presented by the statistics. This is nothing more then a guess. They are not actual events. They are broad theories and guesses as to what might happen, and they weaken the value of the article as a whole.--Sefringle^Talk 02:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Should material that is irrelevant to the topic of antisemitism be included?

• Absolutely not. This is the main issue, as Bless Sins is insisting that irrelevant material is actually relevant.--Sefringle^Talk 02:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• NPOV issues

• As I already stated, the material Bless Sins is trying to add is pretty one sided in terms of POV, and is meant to dilute the relevant information presented in a neutral manner with irrelevant material unrelated to the topic of antisemitism. Some of the relevant material could be stated in a more neutral manner by stating only the facts and not the opinions, but Bless Sins objects to that.--Sefringle^Talk 02:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Issue one: "Judaism in Muslim theology"

Okay, lets start with issue one. I'm no expert in Islam, so I'm finding it difficult to understand exactly what Sefringle finds POV about it, and I can't see any reptition. Sefringle, can you please explain to me what you believe is POV about it, and where you believe it is repetitive? --Deskana (apples) 00:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I will start with how it is repetitive. The points presented there which are scholarly and relevant belong in the section entitled "Antisemitism in the context of Islam." Muslim theology is nothing more than fancy terminology for Islam (based on the definition of theology [1]). Judaism in muslim theology is basically Judaism in the context of Islam, so thus they are the same topic + irrelevant info, as all material about how Islam views Jews is not relevant to antisemitism. Secondly, opinions expressed in this section were expressed in other sections, like the tolerance section.

It is POV for two reasons. One, the wording clearly pushes a certain POV. While all statements are attributed to people, they are given special headings like "Judaism in Muslim theology," which asserts that these opinions are truer than other opinions presented within the article. Secondly, it is only selective cherry picking of the scholars views presented elsewhere, meant to prove the point that there is nothing within Islam that can be considered antisemitic. Originally the compromise I tried was to push all the relevant material into the tolerance section, to which Bless Sins objected. The problem is half the material has nothing to do with antisemitism; it only mentions certain selective examples of praise toward Jews in the qur'an, with no explanation of relevance. The second way it is POV, is it begins with the statement "Bernard Lewis writes that there is nothing in Muslim theology (with a single exception) that can be considered refutations of Judaism or ferocious anti-Jewish diatribe." Thus, it poisons the well by asserting that this is the most important opinion in muslim theology. The next sentence begins with "Scholars on Islam" which is excessive praise, asserting this opinion is more important than other opinions presented. The rest of the sentence reads, "(Lewis[15] and Jerome Chanes[16]) suggest that Muslims were not antisemitic for the most part due to the Qur’an and it's perception of God." Thus it is another example of asserting this one-sided opinion is truer than other opinions presented in the article. Not to mention it is conveniently placed before the "Attacks on Jews" section, as if to state that the opinions represented there have less value, and then the exact same one-sided opinions are repeated again in the tolerance section. Not to mention that statements 1 and 2 basically state the same thing, yet this opinion is reiterated again one sentence later.--Sefringle^Talk 01:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Islamic theology is called Kalam. It, for example, differs from Fiqh. Of course all these are part of Islam. The relation of Islam and Judaism in terms of regulations and legislations is discussed in Fiqh, while the relation of Islam and Judaism in theological sense is discussed in Kalam. These are not the same. It is also not true that any of them is equal to the whole Islam, so "Judaism in muslim theology is basically Judaism in the context of Islam" is not correct. It is like saying "all science is physics".

Maybe it would be most accurate and clear to have two sections, on titled "Judaism in Islamic theology" and the other "Judaism in Islamic jurisprudence".--Aminz 02:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the comment "all material about how Islam views Jews is not relevant to antisemitism" sums up the heart of this dispute. Antisemitism is all about how people view Jews, and the article is called "Islam and antisemitism," which means that how the Islamic faith and its adherents view Jews is the subject of that article. Therefore that material seems quite relevant to me (though whether it's notable is an entirely different question.) Sefringle's side in this dispute thinks that the article should only be about examples of Islam showing antisemitism (see above where he stated "Islamic tolerence [sic.] toward Jews" is "not exactly relevant,") while Bless sins' side thinks the article should discuss the complete history of Islam and antisemitism, including examples of high and low levels of antisemitism. To be clear, I'm in the latter camp, as I think the article loses NPOV if only the antisemitic portions of Islamic history are represented in the article. I think we need to first clearly define what is on-topic and what is off-topic for the article (per issue #6 above) before any other progress will be made. -- HiEv 15:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I think that the problem Sefringle expressed above was how the information was arranged. Both sides are required, regardless of whether the article deals with "tolerance" or "antisemitism", but I believe his concern is warranted for the placement of certain information. Relevant examples and information regarding tolerance should have its own section, and likewise concerning examples and thoughts on intolerance. Beginning sections concerning examples of antisemitism with defensive quotations is POV-pushing, as far as I'm concerned- the earliest readings provide the foundation for the rest of the section. If we are presenting a positive view of the situation in the initial sentence of a section concerning negative actions, we are undermining the topic itself; this is an apologetic action, and therefore the introduction to the section should focus on the negative side, or at least open with quotations or facts concerning both extremes. Just my two cents.--C.Logan 18:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle has pointed out a number of issues on 01:13, 29 August 2007.

• Content
  • Relevance: Sefringle believes half the material has nothing to do with antisemitism.
  • Response: Before I can respond to that, I need to know which half is relevant, and which half isn't. Sefringle please copy and paste the content on to this page appropriately.
  • Neutrality: Sefringle believes the content is one-sided.
  • Response: Sefringle, if an alternate opinion exists, then feel free to insert it. I have never stopped you from doing that. Make sure the alternate opinion is both relevant and reliable.
• Nature of the section
  • Theology: Sefringle believes Muslim theology is fancy terminology for Islam.
  • Response: Theology is a specialized study in many religions. For example, Durham university distinguishes "Biblical studies" from "Christian theology".[2] Similarly, Islam has many fields of study: Tafsir, Sira, Kalam, Fiqh etc. All of these fields are deeply interconnected, but unique in their own way. Thus theology is quite unique and different from tolerance/pluralism.
  • Title: Sefringle believes that this section should be titled differently.
  • Response: I am very flexible with the title, and willing to change it if a reasonable compromise is proposed. What I'm opposed to is merging it with another one whose content is different form this one.
• Order: There is a dispute regarding the order of content in this article.
• Response: First thing everyone needs to realize is that every section has to begin with a sentence, and that sentence is going to be sourced to someone.The question is whose/what opinion should the section begin with. I propose general guidelines for the order:
  • Content should follow a chronological order (earliest to latest) when the timing is evident.
  • A section should start off with general statements summarizing arguments before going into specific details.
  • Undisputed statements should be placed relatively higher than disputed ones. This is because they represent factual content.

So what do you guys think?Bless sins 23:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Bless sins, this is an extremely helpful contribution to the mediation. Sefringle, I eagerly await your response to this. --Deskana (apples) 23:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• content

The irrelevant half is the part that reads:

Schwietzer and Perry argue that the Quran ([Qur'an 4:157]) clears Jews from the accusation deicide, and states "they [Jews] killed him [Jesus] not". They also argue that the Jewish Bible has not been incorporated in the Islamic text, and "virtuous Muslims" are not contrasted with "stiff-necked, criminal Jews".[7]

Khaleel Mohammed, associate professor of religion, asserts that the Quran respects Judaism. He claims that the Quran refers to the Torah as a book of light, ([Qur'an 5:44]) and tells the Jews that they are entitled to the kingdom of heaven.[21][22]

According to Stillman, the Quran praises Moses, and depicts the Israelites as the recipients of divine favour.[11] The Quran dedicates many verses to the glorification of Hebrew prophets, says Leon Poliakov.[23] He quotes verse [Qur'an 6:85] as an example,

We gave him Isaac and Jacob: all (three) guided: and before him, We guided Noah, and among his progeny, David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron: thus do We reward those who do good: And Zakariya and John, and Jesus and Elias: all in the ranks of the righteous: And Isma'il and Elisha, and Jonas, and Lot: and to all We gave favour above the nations.

It is irrelevant as it mentions no mention of antisemitism, and does not prove anything related to antisemitism. It is just a couple of examples of selective praise of the quran, and certianly isn't neutral.

if an alternate opinion exists, then feel free to insert it. I have never stopped you from doing that This info is not an alternative opinion. It is selective POV forking from other parts of the article to make this POV sound more important than the other POVs presented in the article. It belongs in the tolerence section, where it was originally, before you copied that section and moved it here, adding several weasel words, a fancy title to make it sound like this is the only correct view, while other theories are somehow fringe theories, which they are not, among other things, to give excessive praise to people presenting the opinions you agree with.

• Nature of the section

Your first response was a misinterpritation of what I said. But it seems you are finally getting the point on this issue.

What I'm opposed to is merging it with another one whose content is different form this one. Apparently not. The tolerence section presented the exact same info. The section should have the heading "tolerance for Jews." That is what the topic is. The relevant content is just a repeat of what was presented in that section.

• order

Agree with points 1 and 3. I partially agree with 2. A section should start off with general statements summarizing arguments presented in a neutral manner, before going into specific details. I don't know what you are refering to with this, but lets go one issue at a time.--Sefringle^Talk 01:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The charge of deicide (i.e. that the Jews were murderers of Christ) has arguably been the most important motive for anti-Semitism.

I also think to say that "Qur'an clears Jews from the accusation deicide" is an opinion. It is best to state the fact: i.e. that according to the traditional reading of the Qur'an, the Jews did not succeed in killing Jesus thus the Jews were not accused of the charge of deicide. --Aminz 03:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The qur'an rejects the standard theory that Jesus died. They werent "accused" of the murder of Jesus, because according to Islam, he never died, and if he never died, he never could have been murdered. Common sense. Not sure how that is relevant. I think it was just added to put extra enthesis on every minor instance in which Jews were not mistreated by muslim. Anyway, if it must be included, Aminz's replacement version is the better solution.--Sefringle^Talk 03:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course this is relevant [3].--Aminz 04:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This link does verify another one of my points, and that is that Lewis does not say something along the lines of, "Scholars on Islam (Lewis[17] and Jerome Chanes[18]) suggest that Muslims were not antisemitic for the most part due to the Quran and it's perception of God" P. 118 is not avaliable to further verify this, but p. 117 doesn't say that. The only thing it says is Arabs for the most part weren't antisemitic in the way the word has been used in the west, because they weren't Christians and didn't grow up with stories of deicide. Thus the WP:SYNTH problem occurs again. In a way this is relevant, in a way it isn't. It is relevant in that it describes the difference between western and islamic antisemitism, but is irrelevant in the form Bless Sins had it written, with just some random mention of deicide with no explanation as to the relevance.--Sefringle^Talk 04:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is page 118 [4].

This page continues mentioning other reasons. Lewis's statement "the very notion of deicide is rejected by the Qur'an as a blasphemous absurdity" refers to "Qur'an's perception of God" (i.e. a deity can not be killed).

I do think "antisemitic in the way the word has been used in the west" quite matters because most of the scholarly literature are written in west. Some have tried to depart from the common understanding of the term "anti-semitism" by dubbing the term "Islamic antisemitism" which is not a specific type of what was previously defined as antisemitism (as one expect), but rather has a definition that stands in contrast with what was previously defined as antisemitism (now called "western antisemitism").

I think the facts matter and not the terms we use to call them. For example, if someone calls any kind of persecution against Jews as "antisemitism", then we are to relate the facts about persecution of Jews and its extent. In order to do that, we should carefully write about the extent of persecutions. I think we should give a fair account of the persecution by mentioning the existence, or lack of existence of persecution(i.e. toleration) in different pages of the history. --Aminz 05:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have protected the page. It seems everyone involved was edit warring there instead of working constructively here. Hopefully we can work more constructively. --Deskana (talky) 23:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In order to not confuse others, I will only respond to Sefringle's comments about relevance. First for the good news: Sefringle and I both agree that some content in the section is relevent. Let me just list this content, since this content was not listed by Sefringle as the "irrelevant half".

Bernard Lewis writes that there is nothing in Muslim theology (with a single exception) that can be considered refutations of Judaism or ferocious anti-Jewish diatribes.[16] Scholars on Islam (Lewis[17] and Jerome Chanes[18]) suggest that Muslims were not antisemitic for the most part due to the Quran and it's perception of God. They argue that the Qur'an: 1. orders Muslims to profess strict monotheism, as does Judaism; 2. views the stories of Jewish deicide as a blasphemous absurdity, and other similar stories in the gospels are not part of the educational system in Muslim society; 3. did not present itself as a fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible but rather a restorer of its original messages that had been distorted over time - thus no clash of interpretations between Judaism and Islam could arise, and, 4. views Muhammad as fully human, not a Son of God or Messiah, a claim less offensive to Jews. In addition Lewis argues that the Quran lacks popular western traditions of "guilt and betrayal". [19] Rosenblatt and Pinson suggest that the Quran teaches the toleration of Judaism as a fellow monotheistic faith.[20]

Now for the part we disagree.

• Schwietzer and Perry: The two authors' Anti-Semitism: myth and hate from antiquity to the present has been used several times in the article. Furthermore, as Aminz stated, both of them have also stated (in the same book, page 18) that the accusation of deicide is the ultimate source of "all antisemitic persecution and discrimination". Thus the charge of deicide (or the lack of it) appears to be very relevant. Sefringle, have you read the passage quoted, and found it to be irrelevant?
• Khaleel Mohammed: Again, the source is clearly about antisemitism. Khaleel Mohammed's statement "Qur’an refers to the Torah as a book of light" and remarks about the transformation of Jews into apes and pigs are both in response to the same question. Furthermore, the original question to all of them was "Does Islam’s holy book promote anti-Semitism?". It seems pretty clear that his response is relevant to the topic of antisemitism.
• Norman Stillman: If my memory serves me then his statements appeared under the "Islam" entry in what seemed to be an encyclopedia (on antisemitism, as the title suggests). Have you read the source, and found something that didn't quite connect?
• Leon Poliakov: Poliakov makes this statement in a voluminous book about antisemitism. Apparently his argument is along the same lines as K. Mohammed's (which is why I lumped them together) - that the Qur'an is not a source of antisemitism as it shows respect for Jewish ancestors. Do you think it is irrelevant because its relevance is poorly explained, or that you have read this text and found it to be irrelevant.?

Bless sins 23:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• "that the accusation of deicide is the ultimate source of "all antisemitic persecution and discrimination" No, they don't say that. Decide is the source of Christian antisemitism, not all antisemitism. Either way, there is a neutral way to state this stuff and there is a way to phraise it as propaganda; you chose the propaganda route.
• Khaleel Mohammed's statement "Qur’an refers to the Torah as a book of light" Does not necessarily mean that the qur'an is not antisemitic (in fact it is quite irrelevant). The apes and pigs part is a response to charges of antisemitism but the book of light comment is not, and thus is not relevant. This is an article, not a debate, and every word mentioned doesn't necessarily belong.
• Norman Stillman Not everything in a book with antisemitism in its title is related to antisemitism. There is plenty of background, additional explanations, unrelated views, etc. and material not necessarily relevant. This really isn't a good arguement for relevance.
• Poliakov Again you use the book arguement. Not everything in the book is relevant to the topic of antisemitism; much of the book is on the history of the Jews, history of tolerence, etc. Not all relevant. And your claim on arguement that the quran is not antisemitic is all based on WP:SYNTH assertions, like much of your additions.

As an addition, I doubt arguing this out will reach consensus; it may be best if someone suggests a compromise.--Sefringle^Talk 02:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am no expert on Islam, so I feel unable to offer a compromise, here. Perhaps one of you two should attempt to write a compromise. That'd be wonderful. --Deskana (talky) 10:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, this article is not supposed to "prove" that Islam is antisemitic. It is supposed to write "about" Islam and antisemitism, existence or lack of it. It seems to me that you are using a fixed definition of antisemitism to filter out what you think is irrelevant. But there are various definitions of antisemitism.

Please assume that a new editor uses Claude Cahen's definition of antisemitism according to which "there had been scarcely any difference in the treatment accorded to Christians and Jews (at most they were distinguished by prescribed differences in dress); but it later came about that some categories of d̲h̲immīs were looked on as friends of foreign powers and were worse treated, and naturally some Christians were in this respect more of a target than the Jews. There is nothing in medieval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism."

According to this editor this article should be almost empty because everything else is irrelevant.

I think fixing a certain definition of antisemitism and filtering information based on that violates WP:NPOV policy. Rather, if some statement is relevant to one of the widely used definitions of antisemitism, we should keep it. --Aminz 05:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

<reset>

• Accusation of deicide: Had you read the book before you said "they don't say that". But let's assume that the argument is only in relation to Christianity. Isn't it significant that in Islam, the "ultimate source" of centuries of persecution and prejudice is absent?
• Khaleel Mohammed: He makes the statement about Torah and that about the transformation into apes and pigs in response to the same question. Furthermore, he uses the Torah being book of light as evidence to back up his claim that Islam respects Judaism. Respect is certainly relevant in an article that explores aspects of prejudice and hatred.
• Norman Stillman: Sefringle, why would a scholar write about irrelevant stuff in his book? What sort of a fool do you take him to be? It is true that he would write some background info, but only if it helps the reader understand the topic better. But in that case it is a good idea if we include that background info.

Finally, can you cite the relevant wiki policy that prohibits my "irrelevant" edits? I'm not going to follow your rules, but wikipedia's.

• Poliakov: See above for "irrelevancy" argument. You allege me of WP:SYNTH, that I'm combining two or more sources to make a point. Can you point to any one of my sources that can't stand alone?Bless sins 06:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Isn't it significant that in Islam, the "ultimate source" of centuries of persecution and prejudice is absent? No. This is another one of your WP:OR points to try to push some POV. Just because decide accusations wasn't possible doesn't mean muslims were not antisemitic. That is pure WP:SYNTH.
• Respect is certainly relevant in an article that explores aspects of prejudice and hatred. No, it isn't. It is irrelevant, and doesn't have anything to do with antisemitism. It isn't a refutation, it isn't a counter example, it is just random praise. Anyone can respect someone and still hate them. Likewise, anyone can have a Jewish friend and still be an antisemite. The qur'an calls the torah a book of light, then claims it is corrupted by the Jews, and calls Jews names like apes and pigs. No relevance is clear from the book of light statement.
• why would a scholar write about irrelevant stuff in his book? What sort of a fool do you take him to be? To answer this question, I will point out that title does not mean subject. I can't tell you how many books I have read where the title is only the subject of maybe one small percentage of the book. Besides, what you have stated is just wrong. You said the disputed content was sourced to the following: ::Stillman, Norman (2005). Antisemitism: A historical encyclopedia of prejudice and persecution. Volume 1. Pages 356-61

The book you have sourced to Stillman wasn't even written by Stillman. So thus you've incorperated another one of your made up misinterpritations from a source that doesn't exist. [5] Stillman didsn't even write a book called Antisemitism: A historical encyclopedia of prejudice and persecution. OK, I'll site a polivy that says the stillman stuff should be removed: WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. It isn't verifiable that he said something in a book he wrote, when he never actually wrote the book.

• I asked you many times to show me the exact quote where Poliakov states that the qur'an isn't antisemitic, which you refused to do (probably because he never said it). I'll make it a little easier for you: [6] here is the first page you sourced it to (p.27- which never mentions muslims), and here is the second page you have the content sourced to [7] (p.41-43). Notice there is no mention of muslims or the qur'an here either. Thus, you are making up sources for content you wished the scholars said, that they never said. I'm beginning to wonder if you actually read the sources, or if you were making them up hoping nobody else would be able to check.

--Sefringle^Talk 07:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, I would like to first address five lines of your arguments, i.e. The book you have sourced to Stillman wasn't even written by Stillman. So thus you've incorperated another one of your made up misinterpritations from a source that doesn't exist. Stillman didsn't even write a book called "Antisemitism: A historical encyclopedia of prejudice and persecution." OK, I'll site a polivy that says the stillman stuff should be removed: WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. It isn't verifiable that he said something in a book he wrote, when he never actually wrote the book.

Norman Stillman is indeed one of the authors of "Antisemitism A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution": see [8]

So, your statement that "So thus you've incorperated another one of your made up misinterpritations from a source that doesn't exist" is a false charge. Stillman has written pages 356-61 of the book and Bless sins didn't claim anything more. --Aminz 09:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, my mistake there. I apologise for that one; still, I doubt it actually says what bless sins claims it says, based on some of Bless sins other misinterpritations.--Sefringle^Talk 18:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for striking that. I think we can achieve a compromise with a bit more assumptions of good faith by all of us. --Aminz 23:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Accusation of deicide. How is this WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? Please explain.
• Khaleel Mohammad. This is how the interview goes:
  • Host:Does Islam’s holy book promote anti-Semitism? To discuss this issue with us today, Frontpage Symposium has assembled a distinguished panel: Prof. Khaleel Mohammed (and Bat Ye'or and Robert Spencer). Prof. Khaleel Mohammed, you are on the record for maintaining that the Qur'an respects the Jews.
• Thus it is quite clear that "the Qur'an respects the Jews" is Khaleel Mohammed's answer to the question "Does Islam’s holy book promote anti-Semitism". Finally your argument that "Anyone can respect someone and still hate them" is nonsensical. Why would the Qur'an give the Kingdom of Heaven to the Jews if it hates them?
• Norman Stillman: Title does mean subject (atleast in academic and scholarly nonfiction)! I don't care if you have read pointless books. This is pretty much a known fact. The entire content of the book (with exceptions like preface) revolves around the subject discussed in the title. Besides you haven't correctly cited any policy yet.
• Sefringle keep your false accusations against me to a minimum. To start with you are looking at the wrong book! I cited the one published in 1974, you are citing the one published in 2003 (please read the date). This was your mistake. But I also made a mistake by not specifying the volume. I looked at volume II, but you are looking at volume I. Here is Volume II (note that even this was published in 2003 and not 1974).Bless sins 01:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• How is this WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? Please explain. Did you even read what I wrote? Or are you ignoring it and repeating yourself because you have no response and wish to prolong this discussion?
• Thus it is quite clear that "the Qur'an respects the Jews" is Khaleel Mohammed's answer to the question "Does Islam’s holy book promote anti-Semitism". Respond to what I actually wrote please. Finally your argument that "Anyone can respect someone and still hate them" is nonsensical. Oh really, there have been thousands of examples to the contrary, just look Saladin and Richard I of England, who clearly respected each other, yet it would be improper to say they liked each other. Why would the Qur'an give the Kingdom of Heaven to the Jews if it hates them? I'm not going to debate the qur'an with you. Wikipedia is not a forum.
• Title does mean subject (atleast in academic and scholarly nonfiction)! According to what dictionary? According to who? Respond to this. The entire content of the book (with exceptions like preface) revolves around the subject discussed in the title. all speculation based on no facts. You must be desprate, since you are not backing up your claims with facts. Unless you can explain the relevance based on what Stillman writes, it is not relevant, and has WP:SYNTH problems (there, now you have a policy which calls for its removial). But since I doubt you actually read the sources, I doubt you will be able to do this. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume good faith and assume if you to provide the exact paragraph where he explains this and the relevance, that you won't lie to me.
• Sefringle keep your false accusations against me to a minimum. To start with you are looking at the wrong book! I cited the one published in 1974, you are citing the one published in 2003 (please read the date). Same title; just a later date- reguardless, you are avoiding the actual request, which is to provide the exact quote with the surrounding paragraph, to provide some context. It seems strange that you would use the outdated version, when the newer version is probably more accurate and more readily avaliable. It is nice you showed us the reviews, which prove that not everything is relevant; that a large percentage of the information is actually background, according to the reviews, which may not actually be relevant to antisemitism alone. I would like to know why you are looking for every excuse not to provide the exact quotes.

--Sefringle^Talk 02:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• WP:OR and WP:SYNTH violations: Please take the time to quote the parts of the two policies which you believe I'm violating. And also quote the part of text that you believes violates these policies.
• Can you please not use the phrases "what I wrote". Simply copy and paste your argument, as this is much clearer. Saladin and Richard didn't like each other when they were fighting. Besides "not liking" is not the same as "hating". Antisemitism is about hating Jews, if some one doesn't like them that's not antisemitism. You're right that we should not be debating the Qur'an (or Saladin for that matter). We should include Khaleel Mohammad's statements because he is a reliable scholar commenting on antisemitism in the Qur'an.
  • But please give your thoughts on the following: "It is quite clear that 'the Qur'an respects the Jews' is Khaleel Mohammed's answer to the question 'Does Islam’s holy book promote anti-Semitism.'"
• Sefringle, that a title mandates the topic/subject of the book is common sense. If you disagree, then I shall dispute the content in the section called "Attacks on Jews" as well. Infact, it will throw the article into upheaval. BTW, I am curious to see what is your proposal as to the criteria used to determine if some comments are relavent to antisemitism or not. Let's see you some up with a more practical and accurate one than what I've proposed.
• The reason I'm unable to give you the quotations is because I don't own the book. I need to borrow it from the library. I would like to know why you are so hesitant in checking the book out for yourself?Bless sins 19:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Bullet Point 1 WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are the same policy. But WP:SYNTH states "Editors often 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 advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

Your arguement for inclusion read: "Had you read the book before you said "they don't say that". But let's assume that the argument is only in relation to Christianity. Isn't it significant that in Islam, the "ultimate source" of centuries of persecution and prejudice is absent?" That is position C, which you are using to include the text that reads: "Scholars on Islam (Lewis[17] and Jerome Chanes[18]) suggest that Muslims were not antisemitic for the most part due to the Quran and it's perception of God", and you base it off four points which may or may not have been made by the authors: "1.orders Muslims to profess strict monotheism, as does Judaism; 2.views the stories of Jewish deicide as a blasphemous absurdity, and other similar stories in the gospels are not part of the educational system in Muslim society; 3.did not present itself as a fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible but rather a restorer of its original messages that had been distorted over time - thus no clash of interpretations between Judaism and Islam could arise, and, 4.views Muhammad as fully human, not a Son of God or Messiah, a claim less offensive to Jews. "

These four points are statements A and B, and alone, they do not establish relevance. The statement that does establish relevance is the one above that I said was point C, which is original research because none of the scholars actually say that. Thus it is WP:SYNTH.

Bullet Point 2 My original statement was No, it isn't. It is irrelevant, and doesn't have anything to do with antisemitism. It isn't a refutation, it isn't a counter example, it is just random praise. Anyone can respect someone and still hate them. Likewise, anyone can have a Jewish friend and still be an antisemite. The qur'an calls the torah a book of light, then claims it is corrupted by the Jews, and calls Jews names like apes and pigs. No relevance is clear from the book of light statement.

Bullet point 3 Yes, that is his answer, but as Spencer pointed out in the rebuddle, which you conveinently censored out, because you don't like Spencer or think he is scholarly enough for you to include, even though his opinion is mentioned in the same source, that is irrelevant, and doesn't answer any of the points addressed by the opposition.

Bullet point 4 is common sense according to what dictionary? Show me one notable reliable english dictionary definition that says subject=title. I already said this. What criteria? I use the definition of antisemitism presented in the antisemitism article, which is discrimination against jews to determine relevance. If it is related to discrimination against jews, it is relevant, if not, it is not relevant.

Bullet point 5 Not every library has every book ever published. --Sefringle^Talk 23:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Number 1. Sefringle, don't back on your word, else this mediation will never end. When I asked you to point out which parts of the section you believed were irrelevant, you copied and pasted it in your edit on 01:44, 30 August 2007. Then, on my edit on 23:36, 1 September 2007, I confirmed the parts on which we agreed there was no dispute.

If you see, Lewis and Chanes statements are part of the part which we agreed upon. Schwietzer and Perry's arguments are the parts we disagreed upon. Please don't drag Lewis and Chanes in here, as we have already agreed upon that. We have made some progress (albeit very little) and we need to keep that progress.

With regards to your argument on Schwietzer and Perry, I only see one source, therefore it can't be WP:SYNTH, since to violate WP:SYNTH I require multiple sources.

Number 2 My response to your statement is: it is relevant because it Mohammed's statement is answer to the question "Does Islam’s holy book promote anti-Semitism?". In case you haven't noticed, the word used is "anti-Semitism". It is clear that anti-Semitism is relevant to antisemitism.

Number 3Khaleel Mohammed is the professor of Religion at San Diego State University, and therefore a reliable source. Robert Spencer isn't a reliable source. In wikipedia, we include reliable sources, but exclude unreliable sources. It's as simple as that.

Number 4 I will put this before the mediator. But you only present half the story: According to antisemitism, it is the "discrimination, hostility or prejudice directed at Jews", not only discrimination.

But if we consider this to be the criteria, then Qur'an criticism of Jews for "not accepting Muhammad as a prophet" isn't discrimination at all. The Qur'an/Islam criticizes anyone (not just Jews) who didn't accept Muhammad as a prophet.

Number 5 Tell me about it. I still can't find Poliakov's book. I don't blame you for lack of access to libraries. But considering your lack of access, you should be sympathetic towards me (who is also having trouble finding the book).Bless sins 17:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Request from the Mediator

Hi Deskana,

I think we have reached a point where the discussion in current form does not progress (e.g. we have comments like :"are you ignoring it and repeating yourself because you have no response and wish to prolong this discussion").

Would you please read this one page [9], and help us regarding say the question of whether the "lack of Accusation of deicide" point should be mentioned in the article or not. --Aminz 23:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not appropriate for me to express my opinions on the matter, nor to tell you whether the text should be included or not. Mediation is about helping you to reach a consensus, so me commenting may seem like some official decree which everyone is expected to follow. Given the lack of activity, I would like to know whether the parties are still interested in the mediation? --Deskana (talky) 10:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I am still interested, but the mediation seems to go back and forth. I'll continue, but I think you should definitely intervene at some and offer your opinion on the issues.Bless sins 19:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the mediation needs to continue, but I too think someone needs to push the discussion at least toward some kind of compromise; I don't think continuing the discussion we are currently having will result in a consensus. Sefringle^Talk 22:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is something that the mediator should decide: What should the criteria be to consider something as relevant to antisemitism?

Bless_sins' proposal: Any statement which satisfies both the following:

• It is made in the context of antisemitism. This includes statements in books/chapters titled "History of antisemitism"; arguments that support a particular view about antisemitism (e.g. "antisemitic persecutions began because of..."); answers to questions regarding antisemitism (e.g. "Is Islam antisemitic? The answer lies in ...")
• Statements in relation to Islam. This includes mainly the Quran, Muhammad, Islamic law, opinions of notable Islamic scholars, and actions/views of Muslim states and officials.

Sefringle's proposal: If it is related to discrimination against jews, it is relevant, if not, it is not relevant.<Sefringle please add more if you wish>

Can you please provide us with a suitable criteria of relevance. If such a thing can't be developed and agreed upon, then mediation can't proceed.Bless sins 17:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. This is pretty much a repeat of what I said back on August 29 here. In order to figure out what should or shouldn't go in the article, an agreement first needs to be made about what topics are or are not covered by the article. There appear to be two rather different opinions on this matter.

Oh, and FYI - Sefringle (talk · contribs · logs) trashed his old account and is now editing as Yahel Guhan (talk · contribs · logs) for some reason. -- HiEv 08:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Termination of mediation

All parties,

It has come to my attention that one or more parties have been reverting the article rather than attempting mediation. Several requests were made for me to decide whether or not sources merited inclusion. This is not the role of the mediator. As mediator, my role is to help you reach a compromise by encouraging mutual discussion, not by issuing proclamations on the appropriateness of subject matter (whether such proclamations are binding, or otherwise). Also, it seems that the discussions are somewhat circular on this page, and parties are not willing to compromise sufficiently to reach any sort of mutual ground. As such, I feel this mediation case has no real prospect of success and that alternative means of dispute resolution may be necessary.

Regards, Deskana (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

so what do you suppose are the "alternate means?" Outright discussion without any suggestion of a compromise probably won't resolve this dispute, and I have noticed on other mediations that compromises are sometimes proposed as a way of dispute resolution, something I haven't seen occur by anyone here. Yahel Guhan 01:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I fear that without Deskana's mediation, there will again be much disputes and edit warring - with no end in sight. Surely, wikipedia isn't supposed to work this way. There must be a way to resolve disputes (other than reverting). Before you terminate mediation, I request 1) that you reconsider and 2) that you point out the next steps we must take to resolve these disputes.Bless sins 03:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)