Talk:Antisemitism/Abuse

This page is an archive of discussions originally held at Talk:Anti-Semitism between February 7, 2004 and February 9, 2004. Please do not edit or modify this archived text.

Untitled discussion

An anonymous user (or users) repeatedly removed the folloing piece:

== Abusing the term Anti-Semitism ==

A notable example is discussed in Section #Disputes over modern manifestations of anti-Semitism.

In parallel with the development of the organisation fighting the anti-Semitism, there is growing menace that the blame will be used to eliminate political oponents. There is quite a long history of abuse of anti-Semitism as the blame that could be used out of political motifs. One of the examples, Soviet Union committees existed to fight an anti-Semitism, but were often used to destroy political opponents. Other example, political asasination of the emigration leader of Ukrainian Peoples Republic, Symon Petlura, that was murdered in 1925 by the agent of Soviet intelligence of Jewish nationality. The Soviet spy defend himself in face of court using alleged anti-Semitism of the victim as an excuse.

Another kind of abuse is putting label of "anti-Semitism" onto the whole nations as their inherent nature.

*22:08, 5 Feb 2004 . . 217.132.235.15 (Removed Soviet-era propaganda)

*02:38, 6 Feb 2004 . . Mikkalai (Restored Soviet-era propaganda. Facts chek themselves out. If one wants, may rewrite.)

*20:44, 7 Feb 2004 . . 217.132.237.100 (Removing *AGAIN* Soviet-era propaganda. It is unfounded non-neutral opinion and prejudicial. )

* 01:31, 8 Feb 2004 . . Leflyman (Eliminated again -- badly written, sloppy thinking and continuously re-entered for some personal agenda.)

**Oh, yeah, and continuously deleted for some personal agenda. Talking about the roots of the anti-Semitism... Mikkalai 22:01, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

under a ridiculous pretext of "soviet-era propaganda". This says that the person doesn't know at he is talking about. He obviously didn't bother to check the facts.

As for "unfounded", the examples of its "foundednes" may be found in wikipedia itself right now: one editor boldly writes in a Talk: "Nationalism and anti-semitism can not be separated in east Slavic culture." What else if not abuse of term "antisemitism"?

As for Petlura, I don't care whether he was anti-semite or not. The fact is someone claimed that is OK to murder an *anti-semite* for this very reason, and the Jury looked at this favorably.

So let you welcome a newborn anti-anti-antiSemite (a person who fights against those who claim that the word "antiSemitism" cannot be abused). :-) Shall I put myself as a new wikipedia entry?

I am waiting for the third strike to report vandalism. Mikkalai 18:28, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

After a third thought it comes to my mind that every "loaded" term is invariably abused. So there is nothing special in the abuse of "anti-Semitism", and if this guy kills the section once more, I will refrain from duscussion. I guess my knee-jerk reaction was triggered by his nonchalant deletion with an idiotic excuse. Mikkalai 19:58, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Clarification: the excuse is idiotic because the paragraph is anti-Soviet. Mikkalai 20:01, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I removed the section because it had the following significant problems:

1. Badly written, including misspellings and poor grammar.
2. Lack of citation to actual present-day activity that indicate "Abusing the term Anti-Semitism"
   1. Listed as sole examples a 1920s murder case and some sort of "Soviet [anti-Semitism] committees." The Soviet Union hasn't existed for nearly 15 years!
3. Bigotry cloaked in unsubstantiated opinion:
   1. "...growing menace that the blame will be used to eliminate political opponents."
      1. What growing menace -- by whom?
      2. Who's political opponents? The Jews?
   2. "Another kind of abuse is putting label onto the whole nations..."
      1. Who has put "labels" onto which nations?
4. Containing prejudicial statements:
   1. "...committees existed to fight an [sic] anti-Semitism..."
      1. A committee composed of whom? The reader is supposed to infer from you that Jews formed a conspiracy to silence their supposed opposition.
   2. "...agent of Soviet intelligence of Jewish nationality"
      1. What is "Jewish nationality?" Claiming someone is a Jewish national is a bit like saying "alien Jew."
5. And worst of all, the fabrication of history:
   1. Additional research shows that Shlomo Schwartzbard, who shot Symon Petliura in 1926 in Paris was not (as claimed in the piece) a Soviet agent. He was in truth, an anarchist, and acquitted by a French jury because it was demonstrated that Schwarzbard believed Petliura was the instigator of massive pogroms and mass-murders of Jews during his administration.

He was not a Soviet agent?? Do you have any proof for that? Cautious 14:33, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In short, this is unfounded opinion, based on some personal agenda someone has with Jews during the Soviet era.

It's clear from your writing (particularly your discomfort with correct articles of grammar) that you're a former Soviet citizen with a admirable but hardly native grasp of English, and a fuzzy understanding of the difference between "opinion" and "fact." I further question your disregard for historical accuracy -- as per your claim that "facts chek [sic] themselves out" -- and whether you have the capacity to do the research necessary to present unbiased articles, rather than offering political or emotional diatribes, such as your reaction -below- indicates.

--LeFlyman 00:57, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Thank you. This is exactly how a deletion should be handled: with detailed explanation. Especially if you really know something. For your native grasp of English you should have known the difference between "correction" and "vandalism". Mikkalai 06:38, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• In this particular case the explanations are particulrly important because the guy who inserted the section didn't invent it himself. This theory about Petliura has considerable representation in the internet.
• The rest of your diatribe unfortunately shows you didn't always correctly undersand the written. For your information, the Soviet Union was declared in 1922. And the committees mentioned were not "anti-Semitism" ones, but fighting anti-Semitism. And they were shut down your "15 years" after 1920s. And the political opponents were not Jews. And the whole deleted paragraph shows that it were not Jews the author could possibly have the problem with. And the words "Jewish nationality" is not an insult. And overzealous keepers of Holocaust score sometimes go over the board. You asked who puts "labels". I'll leave the following quote for your homework.

Part of Rusyn Legacy is the Legacy of murder, hate, intolerance and anti-Semitism that allowed thousands, tens of thousands of Jew to be murdered daily. We can celebrate and honor those few who risked their lives to save their Jewish neighbors. However the Rusyns as a people...

You want some more? Mikkalai 07:24, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Learning to read for comprehension

The section was not added with a "detailed explanation" thus, it did not deserve one for removal. It was obvious to anyone with a sense of reason that it was inappropriate for the article. Vandalism, if you'd bothered to check, is the "willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property" (ala Webster's Unabridged) -- thus the inclusion of a false and derogatory item like that section was the true vandalism; removing it was not. If you can't tell the difference between the two, perhaps you should spend some more time with the subtleties of language.

I understood perfectly well the poorly-written anti-Jewish text; it's you who can't understand English. The sentence "The Soviet Union hasn't existed for nearly 15 years!" refers to the present -- as in, the Soviet Union does not exist now, nor has it existed for the last 13 years (yes, I rounded too high), since the fall of communism. You remember that, don't you -- when the coup against Gorbachev failed and all non-Russian Soviet republics declared independence in 1991? My comment points out that there was nothing contemporary in the entire section.

The writer said "committees to fighting an [sic] Anti-Semitism" -- you apparentally aren't up on the concept of bracketed ("[" and "]") information. It's clear that "fighting... anti-Semitism" would make them "anti-Semitism committees," however for the quotation, I bracketed the word -- which means that whatever is inside was added by editorial comment.

Yes, I mis-typed Who's political opponents? The word who's is the contracted form of who is, which apparently confused you. However (and obvious to an English reader) the sentence was intended as "Whose political opponents?" Mis-typing "who's" is a common English typo, on par with it's = its.

Of course the "political opponents" were not Jews. The author is implying that Jews on these supposed, unnamed and uncited committees silenced their political opponents through what he claimed was "abusing the term anti-Semitism." The section, itself, is anti-Semitic and your inability to get your head around why is astonishing. It must come from your Soviet background, Michael, which was colored by such propaganda.

Your text is clear abuse of Anti-Semitism label itself. Are you aware of that fact?? Cautious 14:33, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between fact and opinion? No, apparentally, you do not; nor do you know how to read for comprehension. If you did, you'd understand the paragraph below. Before posting nonsense emotive rhetoric, try to exercise your brain a bit. LeFlyman 15:45, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Personal onslaught doesn't fix the problem with your reasoning. If somebody is an Anti-Semit or not, depends on his opinions or actions. If you are assigning anti-Semitic label to somebody, after some word operation on his opinions, you probably have a problem. Cautious 16:35, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Stick to whichever native language you're comfortable in, because writing comprehesible English appears to be beyond your linguistic skills. See further note below LeFlyman 21:13, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Get onboard the cluetrain: The author claims that there is now a "growing menace" of Jews, in conspiratorial groups (either in an "organization fighting the [sic] Anti-Semitism" or "committees"), who attack those opposed to Jewish interests ("political opponents') and silenced them through intimidation. He further includes a false example of a 1920s-era assassination of a Ukrainian leader by a Jew, whom he refers to as an agent of Soviet intelligence/Soviet spy -- even though historians have refuted that and only Ukrainians have made that claim.

From such a claim, one can conclude that the section was created by a Ukrainian non-Jewish writer with a personal agenda against Jews.

Learn some logical reasoning skills, man! Spend some time with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes series, and perhaps you'll figure out how to make some proper inferences.

--LeFlyman 11:47, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

To Cautious:

Your attempt (re-presented below) to create a "neutral" version of the same section is admirable, but it is still non-factual opinion. Separate your own personal emotions in the matter, and realize that the material is inherently flawed. Your changes continue to have no basis in reality, nor have they improved the text in any way. In fact, you introduce new problems on top of the ones already there.

Develop your critical thinking skills. When attempting to write something with authority, you have to be able answer some basic questions -- The 5 Ws and an H: Who, What, When, Where, Why and How. In the case of your re-written section, one can ask:

• Who, specifically, "abused" the label of Anti-Semitism? (A single example does not constitute a trend or phenomenon)
• When did such alleged abuse happen?
• Which political opponents/groups have been so labeled?
• What were these supposed "state-controlled organisations?" (In the original text called "committees")
• Who composed these organisations?
• When did they exist?
• How did they abuse the label of anti-Semitism?
• What were the reprecussions of this alleged abuse?
• Why is the death of Symon Petlura referred to as a political assassination?
• Who has labeled which nations as being anti-Semitic as "their inherent nature?"
• What were the reasons for and effects of the supposed labeling?

And that's not even an all-inclusively list of unanswered questions. The process of creating an impression of "fact" where none exist, the insinuation of wrongful behavior (in this case, abuse of a term or label, and even murder) without evidence is rightly called propaganda

As Mikkalai realized (see above) any label 'can' be abused. The only purposes someone could have in creating such a specific section as "Abusing of the term Anti-Semitism" is:

1. Belief that the incidences of the particular form of bigotry called "Anti-Semitism" are overstated
2. Belief that Jewish people, in a concerted and organized way, use coercion or force ("labeling" or "abusing the term Anti-Semitism") as a means to silence opposition
3. Belief that Jewish people have used the cry of Anti-Semitism as a means to get away with murder (as the original text claimed.)

Now if you can't see why that, in and of itself, is a prejudiced way of thinking, then perhaps you should stick to writing in less difficult categories. LeFlyman 21:13, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(Your text below)

Abusing the term Anti-Semitism

A notable example is discussed in Section #Disputes over modern manifestations of anti-Semitism.

The label of anti-Semitism can be abused by labeling the political oponents or the groups.

Allegedly, it was abused in Soviet Union, when some state-controlled organisation were used to fight anti-Semitism.

The alleged anti-Semitism of the victim, can be also the ground for political assasination, i.e assasination of the emigration leader of Ukrainian Peoples Republic, Symon Petlura, who was murdered in 1926.

Another kind of abuse is putting label of "anti-Semitism" onto the whole nations as their inherent nature.

---

Cautious: Please learn to format text for readability -- its bad enough you have difficulty with your own English, but don't make my entries as incomprehensible as yours. Your responses have been consolidated below: (LeFlyman 22:29, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC))

• Who, specifically, "abused" the label of Anti-Semitism? (A single example does not constitute a trend or phenomenon)

I know one example: Soviets. Everybody who uses the term, against somebody, who is not Anti-Semite.Cautious 21:45, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• When did such alleged abuse happen?

In Soviet times. As far as I am concerned, it ca happen right now. Cautious 21:45, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Which political opponents/groups have been so labeled?

IN Soviet union, those groups that were not convinient for Soviets. There were recently series of good artciles in New Yotk Times, about Jews who served Stalin. Read it. Cautious 21:45, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• What were these supposed "state-controlled organisations?" (In the original text called "committees")

There is an entry about it.

• Who composed these organisations?

Jewish communists.

• When did they exist?

1920-1929. Later read NYT.

• How did they abuse the label of anti-Semitism?

By calling that name everybody who was not liked by Soviets.

• What were the reprecussions of this alleged abuse?
• Why is the death of Symon Petlura referred to as a political assassination?
• Who has labeled which nations as being anti-Semitic as "their inherent nature?"

Menachem Begin said, that Poles sucked Anti-Semitism with milk of mother, for example.

• What were the reasons for and effects of the supposed labeling?

If in the society the anti-Semites prevail, calling somebody a Jew has repercussions. If Anti-Semitism is condemned, calling somebody an Anti-Semite has the same effect.

Your way of reasoning seems logical, but the abuse of the term Anti-Semitism happens, despite your theretical proof, that should not. The statement, that anybody that sees abuse of the label Anti-Semitism is an Anti-Semite itself, is better for rhetoric then for factual truth. Try to verify your opinions with the practise or move to mathematics. There, pure reasoning, has the future. Cautious 21:54, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Thank you for agreeing with my original reason to remove the section because it was "Soviet-era propaganda" -- you have no contemporary examples outside of the "Soviet times." Nor do you have any factual bases or citation for any of your statements, saying that, "As far as I am concerned, it ca happen right now."

Answering the question "Who specifically abused the label" with, "Everybody who uses the term, against somebody, who is not Anti-Semite" is called "begging the question." With your every response, you demonstrate your inability to think. As the adage goes, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

LeFlyman 22:29, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

1. 1 I think that Anti-Defamation league is the best example of abuse of the term.
2. 2 Claiming Europeans Anti-Semites, because they perceive Israel a threat to world peace.
3. 3 Other example are easily available in the text. 145.254.118.240 23:26, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)