User talk:Doright/Archiveof/Category talk:Anti-Semitic people/Archive 3

Wow

This article is ridiculous, why even have it? It is the most childish and petty article that I beleive exists on Wikipedia, and furthermore it is shameful to even have any Anti- whatever categories. And there are still people who wonder why the whole world despises the Jews.

Libel

As I've mentioned before (and was evidently ignored) wikipedia runs the risk of being sued for libel and/or defamation by calling living people anti-Semites. (NOTE: I AM NOT PERSONALLY THREATENING ANYONE WITH LEGAL ACTION.) --Treybien 15:52 18 August 2006 (UTC)

...and being labelled a "Micky Mouse" encyclopedia!. --Yas121 23:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with som many editors thinking "If I think this person is an anti-Semite, he is an anti-Semite" that is a problem. Especially when Wikipedia policy is against such reasoning. // Liftarn

I am sure Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is going to file a civil action in New York District Court. SighSighSigh 08:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

exactly, I don't see what it bothers anyone to call AM an anti semite, like he would give a **** what wikipedia english said about him. He'll just say that wikipedia is another jewish global conspiracy anyway. Is there anyone who feels offended by this ? I'm really wondering. Amoruso 08:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be OK to add George W. Bush to the category? He is a born again Christrian so he belieives the Jews will burn in Hell, i.e. religious anti-Semitism. // Liftarn

Some of the editors confuse opposition to Israeli subjugation of the Palestinians to anti-semitism or new-anti-semitism. If you would read his speeches Hasan Nasrallah said he would not get in the way of a peace deal with the Palestinians. Neither would M. Ahmed Nejadi if push came to shove. The Saudi Beirut peace initiative has been on the table gathering dust how many years now? Anyway I visited this blocked site to add General George Patton. He said some vicious and ignorant things. They are in his WP article. Best Wishes. Will314159 20:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Bah! "Confusing" opposition to Israeli subjugation of the Palestinians with anti-semitism or new-anti-semitism is the very fuel the Isreaeli public relations machine runs on. Yas121 02:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brain freeze

I wrote "categorized on user pages" on meant "articles in question."--Mantanmoreland 17:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny :) Porky Pig 17:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category itself is now frozen, just by coincidence. The UN has stepped in and declared a cease fire in place.--Mantanmoreland 20:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They have frozen it with the +tag. That is the problem. Porky Pig 21:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's life in the big city. Any time there is a frenzy of editing it can be construed as an edit war and the page can be frozen. Frankly I think this little contretemps wasn't going on long enuf to qualify as an edit war -- I've seen a lot worse -- but them's the breaks. --Mantanmoreland 00:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer

A question to those removing it: Why is there "a problem" with a disclaimer being included in this category? Does it not seem very probable that irregardless of the current state of the category now, some editor with an axe to grind with a less than fully well known figure may in the future add such a figure to this category on false pretenses? A disclaimer makes perfect sense. In fact I'd go so far as to say that any category that is portraying any particular individual in a negative light should have such a disclaimer as a policy. (→Netscott) 01:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nescott when opinions become distorted by hate, they are meaningless. Porky Pig 13:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding back in my reply to Netscott, which was blanked. Whoever is doing this, stop screwing with this page! To reiterate:

What you're describing, Netscott, is vandalism. If a person is added to the category in the article inappropriately, the place to address that is in the article. Such a person can be removed instantaneously. This tag is therefore redundant and unnecessary. Also the one proferred on this talk page is worse than the one that is in the article itself (which, I see, is inappropriately placed at the top when it is supposed to be at the bottom). Both types of tags are unnecessary. If placed in this category, it should be placed in all negative categories uniformly. All or none, to be fair and uniform. Otherwise this category will be singled out.--Mantanmoreland 16:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that WP guidelines state that membership in categories should be 'self evident'. If users need to read a disclaimer on the category page to figure out it's idiosyncratic rules then that isn't the case. Also, the disclaimer provides no guidelines to distinguish between people who criticize a Jewish person or particular aspects of Israel or the Jewish religion (who may include reform-minded Jews). If the category isn't self-evident, which is the case with Category:Cults, for example, then subcategories can be added that focus on specific concrete criteria. Antonrojo 03:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Negotiation

{{Template:CategorisationDisputedPeople}} Can we attempt to get a group consensus by using this +tag to replace the current one to stop future issues. I would like to see the last sentence removed, as the definition for Anti-semitic people is right from wikipedia itself. Porky Pig 11:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to the "Disclaimer" section above. Thanks. (→Netscott) 13:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This tag is unecessary, as there is no serious dispute in any of the underlying article concerning any of the people listed. No, not even Josef Goebbels.--Mantanmoreland 13:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point might be valid, but we need to try to find a middle ground or the reverts will continue. Porky Pig 14:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please respond to the "Disclaimer" section above. Thanks. (→Netscott) 14:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your disclaimer a is farce and should not be dignified with a response. Porky Pig 14:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porky Pig, as you appear to be a new user I will kindly advise you to abide by Wikipedia policies assume good faith and civility when addressing fellow editors. (→Netscott) 14:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The disclaimer supports Wikipedia's policy of WP:NPOV, but it should be edited to make it consistent with Wikipedia policy. A large red hand is not necessary. Why not leave the disclaimer as it is? I think that it is needed to be in compliance with NPOV.--Drboisclair 17:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with removing the Red-Hand Image; however, the wording of the +tag being used now is not appropriate. Thank you Porky Pig 19:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Not even Josef Goebbels"? Well, of course not. He's a pretty indisputable anti-Semite. But what about, for example, Fred Phelps. Despicable man, one of the most extreme homophobes in the U.S. and probably the Western world, but what is the basis to call him an anti-Semite? No other reference to it in the article on him besides the category. - Jmabel | Talk 22:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Porky Pig is indefinitely blocked editor User:SirIsaacBrock

Be advised that these two editors are one and the same. (→Netscott) 17:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not that editor. Porky Pig 18:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and you are User:List of marijuana slang terms as well. (→Netscott) 18:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this off-topic? --Mantanmoreland 18:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly given the history of involvement of both of these sockpuppets for prosecuting an edit war over this category. (→Netscott) 18:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is off topic it is the methods of someone who is losing a debate, so they have to use personal attacks. Porky Pig 18:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care which of yas is right. I just think that this squabble doesn't belong here. Tis disruptive as is removing user comments and prematurely archiving, Mr. Pig.--Mantanmoreland 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Kasreyn 21:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh lovely, Sir Isaac's back. Sir Isaac, would you kindly take a moment and educate yourself on what that term you're so fond of really means? Btw, when Netscott posted the above section heading, it was accurate because at that time you were still blocked. Thanks so much, Kasreyn 21:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving, de-archiving etc. has made a mess of this page

Some comments of mine (Lord have mercy!) were removed, perhaps accidentally. That kind of thing has messed up this page and made it unclear who is responding to whom. Perhaps we can all resume discussing below:

--Mantanmoreland 17:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving should not be done against the will of fellow editors involved with discussions that are being "archived". (→Netscott) 17:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It was disruptive, as is dragging in a sockpuppet allegation, Mr. Nscott.--Mantanmoreland 18:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel Netscott was being overly disruptive. It's important for the rest of us to be aware when someone has a reasonable suspicion that one of the most disruptive editors ever seen at this page (SIB) may have returned. I consider that an act of kindness towards one's fellow editors. Kasreyn 21:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He make such notifications privately. This page is for discussing the category. Also this is a suspected sockpuppet, not proven and not blocked.--Mantanmoreland 21:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see your point. He could have notified us on our respective talk pages. In any case, the dispute appears to be over. Netscott appears to have made a good enough case to convince an admin; Porky Pig is now blocked as a sock of SirIsaacBrock. Kasreyn 01:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabs are Semites too!

The term Anti-Semitism is flawed in that respect. I think it would be more accurate if the page 'Anti-Semitic people' be changed to 'Anti-Jewish people' since many. many people that don't like Jews have nothing against Arabs.

Well, there is religious anti-Semitism too that is directed at Judaism (or rather against observant Jews). Anyway, the term is flawed, but we can't change how words are used. For instance a homophobe is seldom a person who has a phobia against gays, but rather a person who hates gays. // Liftarn

Etymology is not definition. The meaning of the term is clear. (As for homophobe, if it were to go by etymology, it would be fear of sameness.) - Jmabel | Talk 22:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabs are Semites, but since world war 2 anti semitism is meant to be anti jewish. Hence the term is alright. --Ageo020 23:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Literally "anti-Semitic" is anti anyone who is semitic like, Jews, Arabs, Assyrians, Maltese, etc. If one looks at the history of the term "Anti-Semitism", it was coin by a German named Wilhelm Marr, who formed the Anti-Semitic League in the late 1800's as a result of Jewish people converting to Christianity and intermarrying with German Christians of non-Jewish decent. So the term anti-Semitism is only directed at the hatred towards Jews. So for people who like to claim that the "Jewish lobby" are trying to persuade people that anti-Semitism is only for Jews and is deliberately excluding Arabs (people like Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar), well here's the proof 203.213.98.185 03:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page Blanking

It appears that Porky Pig, after 4 days of WP membership has deleted [100% of the talk page content], including current discussions and even reverted Kasreyn's attempt to restore at least part of the discussion. What's up with that? --Doright 05:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not deleted, archived. Most of those discussions should be held at the articles talk page, not here. Porky Pig 11:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category

Is that from some policy I am unaware of? The dispute arises from what criteria are to be used for inclusion. Are you saying these criteria should be allowed to vary from article to article? I feel the criteria should be uniform. That being the case, we need to discuss the criteria here. What better way for disputants to discuss perceived flaws in those criteria than by raising the example of various allegedly miscategorized persons?

Wikipedia needs a consistent standard of inclusion for this extremely subjective category. Note that at a previous CfD discussion I noted that I would only support the continued existence of this category if fair and consistent standards of inclusion were adopted. This is not optional. This is demanded by WP:LIVING (and in the case of dead alleged anti-semites, WP:V at the very least). Since that CfD debate I have seen no real substantive debate here which would lead to the adoption of objective standards for inclusion. The section you have removed is one of the only discussions of this issue which we've had.

I repeat: this is the place to have a discussion on what the overarching standard of inclusion for this category will be. Having that discussion on a few dozen other talk pages will only lead to inconsistency and unfairness in treatment of various subjects. Kasreyn 17:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I usually find little common ground with Kasreyn, I do agree with his main point, i.e., this is the place to raise systemic concerns regarding the category. At the same time, I vigorously disagree that this category is extremely or even particularly subjective. I do believe it is an important category and an extremely sensitive one. Perhaps that's why some people want to kill it. --Doright 23:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category has been subjected to repeated efforts to kill it, as Doright just pointed out. Its very existence is a bone of contention, even as equally judgmental categories remain unmolested. To my mind the tag in question is yet another effort to water down this category, one of a series of such efforts and increasingly tiresome. The standard is quite simple -- do the editors in the underlying article feel that this person is anti-Semitic. Note the definition.[1] It's quite clear. No alchemy involved. --Mantanmoreland 23:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this link would have been more helpful.

Discrimination or hatred against Jews
Discrimination or hatred against semitic peoples, not all of whom are Jewish (Literal interpretation; very rarely used.)

And so it is as plain as mud, because while "discrimination" may be fairly easy to nail down because it is an act, hatred is an emotion, and that is where the subjectivity enters into the debate. Where do we draw the line on which statements demonstrate clear anti-semitism, which statements merely demonstrate insensitivity or lack of empathy, and which statements are harmless or intended satirically? I'll tell you how we draw that line: subjectively. Kasreyn 06:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read anti-Semitism to clear up the mystery: Anti-Semitism (alternatively spelled antisemitism) is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group, which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution. See? Simple. This is the only category that seems to stump people. This quote from the Wiki article can be added, and once was part of the category header.--Mantanmoreland 11:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel it's any simpler. Sure, it makes it clearer what is being hated, but the principle factor in recognizing anti-semitism is still the ability to recognize hatred, and hatred is a subjective concept which different people have differing concepts of. So my above comment still holds true, that some borderline remarks may be anti-semitic in the opinion of some, but not anti-semitic in the opinions of others, and this is the weakness which led me to vote for the deletion of the category. Kasreyn 19:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To ask the individual editor to judge if a person is an anti-Semite or not would be a call to do original research. What we need is a citation (preferable more than one) from a reliable source. Just because a single editor thinks so or that a random person think so should not be enough to include a person. If so we might just start to add everyone on the Masada2000 SHIT list to the category. // Liftarn

That point has been addressed and rejected five to six hundred times in the endless efforts to delete or rename this category. Stop beating a dead horse.--Mantanmoreland 22:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Every time we have had such a discussion, the result has been "no consensus" (refer to those handy links at the top). A "no consensus" merely defaults to keep, it does not mean that a distinct majority approves of the page. There was neither strong consensus to keep nor strong consensus to delete; therefore you are in no position to pretend that you are representing some sort of majority view in this argument. Kasreyn 05:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. We have no clear inclusion criteria (we had, but they are now removed) so there is no way to tell if a person should be included in this category or not. // Liftarn

No, what you are doing is in essence arguing against the very existence of the category. (Whether putting someone in this category takes "OR" or not.) That is the dead horse you are beating and it is getting old. The subject of this discussion is the warning label, and whether or not to have one. This is not a discussion for discussion's sake. --Mantanmoreland 12:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I'm doing. I'm saying we should have both a disclaimer (to dodge possible legal problems when living persons are labelled as anti-Semites) and clear inclusion criteria. Is it enough that an editor thinks a person is an anti-Semite? Should we require a source? Should we require a reliable source? Should we require several sources? // Liftarn

Liftarn makes a very good point. Please refer to WP:LIVING; also note that the estates of some deceased figures may also be a source of concern. It is important that Wikipedia avoid any appearance of slander. We should consciously err on the side of caution in this category. Kasreyn 21:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's been asked and answered many times before, in the numerous efforts to get rid of this category. If the editors in the underlying pages agree the person belongs in the category, then he belongs in the category. One is placed in this category, as you know, by inclusion in the individual article.--Mantanmoreland 13:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So therefore, if the editors of article x on a real anti-semite take a critical and careful view of circumstances, and logically and correctly apply the anti-semitic category, and the editors of article y on a non-anti-semite choose to push their POV that its subject is an anti-semite (gasp, shriek! Trust me, POV pushes do happen here, and sometimes they get away with it for some time), then articles x and y wind up in the same category, which essentially says to the reader, these two persons are equivalent. This is why allowing differing standards on differing articles, when those articles will then be linked by a single unified category, is a terrible idea. It can only work if we can trust all editors on ALL bio articles to be equally well educated and critical on the subject of anti-semitism. I think that's a somewhat unreasonable expectation.

I'd say it's much more reasonable to have a core of editors at the category page, with a good notion of what the requirements for the category are, and have those editors monitor the category and ensure it is only applied accurately. If a discussion must be had on the separate article's page, an editor from this category can go there and explain the criteria for inclusion. Then the editors of that page can determine their consensus as to whether the subject meets those criteria. And if they don't like the criteria, they can come to this talk page and try to change the consensus. Beautiful how Wikipedia works, isn't it? :) Kasreyn 21:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you are saying that anyone can include any person (article) in the category. The possibilities are endless... ;-) Sorry, but I think we need something more solid than that. // Liftarn

And anyone can and indeed does remove anyone from this category who clearly belongs here. Similarly, anyone can and does put all kinds of trash in articles, insert nonsense and vandalism, obscenities, etc. The junk is removed, and what is agreed to by consensus remains.--Mantanmoreland 14:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the best case that would be true, but in many cases what stays is instead determined by who has the most flesh puppets. // Liftarn

A term with which I am not familiar. In any event, the same problem can arise in a host of things on Wiki. Applying the same logic and Wiki would grind to a halt in paralysis.--Mantanmoreland 18:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not apply Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and follow Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (it is official policy you know) and then also follow policies such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. That way things can (hopefully) be settled trough discussions rather than edit wars. // Liftarn

I believe Liftarn was referring to meat puppets, a form of sock puppets intended to skew online voting etc. If I'm not mistaken, he is saying that in some cases the decision of who is included in the category and who is not is not based on sound reasoning but on simple majority rule, which may be influenced by sock puppetry. Correct me if I've misinterpreted your remark, Liftarn. Kasreyn 23:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Edits wars doesn't settle who's right, only who's more persistent and has more meatpuppets. Instead of edit wars I suggest we should follow policies such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. // Liftarn

Who runs this list?

Hello all, I've just seen this list and as much as I do hate anti-semitic people I have to say I've never in my life seen such a thing as this list in an encyclopaedia!! It is absolutely ridiculous. Are you basically informing people of the world that you think these people are anti-semitic? who exactly has the right to apply this label to people in AN ENCYCLOPEDIA!?! Is there also a Racist people list here? If not then why not? How about a Sexist people list?? Please do note I'm not saying that these people aren’t or are anti-semitic but an encyclopaedia is no place for this sort of labelling...and if you think it is then you MUST have other similar lists too there are far worst people in this world than Anti-semitics! --Yas 03:12:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC) PS. how do I vote to have this removed? it's articles like this that give Wikipedia a bad name![reply]

PPS. Could someone kindly also provide the definition of Anti-Semitic this article uses? As I see some of the people in the list only ever criticised the Jews and/or Israel, they are/were certainly not Anti-Semitic by normal definition (sorry but Jews are not above criticism) and don't deserve to put in a list with the Nazis and Hitler! --Yas

Pruning the vine

Im pretty fed up with this too. I recognise the need to make note of particular people who have been influential in promoting anti-Semitism, but I distinguish this from reference to the occasional person who feels somehow persecuted by the nominal fact of ethnic collusions and biases. (I am a resident of Murkah after all, so there is a limit to how much I can criticise.) As such I am going to categorically remove this category tag from any and all living persons first, with notable exceptions considered, and then move on reworking its application to certain dead people. As its a subjective subject, I may decide to change these to more appropriate subcategory tags, such as Category:Alleged anti-Semitic people, Category:Potentially anti-Semitic people, Category:Anti-Arab people, Category:Anti-Islamic people etc. -Ste|vertigo 15:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: People who are free and willing are free to join me. -SV

PPS: Further note that for many historical examples, there is a distinction between ethnic supremacists or ultra-nationalists, with anti-Semites. Its odd to see an article on Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche listed under this category, but not under a "supremacist" category. -Ste|vertigo 16:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that you leave the categorizing or de-categorizing to the editors of the individual articles, and not go on a spree as you suggest.--Mantanmoreland 16:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Id suggest you be more helpful, and less anti-Me. -Ste|vertigo 16:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not anti-anything. Just stating the obvious, which is that you can't just go around taking articles off this category because you don't like the category.--Mantanmoreland 16:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you hold to a supremacist notion of categorisation, which is contrary my views, and therefore to Me. -Ste|vertigo 17:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well thanks for clarifying.--Mantanmoreland 17:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This "Category" is not even called Alleged-Anti-Semitic! It just goes a head and accuses people. On a different note, how on earth does Wikipedia ever hope to maintain this list and stick to it's fundamental principle of "open to everyone to contribut/edit"? You'll just have people labelling everone they don't like...and who's going to decide who stays in the list and who does not?? It'll be chaos that's why Encyclopedias are no place for this sort of nonsense! --Yas

Just my two cents. MY understanding of "lists" and "categories" is that NOBODY should be deciding anything or creating definitions. Wiki policy seems to say that only people who have been reported as being "xxx" in multiple, reliable sources should be included in said list or category. Some lists are easy, ie "US baseball players who have hit over 500 HRs" other lists like this are harder. Again, only people who have been labeled/called/defined/ect in OTHER, VERIFIABLE, RELIABLE sources should be included. This is not a list that people should add to based on their opinion or original research ect. I am sure this will just add more confusion than good :) Please correct me at will :) Cheers!--Tom 18:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

maybe these help?? Wikipedia:Categorization of people and Wikipedia:List guideline --Tom 18:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Gibson?

Based upon reports of anti-Semitic statements Mel Gibson made, he qualifies for this category no? (→Netscott) 20:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he does. He was in the cat but was repeatedly removed by anon editors. Page is now semi-protected.--Mantanmoreland 20:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did he say he is Anti-Semitic???!!?? then who are we to apply that label to him?? If you havn't noticed this is an Encyclopedia! not a POV labelling forum. --Yas 22:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Why isn't there a definition of Anti-Semitism this Category is based upon?? That would be helpful don't you think

Somehow, saying "the fucking jews cause all wars" seems like sufficient evidence of anti-semitism. Plus high ranking official in the ADL described him as an anti-semite. Interestingstuffadder 13:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson also apologised and called his language "despicable." Everybody knows that anti-Semites dont apologise for being anti-Semitic. Ive even heard some people claim that Jews who dont support Israel are "anti-Semitic", are we going to list them as well? Biblical Jews who made tribal war against other Jews? What about Marranos who stayed warm and ate leavened bread? Uncle Leo doesnt run Wikipedia, or at least he shouldnt. "Doesn't get a good seat in Temple? Rabbi's an anti-Semite!"-Ste|vertigo 20:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it makes good sense for an anti-semite whose career is at risk to apologize. Interestingstuffadder 20:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of ways to rationalise both bigotry and its opposing bigotry. When you start populating the Category:Anti-Islamic people and Category:Anti-Arab people categories, we the people can consider this way of categorizing people as reasonable and fair. According to your view, is this article supposed to have this tag on it forever, with no chance for Gibson's redemption? This category represents an acceptance for a certain POV bias, and is at best only a "blunt instrument," as Slim put it. -Ste|vertigo 20:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not saying that every "like father like son" but one can get the jist of it from his father's article. Amoruso 02:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]