Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 29

Controversial usage of the term - a threefold approach
After a good, long, exchange, the above section #Antisemite is also an epithet resulted in conciliatory messages from Jayjg and Slrubenstein. Slrubenstein didn't say anything in response to my final comment, and Jayjg politely requested "which sources did you wish to cite in the article, and in what way?" I had to give this good faith request some thought, after all, as others have pointed out, I do not or am otherwise incapable of actually reading books. (If it was worth reading, would it not be a .torrent?) Anyway, after a few days away, I concluded a couple of things: Firstly, I had to figure out what my intentions are, approach the subject with all due seriousness, and be precise and orderly about my prescriptions.

The intent of the "antisemite is also an epithet" thread was to establish consensus about the basic fact that the term can and does occasionally get used in ways which are controversial: While calling certain people an "antisemite" is not in the least controversial, calling others is. That issue is now apparently resolved, so we can move on to the work: The article's etymology section including its two subsections, is wonderful and informative. It probably deserves a separate article (Antisemitism (term)), if anything needed to be added to it. It does: That section, for one reason or another, doesn't give any treatment to the controversial usage of the term, other than in terse sentences that deal only tangentially with is pejorative issue ("Yehuda Bauer wrote in 1984: " There are no antisemites in the world * ... Nobody says, 'I am antisemitic.'" You cannot, after Hitler. The word has gone out of fashion."") and how usage of the term is promoted ("The EUMC also discussed ways in which attacking Israel could be antisemitic, depending on the context, while clarifying that "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."") ( * A negation of any further attributive usage? )

In the above mentioned discussion we came to an agreement that "antisemite" is a term, and as such is used in different ways. We need to deal now with the issue of controversial contemporary usage. But I realize that I could quote Abraham on the subject, in the original Canaanite, and certain people here would take issue with it. So we have to choose sources carefully. Hence we need to work on the Wikiquote article first, adding any and all relevant quotes about the concept, and categorizing the ones that criticise its usage under a "Critical quotes" section. I might also agree with the above assertion that people are "obliterating contrary viewpoints," and as such a "criticism of the concept, term, and usage" is necessary.

After that is underway there at wikiquote, we can deal with which quotes we can use in the article, under a "controversial usage" section here. By that, I mean including all sources: these include well-respected critics of the concept's usage, along with extremely un-respected critics. People such as Chomsky, Fisk, Finkelstein, Cockburn, etc, are notable and respected critics. People such as Hitler, Marr, etc, are much less respected, and though I'm not certain these actually criticized the usage of the term specifically, they might have mentioned something about how Jews might have criticized criticism against them, hence it would be relevant. I realized that in any treatment of how the "antisemitism" concept and term have been criticized, we must not only include non-antisemitic people of note, (though these also appear to be "antisemitic" by some definitions), but also the evil asshats of history who thought it was a great thing to demonize certain people and prescribe collective punishment against them as if it were God's will. By the way, I also realize that people who've based a fundamental part of their own self-concept in a concept of their own persecution might dislike any concept of that concept's criticism, and as such use any means necessary to keep ownership of it.

Anyway, in conclusion: 1) Expand the etymology section into an antisemitism (term) article. 2) Add tons of relevant quotes to Antisemitism. 3) Create and collaborate on a new section "Antisemitism." 'nufsed. -Stevertigo 21:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikiquote is a great resource for people who want to find cool quotes (like Bartlett's) but it is a lousy tool for research because it takes those quotes out of context. At besat it can help us insofar as it provides citations i.e. tells us what sources the quote comes from.  But in the end, representing significant views means representing them in context - what did this quote mean in the context of the book or article it appears in?  What is the context for that book or article (is it responding to another person or written on a particular occasion?) - adding tons of stuff to Wikiquotes is fine, but will not help us with this article.  Reading the books or articles in which the quotes appear, to be sure we understand the context, will. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the response, but I disagree completely with your exclusionist concept; one that appears to suggest a rather high bar that everyone who contributes here be well read in everything out there. I'm certain that noone has read everything, and even those who've read much cannot themselves be relied on alone to judge, by their interpretation of "context", what a particular statement actually means. Some statements, even this one, convey an intended meaning, do so accurately, and, in this writer's humble opinion, sufficiently. Countless articles use paragraph long and longer quotes; sufficient enough self-contained "context" to illustrate the point. Wikiquote, ideally, does the same. The few quotes which are there at wikiquote:antisemitism are lengthy and ample. I agree that any excision of a quotation, "takes those quotes out of context," but this depends on what one means by "context." My definition, and the one which any quotation operates under, is that quotations can be useful if they are of sufficient length, and if other aspects of context are communicated in the text. Nothing of course is as good as reading a book, but why then would people read Wikipedia at all, if reading "the books or articles" (whichever you might recommend) was better? So, I will proceed to do as stated, and add a few things to Wikiquote. I will also provide a little extra context there too, though a strict interpretation of that project's scope might mean some will object. But at least we're all being clear with each other about our objectives and subjectives. I note you had not responded to my other listed points, and I take that to mean you don't take particular issue with them. -Stevertigo 01:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I find both of your other suggestions silly, and we do not have any support for the creation of a new article on the "term" as opposewd to this article; I think it is silly, every wikipedia article starts with a term, terms refer to ideas or things, I do not think every wikipedia articl should have a doppleganger article on the "term" (automobile (term)? Why?).  I also see no consensus or reason for a "criticisms' section.  Criticism?  Most people think racism is bad?  Do we really need to say this? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think youre being silly. For one, its quite valid and wiki to deal with the criticism of a concept, the concept's terminology, and how such concept is applied. Your rather noteworthy opinion is noted, though, and will give serious and thoughtful consideration to this summary judgment of "silly" which you've stated. -Stevertigo 16:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To address your three points:
 * There is no more place for what doesn't belong here in a POV fork on the subject than there is in the main article.
 * Changes to Wikiquote are best discussed there, not here, as are what quotes should be considered relevant. Bear in mind, however, that what you are able to add there will have little to no bearing on what is appropriate to add here, as the rules and content guidelines here will not change.
 * Your additions will be considered in the same light in a new section as they would be in the main article, or in the aforementioned POV fork you proposed, so again I don't see the point.
 * And I'm sorry, but you haven't achieved consensus on anything that I can see. Few people here seem to agree with your basic point that the fact that the term "antisemite" can be inappropriately applied means that the term can be somehow transformed from what it is into something else. It would, in my opinion, be appropriate to mention that the term is often slanderously misapplied to individuals who are in fact not antisemites, if you can provide some reliable sources to attest to that fact. — Hiddekel (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Point by point! Excellent. Organized, substantive topic-based discussions I can do. I would rather that SLR had responded, but if he needed to "tap out" that's fine. And understandable!
 * Calling something a "POV fork" does not make it such. Just for your information, the term "POV fork" (in fact "fork" has been a pejorative on WP since I can remember) is more accurately used to refer to the creation of a separate article about the same subject, but treated from a different perspective. Creating an article about the term (in the form Article (term)) is not the same thing as creating an article about the same concept using a different POV (possibly in the form Article (POV2). Note that its also acceptable to subdivide articles according to POV, when such POV's are notable, identifiable, and have significant historical differences. National Socialism for example, is not Socialism, but rather a particular strain of it. By the way, the Content forking "guideline" is more of a poorly written essay, and fails to give disambiguation, prominence, or even treatment to legitimate (and necessary) concepts like "splitting" and "topical subarticles" .. ie. articles that develop naturally from a main article. Such is the case here. Antisemitism is a big, broad, concept, in which are included or else is related to a great number of things. A typical example of a concept within a larger concept is the term itself by which the concept is referenced. Again, there is concept, and there is terminology. Not always an important distinction, except in cases where the usage of the term itself is.. interesting.
 * Wikiquote: You are not exactly wrong, but what you seem to be saying is that these projects are entirely unrelated. Have it your way, from now on, noone must ever discuss any other WikiMedia project on Wikipedia. I see you really do know how Wikipedia works. :)
 * Fair enough.
 * "And I'm sorry, but you haven't achieved consensus on anything that I can see." I never do, particularly when it comes to dealing with touchy issues within Judaica. But I am explicit about my agenda, artful in stating my points, and helpful in resolving issues. "Few people here seem to agree with your basic point that the fact that the term "antisemite" can be inappropriately applied means that the term can be somehow transformed from what it is into something else." By here do you mean the online outpost of the Jewish Justice League? I'm not suggesting that we borrow the terminological conventions of Mein Kampf! (Although modern Jewish life is apparently so good that Chomsky qualifies). As such I find it ridiculous (or "silly" as Steven put it) that treating the controversial aspects of the concept (and the term used to indicate such concept) be met with so much.. for lack of a better word.. "opposition."


 * "It would, in my opinion, be appropriate to mention that the term is often slanderously misapplied to individuals who are in fact not antisemites, if you can provide some reliable sources to attest to that fact." Now youre sounding reasonable! But some people don't consider Chomsky a "reliable source," and as such, people such as myself who do, tend to simply be at odds with the POV pushing anti-Chomskyites that dont. So, if by "reliable" you mean "a strong and vocal supporter of Israel, such that he would say anything to slander Israel's critics ("enemies") and ignore the fact that he makes a total hemoar habet of himself at the same time," then yes, there are no "reliable sources" which say anything even remotely "antisemitic" (note quotes) about antisemitism (note, no quotes). Chomsky, on the other hand, believes in love. I know love is not really relevant to any discussion of antisemitism, but in any discussion of the awful it helps to be humorous, enlightening, or self-effacing, and in my case, all three. -Stevertigo 19:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: Notealso thisarticle speciouslyomits anymention ofthe "Judenhaas" term, thoughit doesmention Marr, ofcourse. -SV


 * I do not see where you provided a source for Chomsky claiming that King Ahab called Elijah an anti-Semite. What is the source? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This interview is along those lines. --BozMo talk 08:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks BozMo. I think there's another one too, with a similar angle. The NYT interview I think. Anyway, I spend my energy being correct and further explaining this correctness to those naturally not burdened with my enlightenment. I would have taken a month to dig up a link; I'm not particularly good with sources. -Stevertigo 11:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are kidding, right? This is an interview in which Chomsky is making a political point.  He is not making a scholarly claim about the history of the concept or term, and it is not presented in a journal on linguistics.  He is speaking as a political activist giving a personal opinion, not as a linguist who has done historical research.  This doesn't rise to anything close to an acceptable standard of a reliable source on this history of a conept or term.  So this whole thing has ben a waste of time. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "I am not particularly good with sources?" Why not Steve? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a political topic! Can you say that none of the sources quoted in the article now are "non-political?" Luxenberg might be called "political" but that doesn't change the fact that many people think he's spot on. We're talking about a linguist &mdash;arguably a fairly decent one &mdash; who's commenting not just on his personal "antisemitism" experience, but on the etymology of a term with the form "anti-n", where n stands for an ideology of some kind &mdash; ethnic, nationalist, religous, etc. The source he's referring to is the Bible! And not just any old prophet, but Elijah! The coincidences are fantastic:
 * "A Jewish linguist 'antisemite'  commenting on antisemitism,  and its (controversial) aspects, quoting the Bible on Ahab's reference to Elijah, in which the exact expressive form  '[anti]-n'  was used..."
 * Of course you could argue that "anti" doesn't directly derive from "against", or whatever the original form was. I would argue differently, but its of course just Greek, and not Hebrew. I could look it up, but I'm tired of arguing with you, and will be tired for at least twenty minutes. I agree that an interview is not ideal, but if Solomon, transported to 2009, said something remotely intelligent even in passing, I'm sure people would reference it. Anyway, have a nice day. See you tommorrow Fred. -Stevertigo 01:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph Doesn't Quite Make Sense to Me (Because it was Vandalism)
The opening paragraph states: "Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism; also known as Judeophobia) is a term used to describe aversion to the idea of Jews being shown special or privileged treatment." ...I am a bit confused about this. Doesn't antisemitism mean racism/hatred toward jews period? Why would someone be anti-semetic for "aversion to the idea of Jews being shown special or privileged treatment"? Shouldn't there at least be a qualifying line of "in cases where it is warranted"? Such as a jewish person who did something exceptional? What i mean is, all things being equal, why would any social or cultural group deserve special or privileged treatment in and of itself, with no explanation? And if there is no explanation or qualification, how could opposing such be an issue? Would opposing "Irish people being shown special or privileged treatment" mean someone was anti-irish? What I'm saying here is that this sentence sounds disturbingly elitist. Suppose a jewish person has distinguished themselves, but someone who doesn't like them any way (for personal reasons) says they are a jerk? Is that anti semetic? It sounds like some weirdly loaded statement. My observance of anti semitism has always been it's basically anyone who sees the jews as a "race" and ascribes some kind of genetic or innate things about them that make them "bad", rather than simply seeing that they are yet another social/ethnic group (which has had the unfortunate historical circumstance of running afowl of European Christianity (which didn't tolerate any competing religions), which surely is what started this whole mess.) Radical Mallard March 1, 2009, 6:43 AM EST


 * That version was a vandalized one. --FOo (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see.. thanks. The same exact thing has happened in the case of "Homophobia" on the Urban Dictionary. The racists and homophobes really do seem to think they are clever. Radical Mallard March 1, 2009, 9:42 PM EST


 * When you try to conflate anti-semitism with "European Christianity", you just end up sounding less than informed. This is a difficult enough topic without resorting to race-baiting. I recommend that when you address the topic, you should consistently focus on who is actually trying to kill Jews. It's not "European Christians", my friend.   Unless you have some sort of anti-Christian agenda you're trying to sneak in here, please focus on who hates whom on this planet.  Jews & Christians are part of the same family, hence the expression "Judeo-Christian".  If Christians find Jews irritating, or vice versa, it doesn't mean they hate each other, nor does it mean they're trying to kill each other.  It's a family squabble that's been going on for 2000 years.  Jesus and his Jewish followers were incredibly irritating to their fellow Jews. And they still are. But they still struggled against all kinds of crap to be patient and loving. Bushcutter (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not know of any Jew who considers Christians to be members of the same "family" except in the sense that all human beings - Jews and Gentiles whether they be European, African, Asian, or Polynesian - all belong to the same family. I have one close friend who is a devout Christian, but I know my grandparents were very suspicious of Christians in general. They seemed to think they had very good reasons based on experiences they had, and my parents as children had. I would not conflate antisemitism with European Christianity, and Jews have long honored Christians who were friends of the Jews or of tolerance, at least. But there certainly is a long history in which European Christians have ben prominent antisemites. I have even met some, personally. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You've met an antisemite? Really? Where? --BozMo talk 15:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW to contradict you a bit the Rabbi at our school used to make a big thing of all monotheists having much in common, common values etc . But I guess that has gone downhill with deterioration of relations with the Islamic world over the last three decades. But antisemitism I have only found on hate sites on the internet, never in warm flesh. --BozMo talk 15:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I never heard a Jew complain of Jesus as "irritating." My sense is, most Jews think Jesus' good message got screwed up when Gentiles turned him into their god. As for when Jesus was alive, I don't think he was any more or less irritating to Jewish authorities than any of the many thousands of other Jews whe threatened the peace with Romans. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move


Antisemitism → Anti-Semitism — The hyphenated spelling is the clearly preferred usage, and much more common. See the recent discussion above – User:UnicornTapestry and others have established quite clearly that the hyphenated name is normal, finding not one (!) of out 24 dictionaries preferring the unhyphenated spelling. As another point, my dictionary (Webster's New World Dictionary – the preferred dictionary of the Associated Press and NY Times) also prefers “anti-Semitic” and has a usage note “Some writers and scholars prefer the alternate form anti-Semitic because they contend that the form anti-Semitic suggests being opposed to (the) Semites, a term that could include Arabs and other peoples, when in the fact the word means ‘anti-Jewish’”.

In fact the hyphenated form was in fact original, but was changed due to a move three years ago []. However, this was based on two mistaken ideas, that there is a scholarly consensus while there isn't a consensus of actual usage. In fact: (1) As shown by the dictionary usage note I just quoted and by recent arguments mentioned above, there is no consensus in the scholarly community; (2) There is a clear, in fact, overwhelming consensus in actual usage, as shown by the clear dictionary preferences in addition to Google tests.

In response to arguments that “a consensus was reached”, it should be noted that (1) Consensus Can Change especially over 3 years; (2) I don’t believe there was any actual consensus in the first place – there were a large number of “Oppose” votes with explanations, followed by a couple of “Support” votes with explanations and then a large number of “me-too” votes.

Benwing (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Survey
Add  * Support   or   * Oppose   on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~.


 * Support - Anti-Semitism is the most usual term used by scholars of the subject. Colin4C (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - both forms are accepted and used by scholars, so I support the consensus that was worked out be editors building this page. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Come on, people, why is there even a contest? Anti-Semitism is clearly the usage preferred by academics, editors, publishers, historians and other scholars in the real world.Brockle (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - No legitimate reason has been given for a change. (i.e. "I saw it in the dictionary!" doesn't cut it, and neither does the Google test fallback). The terms are pretty much interchangeable, and beating this horse every few months or so just begins to look rather pointy.  As far as I'm concerned, the last post in Talk:Antisemitism sums it up nicely. Tarc (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Au contraire it is the usage "antisemitism" which is "pointy". Like using "wimmin" instead of the common term "women" (in order to further the ends of feminism), it is a trendy political gesture. Colin4C (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - For the reasons stated by Benwing. Skywriter (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - For the same reason why academics and media outlets are increasingly using the unhyphenated form. It demonstrates more clearly the fact that "antisemitism" is a term with a distinct meaning, that is, animus towards Jews, rather than "being against Semitism". — Hiddekel (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It removes an ambiguity sometimes used for obfuscation; consensus has been worked out repeatedly; both forms are acceptable. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose- Both are equally acceptable and consensus has been reached numerous times that reflect this.--Woland (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - There's a long-standing consensus on this. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Omitting the hyphen from modified adjectives has been perfectly acceptable in English for quite some time. You don't see people writing "anti-biotic" anymore, do you?  Making a distinction based on presence or absense of a hyphen is foolish.  Frotz (talk) 08:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Depends - If the argument is made that Semite (or Semitism, or Semetic) should be capitalized, than I Support the move. However, if not, I Oppose. Goalie1998 (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Add any additional comments:
 * Didn't we go through this a month ago? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like it. Also seems like a case of someone refusing to let the discussion die until he gets what he wants. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So wikipedia usage trumps the usual scholarly usage? Anti-Semitism is the most common term used by scholars of the subject. If a wikipedia "concensus" held that the world was flat, that would not alter the facts that the world is in fact round. The "consensus" is a fringe theory. Colin4C (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * [This is a repost from the discussion about it above] For the record, a quick google scholar search (which has not been "tainted" by results that link back to wikipedia) gives 22,100 hits for antisemitism and 20,300 for anti-Semitism. This gives results that date back to at least 1940 with citations that range to the present day, so I certainly wouldn't call this a neologism at all.


 * At the same time a quick JSTOR search gives 3668 for antisemitism and 15725 for anti-Semitism. I apologize if the JSTOR links don't work for other people. --Woland (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do editors here realize that by using the term "antisemitism" what they are saying, in effect, is that wikipedia usage is better than normal scholarly useage? This is giving a big intellectually legislative role for the wikipedia, which the world may not be ready for, yet....Maybe, in the end, wikipedia usage will be the one referred to as the standard by scholars rather than vice-versa...Intellectual Authority and Destiny awaits us...Just to add that "acceptible" does not mean "equally acceptible". Though "Antisemitism" is "acceptible" it is a minority usage and therefore not "equal". A note to this effect could be put in the intro if we decide to use "antisemitism":
 * "Though anti-semitism is the majority scholarly usage, wikipedia concensus dictates that "antisemitism" is the term of preference on the wikipedia." Colin4C (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that it isn't a minority usage at all, sure. What it comes down to is the fact that the hyphenated version is an anachronism. "Anti-" is prefixed onto words to indicate opposition, e.g. anti-choice or anti-slavery, as there are, or have been,  those on the other side of the coin who are pro-choice, pro-slavery, and so on.  What do we have here to stand in opposition?  Is there "Semitism"?  For those people that this term is describing, what are they opposed to? Semites?  Its just, frankly, a silly and outmoded term that in the common usage of the world is falling out of favor.  That academia reacts to change in a glacial manner is hardly surprising, and that they still cling to an outmoded term is not terribly relevant, in terms of deciding what to name this article. Tarc (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. Can we just stick with the consensus and go back to researching substance? 15:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * JSTOR (above) gives a result of 15,725 in favour of "anti-Semitism" and 3,668 in favour of "antisemitism". That is 5 to 1 or about 80% in favour of "anti-Semitism". A wikipedia "consensus" claiming that the 20% minority view is the right one is giving an authoritative view to wikipedia editors, falsely implying that a fringe theory is the mainstream view. It is not a wikipedia editor's place to give their opinion on whether the majority view of scholars of the subject is "silly" or to make unprovable predictions about what is going to happen in the future. Our role should be the more humble one of determining what those who study the subject actually say. Colin4C (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Way to Cherry pick my post.--Woland (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument rests on the notion that a JSTOR search is the authoritative and conclusive arbiter of the matter. I believe that is called argumentum ad verecundiam . Tarc (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, besides, the search results aren't definitive in any way; they're just search results. Find a scholarly discussion of the usage of the two spellings and there will be something to go on; otherwise, local consensus has to prevail. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you accept the useage of dictionaries of the English language, such as the Oxford English Dictionary? I have not read them all but I don't know of any dictionaries which say that "antisemitism" is the standard form of the word. "Antisemitism" is either not mentioned in the dictionaries I have consulted or is listed as a minority useage. Local wikipedia useage is not more authorititive than that of dictionaries IMHO. Do you know of any dictionaries which say anything different? My Collins dictionary has no listing of "antisemitism", nor my Chambers dictionary. The cognate term "Anti-Semite" always has a hyphen as far as I am aware and there is such a word as "Semite" (used in certain contexts as an alternative designation for "Jew") listed, which means that "Anti-Semite" is a perfectly proper usage and "Anti-Semitism" a perfectly understandable adaptation of it. There is thus no need to proclaim the absurdity of a putative term "Semitism". Does anyone have any evidence of the useage "Antisemite"? Colin4C (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar gives gives 22,100 hits for antisemitism.--Woland (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure -it's European usage. here's an example: "Qu'on nous prenne bien au pied de la lettre: par une manoeuvre conceptuelle, Lazare défend tout juif contre toute attaque, alors qu'il défend aux antisémites d'attaquer tout juif. Il existe, pour lui comme pour les antisémites, une entité sur la nature de laquelle il s'interroge longuement, qui n'est ni religieuse, ni socio-économique, ni raciale, mais nationale, qu'il appelle du nom collectif 'les Juifs' et, de plus en plus souvent au fur et à mesure qu'il avance dans son livre, 'le Juif'. Son livre est dédié, dit-il, à la compréhension des causes de ce que l'on appelle alors, depuis quelques années, 'l'antisémitisme'."  I don't know if this example is enough to quell the restless hordes of dissidents, though. Bushcutter (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

new form of antisemitism
there is some obvious bias here. why does the article specify "far" left and "far" right, and "radical" muslims? this paints antisemites with an extremism, when it is not at all an extreme thing to think that what they are doing in Palestine is wrong. there are non-"far" and non-"radical" people who are against Jewish crimes against humanity, and this article is not being fair to them nor is it being factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsw (talk • contribs) 03:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The very fact that you are conflating Jews and Israel, and that you use a phrase like "Jewish crimes against humanity", shows that you're just the usual garden-variety Jew-basher. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Peace. Please don't resort to name calling.  I do not want to get into a political discussion here, nor do I want to bash Jews.  The sources for that bit of "information" are not very convincing at all (two link back to wp and one is the guardian, a sensationalist and undesirable source to say the least).  If convincing proof that only extremists are antisemitic because of Jewish actions in Israel cannot be produced then I suggest the wording be slightly modified to be less marginalizing of critical minds.  Is that so wrong to suggest?  Let's be fair here.--R.S. Woods (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To whom? Anyway, it looks like you're referring to a last sentence in the section entitled "Forms", which is referring to the concept of new antisemitism, which concept is described accurately by that paragraph. See the relevant article. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's fair to state that antisemites can be found in both extremist AND mainstream societies... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.211.178 (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Introductory sections confusing
I don't intend to get involved with this article but was just reading it and the first couple sections do not seem to be in a very logical order and I'd suggest the article would make more sense to readers if the order was more like the below: 1 Etymology and usage Just some thoughts. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Etymology
 * Evolution of usage as a term/merge with usage
 * Definitions
 * Forms (which seems to be just one person's opinion; are there other better typologies?)


 * You seem to think this article is a discussion of how a philosophical concept has developed, and been refined, over the centuries. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I just put italics on sections so it is clear that is all I am referring to. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Fear of Gentiles/Goyim
The opposite phenomenon to antisemitism is probably the widespread Jewish fear of Gentiles/Goyim. Perhaps this could be better described, with appropriate quotes from rabbinic literature. There are many kinds of anti-gentilism, including racial anti-gentilism, religious anti-gentilism and political anti-gentilism. ADM (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the "opposite" of antisemitism is called harmonious peace among the nations of the earth. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Im Turkish and we love you Jewish people, we lived together as many years in Ottoman Empire and Jewish are the only people do not ever fight with Turks.

People do discrimation to Jewish. People do discrimination to Turkish.

We are same..., we must developed ourselves together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.228.201.51 (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No cause?
I think a chapter should be included with possible causes for antisemitism. The entire article describes only the history of and manifestations. Qubix 89.44.243.118 (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I second it. Take for example Russian article on the same topic, it has a whole section discussing possible causes of A. It looks really strange, awkward and unnatural to say so much of history of such a thing and etymology etc., and try to avoid discussing causes. Too taboo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.243.166.248 (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

History section is sorely deficient
Because of the structure of this article, much of the "History" section is missing because it is covered by either the "Christianity" or "Islam" section. This yields a fragmented narrative that does not allow the reader to form a unified, chronological view of the History of anti-semitism. I propose that we move much of the Christianity and Islam sections into the "History" section and then leave the Christianity and Islam sections to be more descriptive of the interactions and less historical. The "History" section should only be a summary anyway since we have History of antisemitism as the main article.

--Richard (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above. The "History" section is a compendium of specific sources dealing with specific eras (and thus with gaps along the historical continuum), whereas it should be a comprehensive (albeit summarized) survey through the ages.

As a specific example, one subsection (on Medieval Europe) covers (e.g.) the Crusades and Black Death, but leaves off with an event in 1421 and resumes only in the 17th century. No mention (anywhere) of the Spanish Inquisition, which persecuted (among other "heretics") Spanish Jews for as long as that institution existed.

In a later, partly duplicative subsection, "Spain" is simply mentioned as one of the countries from which Jews had been expelled, but without mention of the Inquisition's role or even the date: 1492 -- famous for Columbus's discovery of "America," but infamous in Jewish history for their expulsion from Spain. (JMyer (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)) JMyer, 13 August 2009

Nomination for deletion
Please see: Articles for deletion/Unification Church and antisemitism Borock (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The result was Keep and move to Unification Church antisemitism controversy.
 * 2) I need some help defining "antisemitism", especially in regards to statements that Rev. Moon has made about (a) the ancient Israelites, (b) the Jewish people alive at the time of Jesus, (c) the Holocaust as "indemnity" and (d) whether the state of Israel has a right to exist.
 * In particular, I would like to know whether the types of sweeping criticisms that Amos and Hosea made are (a) considered as valid and helpful because of their divine source; (b) acceptable because Amos and Hosea were "one of them", i.e., not goyim; or (c) "antisemitic" because it is always wrong to issue a blanket condemnation of Jews, no matter who you are. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[section split into two]

Definition of antisemitism
In particular, I would like to know whether the types of sweeping criticisms that Amos and Hosea made are (a) considered as valid and helpful because of their divine source; (b) acceptable because Amos and Hosea were "one of them", i.e., not goyim; or (c) "antisemitic" because it is always wrong to issue a blanket condemnation of Jews, no matter who you are. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a significant scholar of Jewish history or antisemitism, in a reliable source, saying Amos or Hosea were anti-Semites? Isn't this the question? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I didn't make my question clear: I am asking which of a, b, or c is closest to the truth. Are you saying it's c? I can't tell from your response if that's your answer. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think slr is essentially correct. Someone is relevant to antisemitism if there is a reliable source saying they are AS. Where we disagree with the judgement or not is neither here nor there. What is and is not AS is not a science or a defined mathematical set. Or at least no reliable source provides an accurate definition. I don't suppose say "chauvinism" has any easier ride. --BozMo talk 06:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I didn't make my answer clear, Ed. Wikipedia is not about "truth," it is ab out verifiable points of view.  It does not matter what my definition of anti-Semitism is, or yours.  Nor does it matter what I think of Sun Yung Moon, and it doesn't matter what you think either.  Wikipedia is still not the place for you to push your own point of view.  You have to comply with NPOV and NOR in all articles, even your Unification Church articles.  Is this clear enough for you? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Is either of you saying that we should report charges of anti-semitism whenever they come from a "reliable source", regardless of whether that source also supplies a basis for the charge?


 * Also, to follow up my initial question, is either of you saying that no reliable source has addressed the question of whether blanket condemnations of all Jews or Israelites as "faithless" (or the like) constitutes anti-semitism?


 * Finally, what I'd like to do for this article is to do some research on people in the Jewish Bible, the Christian "New Testament" (particularly Jesus); prominent and well-respected Jewish scholars, both ancient and modern; Christians; and other non-Jews. What have they said about the "sins" and/or "faithlessness" of ancient Israel and what have reliable sources said about whether their remarks are antisemitic or not?


 * The point is not (as you implied) to advance a POV but to clarify what the viewpoints of various reliable sources are.


 * However, if either of you chose to help me with this, then there is a possibility that some readers will decide to change their mind about certain aspects of the topic. In particular, a reader might compare the "standard of antisemitism" applied by the various sources and decide that the standard is applied haphazardly, or with bias. This would be a case of us contributors working together to describe the various viewpoints fairly, and letting readers draw their own conclusions. I hope you agree that this is consistent with NPOV policy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is a clue. Go to the article on anti-Semitism.  It lists among its sources many books by reputable scholars.  Read those books.  Then you will know what reliable sources for significant views on anti-Semitism have to say  ... and for Hosea and Amos, the Anchor Bible is very thorough, read the introductions to its volumes on Hosea and Amos and see if theey report any significant view of either as being anti-Semitic  - that IS the research you are saying you want to do, right? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess I still haven't made myself clear. I don't think anyone regards Hosea or Amos as anti-semitic. I also note that they have made sweeping denunciations of ancient Israel, e.g., as "faithless" or as meriting divine retribution as severe as destruction as a nation.


 * On the other hand, I read some attacks against Sun Myung Moon, labeling him as anti-semitic for make essentially the same points about ancient Israel as Hosea and Amos.


 * Thinking that a word like "anti-semitic" might be based on some sort of standard, I was then curious about what that standard might be. It couldn't be, "Anyone who makes a blanket condemnation of Jews (ancient or modern) is anti-semitic" because that clearly doesn't apply to the OT prophets.


 * So I began wondering whether there was a different standard, or if antisemitic is simply a bludgeon used to hurt the reputation of people we don't like. If it's the latter, then the Wikipedia guidelines on biographies of living persons come into play.


 * But assuming good faith (as well as being of Jewish heritage myself, as you probably remember) - I thought that we might be able to describe the reasons certain people thought Moon was anti-semitic. And I also thought it would be interesting to readers to point out any parallels between Moon's remarks on the ancient Israelites and the remarks of people who are not considered anti-semitic.


 * Am I being clear now? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For clarity I am not saying "that we should report charges of anti-semitism whenever they come from a "reliable source", regardless of whether that source also supplies a basis for the charge?" There are issues of undue weight, and other BLP considerations. If for an individual the charges of AS are significantly noteworthy in the context of the whole then yes we should. But we as Wikipedia are (as SLR says) are not implementors of logic (see WP:OR) or judges against a standard we are reporters of reliable viewpoints and that's rather different. We can only explain what qualifies Moon as AS if a reliable source lays out the reasons for us. --BozMo talk 21:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why does it matter whether anti Semitism is b ased on one standard or many standards? Wikipedia demands we provide all significant views.  As to using anything as a bludgeon against people we do not like, Ed, it does not matter who wse do or do not like.  Who editors do or do not like is irrelevant - i-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t.  Never bring it up.  Now, as long as SYM is a living person, BLP comes into play - it is because he is a living person,l not because he is or is not an anti-semite, that BLP comes into play.  So we follow our BLP policy.  And NPOV.  If you think BLP and NPOV come into conflict, bring it up at the appropriate bulletin boards.  As to describing the reasons people think Moon is an anti Semite, well, for goodness sake, all that matters is whether they give reasons or not.,  If they give reasons, report them.  if they don't, do not report them - Ed, we do not make thingss up!!!!  "And I also thought it would be interesting to readers to point out any parallels between Moon's remarks on the ancient Israelites and the remarks of people who are not considered anti-semitic"  Oh Ed, you "thought it would be interesting?"  Why?   What makes it interesting?  According to whom?  Ed, stop pushing your POV and NOR.  If a reliable source for a significant view makes such a comparison, we include it.  But you cannot violate WP:SYNTH  Stop playing your games.  This got you banned from another article once before, remember?  I assume good faith except wwhen another editor is explicitly calling for a violation of NOR.  And (1) I do not know what you mean, you are of Jewish heritage - one is Jewish or one is not Jewish, it is pretty simple (my mom is a woman, am I of feminine heritage?) and (2) whatever "Jewish heritage" means, I have no idea why it is relevant to our application of Wikipedia policy.  Your race or religion is not relevant to Wikipedia policy, policy is the samee for ALL of us.  Get it?  Yet? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 07:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about WP:SYNTH. I expect it will tell me not to draw conclusions as simple as 2 + 2 = 4 but to poke around the research library until I find a reliable source which draws that conclusion. So, if one country has a murder rate of 5 : 1000 and another country has a murder rate of 8 : 1000 I would be wrong to conclude that the second country has a higher murder rate?

More to the point, if Source A says that Person 1 is anti-semitic because he said X, but Person 2 also said X (and yet no source I can find calls Person 2 anti-semitic), I suppose it would be a synthesis violation to point out that there is an inconsistency; we can only cite a published source which say, "Hey, wait a minute! There's a double standard being applied here!"

All right, now I will go and read the policy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ed, if a source, or two sources using the same methods, provides different numbers for the murder rate, it is an obvious description of things to say the murder rate is higher in one place than another. How on earth you can possibly believe this is at all relevant to anti-Semitism is beond me.  A murder rate is a number that depending on the methods used to derive it, may be more or less accurate, or more or less precise, but given a +/-, there is no question about what the number refers to.  Interpreting texts is in no way comparable to counting murders.  Texts usually avail themselves of many, and arguably in the case of the Bible, of countless interpretations.  One cannot call one interpretation more or less precise or accurate than another, one can only say it is more or less persuasive - and what makes it persuasive is entirely subjective.  This is true about texts that explain what anti-Semitism is, and it is true about texts that may be anti-Semitic.  So there is no, zero, nada, zilch double standard here, just your half-baked standards for editing Wikipedia articles, which is always based on how much you can bend a policy to cover your own POV pushing.  You came here asking people to do research for you.  I said if you are seriously interested in doing research, go ahead and do it.  But this does not mean you can violte NOR and put your own views (e.g. that Hosea was an anti-Semite OR that there is a double standard about anti-Semitism because rabbis today do not treat a Hebrew prophet that the rabbis themselves decided to include in the Bible, and a Korean religious leader, the same way).  Now, be a good little puppy and do what you normally do, go back to your user page and write a short paragraph on how Wikipedians need to coply with NOR as if it were your idea. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have read WP:SYNTH, and it seems to say that if the prophets make a blanket criticism of all Israel (but are not considered antisemitic) while some non-Jewish Korean makes essentially the same criticism(and is therefore branded antisemitic), then it would be original research for any Wikipedian to observe that a double standard is being used.


 * Since I do not like to push my own viewpoints, even when 2 + 2 clearly = 4, I guess I'll just have to go limp here. Until and unless I can find a published, prominent source who has made the same observation, then I agree (for the sake of peace) to drop the matter.


 * Feel free to undo my edits at Unification Church antisemitism controversy, and thank you for your patient, careful explanations. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem with the lede
Why is the following necessary in the lede? The lede should summarise the article, but currently almost 25% is devoted to this. I attempted to remove it, but was told to discuss. You can see the over emphasis compared to most sources here - http://www.answers.com/topic/anti-semitism "While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, it has been used exclusively to refer to hostility toward Jews since its initial usage,[1][2] since 'semitic' is a common synonym for 'Jewish'.[3]"93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For some strange reason, a huge number of editors seem upset or annoyed with the fact that antisemitism refers solely to prejudice against Jews, and would like to change that fact, based on their own analyses of the English language. I don't know what you'd call that; "phobia envy"? "unique terminology envy"? Anyway, I've shortened the sentence by removing the OR piece. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation Needed
For the intro tip "... Also known as Judeophobia..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.150.76.114 (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Semite as a euphemism for Jew-hater
I once read that the term “anti-Semite” was first used by anti-Semites themselves as a euphemism for the then prevalent term, (the German word for) “Jew-hater.” Can someone find a reference for this? Hgrosser (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitism - article to prescribe or describe?
“Anti Semitism” etymologically and naturally means phobia or hostility toward Semites. Basically peoples of Semite ethnicity, Semite language and/or Semitic religion. It is a compound of two individually recognized and easily defined terms that will defend their combined meaning rather than be confined by a limiting prescriptive definition in thesauruses and encyclopedias. Anti-Semitism is first and foremost a compound and collective noun that includes Judo-phobia as well as Islamophobia.

As the Wikipedia article on anti-Semitism states in the section on etymology: anti-Semitism, gradually under the growth of race biologic “science” under the last century and primarily in Nazi Germany came to mean exclusively hatred and hostility towards the Jewish people. The limitation of the term was no problem in those times since there was little or no contact with other ethnic Semites than Jews. In Europe and in the western world today Islamophobia rather than Judeophobia is the problem of today and in a dictionary prescribes a limited meaning of the term anti-Semitism is utterly fruitless and pointless. Words and language cannot be curbed like that by a stroke of print.

Scholars and any person with an interest in language in any time will see the word as two parts “anti” and “Semite” and will interpret the word with the meaning they put in those two words. Any one can choose to follow any prescriptive definitions stemming from Nazi misconceptions and define and limit the word as referring solely or primarily as dealing with the Jewish people and not all Semites. When reading several historical texts it is important to realize that the scribe very possibly uses the term solely to refer to Judeophobia or racism towards Jews. Likewise it is just as important to realize there are many examples on a wider more etymological usage of the word (see Edward Said or Salman Rushdie amongst others) as well as examples when it is used dealing specifically with Islamophobia.

In historic encyclopedias you find many misconceptions colored by the times they were published. There are many examples of thesauruses and encyclopedias that prescribe a definition of anti-Semitism as Judeophobia, racism towards Jews in particular. It is interesting to ponder the politics behind such a perspective of language.

Any serious publication today defines terms etymologically and describes their usage rather than prescribing usage of terms, especially when such usage is contradictory, limiting and seems to be driven by lewd political ideas. Any scientific work today using the term without discussing and defining its own use of the term would be considered substandard.

Csjoholm (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're wrong, Csjoholm. Look the word up in any dictionary if you don't believe me. Furthermore, this has been discussed ad nauseum and a clear consensus has formed. Learn to live with it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah? If you find the topic discussed ad nauseum as you say, don't you find that to be prove enough of the terms ambiguity? Surly you can see that the sickness stems from a prescriptive defenition that limites the neutral and natural values of the two terms in the compound. I could give any number of political and ascew definitions in worldbooks and encyclopedias. I grant that many people strive to prescribe a limited defenition of "anti-Semiteism" but I fail to see to what purpose? Csjoholm (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Two points. First, the fact that is has been discussed ad nauseum does not mean it is ambiguous. Debates are a healthy way of making sure we have properly reached consensus. Debate does not equate with there being no consensus. Second, just because a word is used by the public to mean a certain thing does not equate with Wikipedia "prescribing" a limited definition. This article relies on reliable sources that indicate antisemitism meants exclusively one thing. There are no reliable sources that say antisemitism is broader than than anti-Jewish sentiment. Singularity42 (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe saying the same thing: Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We don't recommend; we refer. We show what popular, general, historical, and scholarly sources say about the meaning of the word (which, by the way, was coined by a Jew-hater to specifically mean Jew-hatred; it's not a folk process etymology.) --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally it has not escaped our notice that a number of prominent politicians around today have used AS to mean anti-"semites in general". However, the usage is not sufficiently widespread to mean that a reliable source has commented on it. Perhaps they will, perhaps they will always regard it as disingenuous. Either way until someone credible says otherwise we go with the credible source (Lewis) saying it means only anti-Jew (except in the case of new AS which has a broader political meaning). --BozMo talk 15:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition, there is already a term for anti-Arab sentiment, anti-Arabism, as well as a term for anti-Muslim sentiment, Islamophobia. There would be little point in trying to join these articles into one, since a) the terms mean distinct types of discrimination, with radically distinctive histories, and b) the discrimination is, in each case, directed at different groups, for different reasons, and often by different groups as well. Jayjg (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes! There are many terms. Also for judeophobia, anti-zionism etc. I do not propose merging these articles. Csjoholm (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As any linguist knows, etymology is not definition, and you cannot understand the usage of a word by breaking it down into its roots. Just as the word "modern art" does not mean contemporary art, "intelligent design" does not mean the cleverness of the folks who invented the iPod, and a "firewall" does not protect your computer from being literally set on fire, so too does "antisemitism" not mean "opposition to 'Semitism'". And no, the fact that deniers keep bringing it up does not mean we need to teach the controversy. --FOo (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah ha!? But modern art does mean contemporary art to more people than knows the diffrence. It does not matter that there is a relative agreement amongst art historians about what modernism is, and that it is intelectually marking to make the distinction. If you want to understand the concept of what someone is discussing in general, you have to take in the option that they by "modern art" means contemporary art or disfigurative art. The same goes with antisemitism, if you want to define the words meaninga s anti-jewishism instead of using specific termenology like judeophobia, hatred of jewis people, religion, anti-zionism etc you will have to start by explaining what the word actually means. Exatly like with "modern" in "modern art". Because the general understanding is diffrent. Perhaps "modern" one day will cease to mean "trendy, new, in fashion" and only "of the modern period in cultural history" but I doubt very much that "anti" ever will mean anything more than opposed to, and "semite" ever will become a specific noun when it historically is a collective noun, refering to a groupe of peoples, groupe of religions, groupe of languages. Csjoholm (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The article already does touch upon the "semitism" question. The article already does include an explanation of how some might presume the word might be used and how it is actually used in practice. Bus stop (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, now it does. I belive that it clarifies the term and helps readers understand how it can be interpreted as well as how it is been used in praxis. Csjoholm (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've restored the original, accurate wording, since your opinions aren't relevant to what the reliable sources say on the matter. Jayjg (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure
I don't think we should include for several reasons: (1) the article referenced does not refer to a storm of protest, the strongest statement it makes was that his comments were "sure to outrage" (2) I think we are in serious danger of giving a, well, not very prominent (aka nobody) comedian lots of publicity which he no doubt wants as a pay back for being contraversially anti-Jewish (it reminds me of Bernard Manning who was supposed to have got lots of work after protests about his "OTT" AS jokes (3) this example episode is not nearly as notable as the rest of the article. So I will revert the change. --BozMo talk 11:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One person commenting on that article mentioned "that opportunistic comedian". I think that having that lengthy quote and link would just be encouraging the opportunism. Good call to remove.
 * (Aside: years ago had to repeatedly remove many really bad jokes from an article, from someone who felt we had to show how bad the jokes about a particular disability were, to shame the tellers. Uh, no, it doesn't work that way.  You're merely spreading the filth.) Shenme (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Research on New Anti-Semitism in peer-reviewed journals
The topic has been mostly a matter of opinion. However, at least two substantive articles have now appeared in peer reviewed journals. I tried to include a brief mention of one of these articles in the section on New Anti-Semitism, but was reverted by an editor. I believe that mention of these articles, with their carefully validated findings belongs on the page. I hope that other editors will agree.Historicist (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Research has tested the hypothesis that hostility toward Israel often causes or is motivated by anti-Semitism, and found that "those claiming that there is no connection between anti-Semitism and hostility toward Israel are wrong." According to the authors of a 2009 study of Americans in the New York City area published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, there is "sometimes a link between anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment." Moreover, "hostility toward Israel may serve as cover for anti-Semitism and, at the same time, feed back and strengthen anti-Semitism." And "public vituperation directed at Israel may feed back to increase anti- Semitism."


 * I found the methodology compelling. I had no trouble accessing both articles, but, then, I am wired into a University computer.  I cannot always tell if an article is accessible to everyone, or only through a service the university pays for.Historicist (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted your first try but left the text in the NAS article with a minor tweak. Are these available online anywhere? It is not completely clear to me from the summaries that they demonstrate anything revelant to NAS> just speaking as a mathematican who likes correct logic. A correlation between AS and AI is pretty obvious because any ASemite is not going to like Israel, that is not news. That does not mean logically that someone who is anti-Israel is significantly more likely to be anti-Semite (or at least the enhanced probability could be vanishingly small depending on the sizes of the populations and the conditionals). --BozMo talk 08:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/97/2/290.html


 * Our personal opinions don't matter, just RS's. And the point isn't about antisemites not liking Israel, it's anti-Zionists not liking Jews. IronDuke  01:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "The point"? That wouldn't by any chance be your personal opinion would it? --BozMo talk 11:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. Good guess, though. IronDuke  05:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

on this page. I am new to editing/discussing on Wikipedia, so please forgive me if I have not followed the correct formatting (e.g., I am not clear why so many entries begin with one or more colons, and could not easily find a description on the Wikipedia site). Anyway, I want to make three points:
 * This is Lee Jussim, one of the authors of "Modern Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israeli Attitudes" discussed above and cited

1. Our article is publicly available and can be retrieved by clicking http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/papers.html and then clicking the link for this paper (which should be obvious). OR, one can get it directly, at: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/Cohen%20et%20al,%202009,%20with%20supplemental%20materials.pdf

2. With all due respect to the mathematician who insists on logic, the claim above is incorrect: "... just speaking as a mathematican who likes correct logic. A correlation between AS and AI is pretty obvious because any ASemite is not going to like Israel, that is not news. That does not mean logically that someone who is anti-Israel is significantly more likely to be anti-Semite (or at least the enhanced probability could be vanishingly small depending on the sizes of the populations and the conditionals).

It does mean logically and mathematically that someone who is less supportive of Israel is substantially and statistically significantly likely to be more anti-Semitic. We obtained a correlation of -.42 between anti-Semitism and support for Israel. This correlation was highly statistically significant (p<.01, meaning the odds of that relationship occurring by pure chance, given the data, was less than 1 in a 100). It means that people high in anti-Semitism were lower in their support of Israel. This, of course, is the exact same thing as saying that people lower in their support of Israel were higher in anti-Semitism. If taller people tend to be heavier, then heavier people tend to be taller. Just look up the Wikipedia entry for Correlation!

Indeed, if one dichotomized Anti-Semitism (high and low) and support for Israel (high and low), this -.42 correlation means that about 70% of those low in support for Israel would be high in anti-Semitism. It also means that about 70% of those high in anti-Semitism would be low in support for Israel.

3. There are two references immediately following this discussion entry. But both are identical! Both are to our paper. Something is wrong somewhere. It is, however, possible that that is just a typo and whoever entered it meant to reference this paper:

Kaplan, E. H., & Small, C. A. (2006). Anti-Israel sentiment predicts anti-Semitism in Europe. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50, 548–561.

The next entry in this discussion page seems to imply this:

"A 2006 study of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel attitudes in the nations of the European Union published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, demonstrated that although almost no respondents regarded themselves as anti-Semitic, in fact anti-Semitic attitudes correlated tightly with anti-Israel opinions.[1]"

Lee Jussim Leej12255 (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Blanket criticisms seen as antisemitism
I'd like to see if antisemitism can be defined more rigorously. In other words, has anyone whose writings are worthy of summary or quotation made an argument like the following?


 * 1) Any criticism of Jews as group is a hate crime against Jews.
 * 2) The statements in Divine Principle about Jews lacking faith or being responsible for the crucifixion are criticisms of Jews as a group.
 * 3) Therefore, the statements in Divine Principle are a hate crime against Jews.
 * 4) Every hate crime against Jews is antisemitic.
 * 5) Therefore, the statements in Divine Principle are antisemitic.

My personal motivation for bringing this up, is that I would like readers to be presented with enough information to decide whether to agree or disagree with arguments made (by various parties) that any given person or institution is antisemitic on the grounds of statements made about Jewish people.

I have seen some arguments like this, although I'm not a scholar myself, and I don't remember exactly which book or website I read these arguments.

The arguments touch on the idea that any blanket criticism of Jews or Israel (modern or in Biblical times) meets the definition of antisemitism. Some sources say yes, while other sources say no. One of my friends here at Wikipedia has discussed with me the criticisms made by the ancient prophets in the Bible, in books such as as Amos and Isaiah. I understand from my wiki-discussions that the prophets are not considered antisemitic. This seems inconsistent to me, since one of the most prominent themes in their writings is criticism of ancient Israel as a whole.

Now, don't get me wrong: I am not advocating any WP:OR. I have never stood up and offered myself as a source: I am not a published author, nor am I an expert on anything other than computer programming and high school math.

Please get my point: I am wondering whether any published authors (or prominent modern organizations) have said in writing that it's perfectly okay for the ancient prophets to make blanket criticisms of Jews or Israel; and whether such authors have said that it's not okay for people other than the ancient prophets to make the same kind of criticisms. If so, this would be very interesting to our readers, as it has a bearing on the first premise of the argument at the head of this section.

Again, try to understand that I am not asking for "my original idea" to be included in any Wikipedia article. Frankly, I don't know whether I thought of this myself as a matter of common sense, or whether I am remembering someone else's analysis.

What I am requesting from everyone on this talk page is to help me do the research - online or in paper books or other archives - to discover whether any published and acceptable source has ever made an analysis or synthesis like this. If not, then I'll just drop it; if it's simply my own idea, then I'll pat myself on the back for being a genius and quietly go away. But if you can help me find the sources I'm looking for, then maybe we have a valuable perspective to add to this encyclopedia. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The prophets are speaking for God, who married the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai. Therough the prophets, God is explaining why he is angry and his partner (the nation to whom he is bound by ties of love) and how he hopes for and foresees a day when the two (God and his lover, Israel) will have a truly harmonious relationship.  Now, I see no reason at all how one cound confuse this for anti-Semitism.  Anti-Semites are not people have previously entered into a covenetnal relationship with the Jewish people, complain about their partner out of love, and foresee a day when the relationship will be healed.  I cannot provide sources, but I think you are right in your sense that most people see anti-semitism as an offence or threat of offence that is motivated by a hatred (not love, as with Amos and Isaiah) of the Jewish people as a whole.  As a source you may wish to start with Sartre's Anti-Semite and Jew.  It is a significant view, but I cannot say it is the mainstream view.  But it is a very readable and short book. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, SLR. That's exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for. In fact, the opening sentences of your post sound (to me!) exactly like something Rev. Moon would say. There's even something in the Christian scriptures about the Lord "chastening those whom He loves".


 * I wonder, then, if anyone here can help me find references in Jewish or Christian theological journals, books or websites about the standing (or motivation and purpose) of people other than the prophets of old. Are they the only ones who can express anger or criticism out of love? (If so, who says so? We need a source.) If not, then the article should describe the viewpoints of those who say that criticism (even angry criticism or widely directed "blanket" criticism) is okay and not antisemitic, when it is understood as motivated by love, i.e., a concern for the well being of the target of that criticism.


 * By the way, the "Bible" of Christians contains many quotations from the Tanakh, and Hebrews 12:5-6 cited is a quotation from Proverbs 3:11-12


 * “ My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD,
 * Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him;
 * For whom the LORD loves He chastens,
 * And scourges every son whom He receives.”


 * Perhaps the question is, "Who speaks for G-d?" Jews and Christians alike will generally say that Amos and Hosea and Isaiah were authentic prophets.


 * And what happens when someone not seen as bearing that divine authority makes judgment and pronouncements similar in tone or content? Have rabbinical scholars or other sources of encyclopedic stature said anything about this? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So when a priest of minister preaches that his flock is full of sinners who will burn in hell, is that person anti-Christian? What I can tell you is this: Jews do not have the same conception of an afterlife, or hell. All Jews have a place in the old to come.  But I want to be clear about my point: it is not just that Amos or Hosea's criticisms come from God to those "whom he loves".   I have no reason to doubt that God loves all humanity.  What is important is that God and the nation of Israel entered voluntarily into a permanent covenental relationship.  This is a commitment.  There is a big difference between a husband complaining about his wife 9assuming there is no case of spousal abuse) and someone else, even a friend, complaining about a particular woman.  The husband had wife have a covenental relationship, a commitment to one another.  What matters in Amos and Hosea is both God's love AND the commitment between Israel and God.  Perhaps it is conceivable that an anti-Semite claims to love Jews, but s/he is nevertheless outside of the covenental relationship.  Anti-Semites, whatever their motives or justification, are outside the covenental relationship.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This conversation is interesting, but not really relevant to this article. There is no established acid test for who is or is not AS, it is not a definition or a calculation. For the purposes of Wikipedia the judgment of who is and is not AS has to be whether reliable third party sources describe someone as AS, no more, no less. SLR just out of interest your argument is unclear. When the Roman Catholic Inquisition was persecuting Jews I have been told they always said it was motivated out of love for the people but only hate for their sin (aka religion); certainly this formula is recorded for other "heretics". So I am not sure that "motivated by love" works well. --BozMo talk 15:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * BozMO, I feel my reply to Ed already addresses your concern as I made it clear that love was a necessary but insufficient condition. I made it clear that there were two conditions required and that both are and I would suppose from the viewpoint of the Biblical authors had to be present in the prophet's criticism, that clearly distinguish Amos's criticisms of Israel from say the Inquisition.


 * That said, the Inquisition did not persecute Jews. The Inquisition could only act on Christians.  This is one reason why Spain expelled Jews in 1492 - the Inquisition could not touch them.  Of course, thee was a good deal of Christian persecution of Jews in the Middle ages, but I do not know of any case of the Church itself committing physical violence against Jews (although they burned Talmuds, and forced Jews to listen to sermons); violence against Jews was generally by mobs, not Church organs.  Of course, the Inquisition could and did persecute Christians who had formerly been Jews and converted, and were believed to have relapsed.


 * Finally, although this and other Wikipedia articles minimize the following view, I share the view of scholars who distinguish between "anti-Judaism" and "anti-Semitism," viewing the former as characteristic of Christians Europe with roots in the New Testament, and the latter as a modern (post Enlightenment) phenomenon. I am expressing this as my own view but there are plenty of sources that say the same, it is hardly a fringe view. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. Thank you for the education on the inquisition, I haven't really looked at how they treated the non-Christian groups. My point was not so much that "in love" was insufficient though, but that it was untestable (since you can easily claim it). As for AS AJ etc sure the post enlightenment thing is different in some ways whatever it is called. But Ed has been here before trying to establish though that as a religious person apparently motivated in the same way as the prophets Moon should be exempt from being called anti-Semitic, since they were not described in that way (nor was, say, Jonh the Baptist). The point for him is that we report how other people view Moon (AS or not AS) as a matter of policy not make our own judgements. --BozMo talk 20:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * BozMo, I wrote Again, try to understand that I am not asking for "my original idea" to be included in any Wikipedia article. Sorry for being so wordy as to be unclear.


 * What I am looking for does, however, go beyond a mere list of (a) people who are considered antisemitic and (b) people who have applied the label antisemitic to them.


 * I'd like to have us also describe (c) the reasons given for applying that label (where supplied).


 * That way, the readers - not us contributors - could decide whether or not the reasons are valid. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed. Are you proposing to change this article? If so, in what way, and based on what sources? Jayjg (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

BosMo, I understand your point about falisfyability although I think it is hard to see how a reading of Amos or Hosea compares with moon - Hebrew prophets generally had two kinds of messages: obey "Jewish law," or, "It is not enough to obey the easy laws, you have to obey the hard one's like, pursuing justice." They never asked Jews to stray from the path itself (that path being the wedding vows of Israel's covenant with God). Be that as it may, I strongly believe in WP:V and WP:NOR so you get no argument from me on those points. As to Ed, I am all for going a bit more deeply into what out sources say. But I am frankly puzzled by your claim that if we provide reasons readers can decide for themselves whether orbot the reasons are valid. How can any one person know whether another person's reasons are valid, unless one knows more than the other person? If I provide an account of Maimonides, or Rosenzweig's, or Solovechik's reasons, wouldn't you have to know at least as much as these men or more to be able to judge whether they are right or wrong? I do not see how any encyclopedia article can ever provide enough information for a reader to deciude whether a iew is "valid" or not. All an encyclopedia can do is (1) let you know what all, most, many, some, a few people think (a provision of NPOV) (this is useful because if I read that almost all climate scientists think humans are responsible for Global Warming, I will have a rough time proving them wrong) and (2) give me citations for ajor works, so I can go off and learn more on my own. It is (2) that MAY make it possile for a reader to decide for themselves who is right or wrong but still it seems to me that for me to judge whether one climate scientist is right or wrong I woud need to study a lot of climate science, far more than can be offered in an encyclopedia article. I have given a non-religion/race example just to make the point clearer. Bt the basic point is, how can anyone say - to give another example - that Einstein was right or Schroedinger right about quantum mechanics, witout first knowing as much as Einstein and Schroedinger knew about quantum mechanics? It makes no sense to me. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 03:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

And now, for something completely different
people who watch this page may find this worth commenting on. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

qq
Is Animal rights and the Holocaust really relevant enough to mention in the see also?--BozMo talk 09:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Farrakhan, expert on Jews
I find this troubling and hope pthers will comment: Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a new AN/I thread watchers of this article may wish to see: Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

any criticism against the state
any criticism against the state of Israel is seen as antisemitic, which is a bit weird as Israel as state is clearly being a a bit fascist on themselves (almost zero separation between church and state). even this comment will probably be classified as being anti antisemitic even though i am technically speaking a Jew. Markthemac (talk) 03:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Technically speaking I'm a human being. Bus stop (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically I'm a cyborg who has yet to disprove the allegation. But we're probably off-topic... Singularity42 (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please remember that this is not a forum for the topic. This is a discussion on how to improve the article. The issue you are describing, as well as the related criticism, is already covered in the article. Singularity42 (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that the expulsion of Jews from England in 1290 can be seen as antisemitism. They were expelled for failrue to comply with laws against usury, and because the king wanted their money. Neither reason was anti-jewish.124.197.15.138 (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But the framework which made Jews uniquely direct subjects of the king (without any baron to protect them) and which forebad them from any trade except the ilegal usury does seem a little discriminatory? --BozMo talk 20:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, it was not some random collection of people who the king acted against. It was a specific ethnic/religious group - i.e. he selected them and persecuted them because of their ethnicity/religion. Therefore, it was prejudice against that group (that is, Jewish people), and is anti-Semitism. Singularity42 (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Causes of anti-semitism
I believe this is a legitimate sub-section for this article. It should discuss the perceived causes of antisemitism from the view of experts and the mainstream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyJonas (talk • contribs) 03:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It should be noted that the central reason for gentile males' anti-semitism is because of jewish peoples' ability to out-compete gentile males for the resources that are key to gentile males lives and jewish peoples' ability to out-compete gentile males for the breeding of gentile women. Nothing causes more hate in human males than these two things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.17.21 (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, ignorance and stupidity and bad upbringing cause a lot more than either of those. But I'm glad you think we're so dominant because of our superiority; it's better than most excuses for bigotry. --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But the offspring of a gentile woman is not Jewish by definition. 86.134.235.233 (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

rewrite

 * this sentance "On July 28, 2006, Naveed Afzal Haq shot six women, one fatally, in the Seattle Jewish Federation shooting by Daniel Schwarz an infamous leader of the Aryan Brotherhood who ordered the hid from the Florence ADMAX . Police have classified the shooting as a hate crime based on Haq statements during a 9-1-1 call" (antisemitism in american section) needs a serious gramatical rewrite. id do it myself, but honestly, because of the grammar im not sure exactly what its saying. is hid in the second sentance supposed to be hit? the thing about daniel schwarz is extremely awkwardly worded. thank you in advace g.j.g (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Lieberman cartoon
The cartoon which depicts one of the most visible and powerful Jews in the U.S. (and one who is very open about his Orthodox Jewish traditions and practices) murdering Santa Claus on Christmas Eve (see: http://blogs.courant.com/bob_englehart/2009/12/december-16-2009.html) is certainly worthy of mention here.

(note: see parallels with "Allegations of Jews killing Christians" under "History: Twentieth century" on this page) Danieldis47 (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there are at least three problems with this, as I suggested in my edit summary when I reverted the inclusion of the cartoon the first time. First, the link is to a blog, which is a thin source in Wikipedialand, and replete with commentary. Secondly, the claim of antisemitism is not established, as far as I know, by third party sources, so adding it in now looks like original research. Thirdly, I don't see that it's notable enough to merit inclusion, per WP:NOT. Not my intent to edit war, and right now WP:3RR could be relevant, but other thoughts would be welcome. 99.155.206.57 (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with IP 99.155.206.57 in that it has not yet been established to be antisemitism be RS, and a blog is not a good source as a ref. Please discuss before inserting again. Shlomke (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

My responses:

"First, the link is to a blog"

This link is provided strictly to show the cartoon, not the blog. That is the only way the Hartford Courant makes this cartoon available electronically.

"Secondly, the claim of antisemitism is not established, as far as I know, by third party sources, so adding it in now looks like original research."

The new text makes no direct claim that the cartoon is anti-Semitic. Is that a requirement of this page? Wikipedia readers can read the new text within the context of the entire page and make that determination. Given the sky-high profile of the target of the cartoon, and the resonance here with the long history of false accusations, direct and implied, that Jews killed Christ and other Christians, inclusion of this text seems a natural. If this sparks some discussion/debate, then that can only be for the good of Wikipedia and of society, no?

"Thirdly, I don't see that it's notable enough to merit inclusion..."

The man was almost Vice-President. As noted, he is one of the most visible and powerful Jews in the U.S. and is very open about his religious practices. Right now, he is playing a central role in determining the future of health care in the US (the reason for the cartoon). The fact that a political cartoonist would feel comfortable depicting him smiling over a dead Santa Claus on Christmas Eve, the murder weapon still smoking in his hand, strikes me as extremely significant.

I agree that other opinions would be most welcome.

Danieldis47 (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The biggest problem with the edit is that it has not been established by anyone to be antisemitism. Putting the info in the article makes it seem like it has been established, when in fact it was not. This is really your own opinion. The cartoon may very well be satire in fact. Asserting it is antisemitism is WP:original research and is against Wikipedia policy.


 * As far as the blog, it looks like it is owned by the newspaper and would actualy be a WP:reliable source. But again, this does not belong here for the above mentioned reasons. Shlomke (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, I see that I have been reverted 3 times now..... Danieldis47 (talk) 05:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, and you are in violation of WP:3RR. Please revert yourself before you get blocked. Shlomke (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I just noticed your full comments above --

First: I must say I am confused about your points regarding the source. If, as you say, it is a "reliable source," and it is also the only electronic source for a cartoon printed in hundreds of thousands of newspapers, then what other "reasons" are relevant?

Second: Regarding your concern that readers might think something "Has been established" when it has not --- The readers will have a well-written, properly sourced, factually accurate  article. Why would we assume that they would somehow "misunderstand" what they are reading? I, for one, have faith in the intelligence of Wikipedia users.

Third: As I already stated, neither I nor the text I added makes the assertion of "anti-Semitism" that you refer to (as being a "violation"). So that's not any problem at all!

Now - Where does that leave us, friend? Danieldis47 (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.

As, I assume, those who reverted me (including yourself) are in violation and will be blocked (I'm not an expert on this - is that right?)

Do you have any responses to my comments above??

Be well ---

Danieldis47 (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't assume, read the rule in the link above. And again, you should revert yourself as three editor's disagree with you and you've broken the WP:3RR rule. Shlomke (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

When I follow the link, friend, I see this: "Reverts made by multiple accounts count together." That must mean that you and the two other reverters of my text have broken the WP:3RR rule. AND your "team" has the honor of breaking the rule first.

I am much more interested in the topic of anti-Semitism. I await your responses to my most recent comments.

Thanx!! Danieldis47 (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have blocked Danieldis47 for 48 hours for edit warring and reverted the edit. As a minimum an allegation of AS without a reliable source to support it is AS is contraversial and requires a strong consensus to go ahead. Reverting three times on it is unacceptable edit warring. --BozMo talk 11:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

How does antisemitism compare with other forms of racism?
I just wondered whether there are any studies on how antisemitism compare with other forms of racism? For example "anti-negroism" by White (or off-white, as in Spaniards/ Latin type) Europeans, the European eradication of native Americans and native Australians? And how about the White American treatment of Asiatic peoples as in "the Yellow Peril"? And didn't an Israeli PM (surely a Jew) call Chinese people "slit eyes"? So surely Jews can also be racist towards other peoples. So how do Jews square with how they treat other races with how they perceived to be treated by other races? 86.136.57.254 (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. Per the talk page guidelines, I must ask: what suggestions do you have for improving the article? --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, isn't antisemitism caused or fuelled by Jews hating the other races in the first place? 86.136.57.254 (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh...no. Whatever gave you that idea? --jpgordon:==( o ) 02:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If a Jewish person of the highest authority calls a Chinese person a "slit eye" for no reason, isn't it racist? Especially when the Chinese saved thousands of Jews from Hitler's gas chambers.86.134.235.233 (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, it's racist as hell. What does that have to do with anything? Of course there are racist Jews; there are racists in every culture. Xenophobia seems to be a fairly universal malady. --jpgordon:==( o ) 23:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, I am not sure whether the gentleman in question is of the highest authority." I would not consider a back-bencher MP in England to be "of the highest authority" and certainly in the US no one consideres an individual member of Congress to be a "high euthority" but i admit I am biased - during two termso fht W's presidency I would agree that he had tremendous power but I never thought he had any particular authority to speak for "Americans."  Perhpa this user is naive about Western politics - a person may get electd to Congress or Parliament, and most people may still consider him/her a jackass or moraln.
 * Be that as it mayso this guy said something ofensive to Chinese. Isn't this a perfectly reasonable reason for Chinese people to hate this individualx?
 * Let's say this MP is a woman - does this justify Chinese people hating all women?
 * Let's say th MP has black hair - does this jusify Chines hating all peopl wih black hair? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 02:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I give up — what is this in reference to?


 * Which Jewish person called which Chinese person "a slit eye?" My curiosity is piqued.


 * I must not have been paying attention to the news and I apologize for my inability to find it by a web search. Bus stop (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be this. --jpgordon:==( o ) 04:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

suggestion
hey, was reading some random articles, came across the Antisemitica article. maybe add a link to this in the see also section of this article? also, there is a category on antisemitic books and papers etc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Antisemitic_publications maybe add a link to this category to that page, or maybe expand it with a section including some of the books in the category? im not trying to start anything here, i read some of the archives before writing this, and i see that this is a hot topic, and many people argue or disagree over any type of change whatsoever, so instead of doing it on my own, i figure id add it here first before it starts a holy war. have a nice day. MACKEL ♠ 10:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

contradiction in text
In the first paragraph it is stated:

"since the term was invented it has been used to refer exclusively to hostility toward Jews."

Whereas the first two sentences of the Etymology section read:

"The word antisemitic (antisemitisch in German) was probably first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase "antisemitic prejudices" German: "antisemitische Vorurteile").[11] Steinschneider used this phrase to characterize Ernest Renan's ideas about how "Semitic races" were inferior to "Aryan races." (my emphasis)

Regardless of what Ernest Renan was referring to there is a clear contradiction of meaning in the text of the Wikipedia article by the use of the terms 'Jews' and 'Semitic races'.

However, taken literally the use of the plural in the above quote from the Etymology section obviously means more than one race and therefore invalidates Bernard Lewis's assertion that "Antisemitism has never anywhere been concerned with anyone but Jews". The essential question therefore is was Ernest Renan referring specifically to the Jews or did he anywhere refer to  another or to all of the Semitic races? (And I have to admit that I have not the faintest idea.)Scottish chap (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A slight tweak should fix this. It's true that Renan did not mean Jews specifically when he criticised the "Semitic" mind, but established usage, rather than stray rare instances is what matters. Paul B (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If the first use of the term was by Steinschneider against Renan's ideas on Semitic races, and Renan was not referring specifically to Jews, then the original meaning of antisemitism was not prejudice solely against the Jews. This blows right out of the water Bernard Lewis' statement "Antisemitism has never anywhere been concerned with anyone but Jews" (Note 1). There is therefore a fundamental inaccuracy at the beginning of the entry which needs correcting.Scottish chap (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This kind of response is probably why editors here are wary of making any concessions at all to this POV. It's seen as the thin end of the wedge, which will then be hammered and hammered by "Arabs can't be antisemitic" lobby. Nothing is "blown out of the water", nor is there a "fundamental inaccuracy". What you have is a single stray usage of a word to refer to Renan's model, which is not picked up and is probably unrelated to Marr's usage, which is the source for the circulation of the term in public discourse to mean "anti-Jewish". Paul B (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Granted my language was at times excessively flowery, and 'fundamental' was not meant to imply any suggestion of a major rewrite but was used more in the sense of origins. The text still states that the word probably first appeared in 1860, where it was used against Renan's ideas on Semitic tribes (as you have previously told me). This then is the origin of the word and the original meaning, even if 13 years later a more influential writer turned around the whole meaning to give us today's usage. Therefore it is inaccurate to state "since the term was invented it has been used to refer exclusively to hostility toward Jews" even if the error derives from Lewis' equally inaccurate assertion that "Antisemitism has never anywhere been concerned with anyone but Jews." Either Steinschneider didn't write this about Renan's model or the other two statements are wrong. That's pretty fundamental surely?Scottish chap (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Most reliable sources trace the origin of the term to Marr's usage. Apparently some Wikipedia editor has found an earlier usage of a similar term, used with a somewhat different meaning. That in no way makes any of the statements in the article inaccurate. Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with "Scottish chap"; that is a clear contradiction given the facts. This article seems very subjective. Jayjg please can you reference the earlier usage of a similar term its not clear what you are referring to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorcrackdown (talk • contribs) 16:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you've been following the discussion, the earlier coining of a similar term (with a different meaning) was by Steinschneider. However, most reliable sources attribute the coining of the term (and its popularization) to Marr. For example:
 * "The term anti-Semitism was coined in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm Marr to designate the anti-Jewish campaigns underway in central Europe at that time.'anti-Semitism.' Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010."
 * By the way, that's same source you brought above to claim that it's a "misnomer". Now, can you explain why you think there is a "clear contradiction" and the article "seems very subjective"? Please be very explicit, and please ensure you have fully and carefully read all the discussion above before commenting. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that Steinschneider's use of the word was something akin to Leif Erikson's discovery of America. He discovered it, but not many people noticed, then everybody forgot about it. When Columbus came along he was discovering it as though for the first time.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Jayjigg: you have used the phrase "most reliable sources" twice now. What do you mean by it? Does Alex Bein's 'The Jewish Question: Biography of a World Problem' come into this category? If it does why are you so offhand about it? If you think it does not fit into this vague group please explain why and give your reasoned assessment of its reliablility.

Your statement "That in no way makes any of the statements in the article inaccurate" seems to me to be without foundation. In the first place Steinschneider's wordantisemitische does come very close to antisemitischwhich the Wikipedia text tells us is the German for antisemitism. Bein is quoted as saying that Steinschneider coined the word in 1860, twenty years before Marr came up with antisemitismus, whatever that means. Steinschneider's word therefore seems to be the original use, and may have been the sole use for twenty years, and it was written in criticism of something Renan wrote. Renan was a knowledgeable scholar. In the Avertissement on Page v of his Histoire generale et systeme compare des langues semitiques he writes of "...a l'invention de l'alphabet phenicien, a l'extinction de l'hebreu comme lange vivante...a la litterature nabitienne, aux inscriptions arameennes, a celle de Petra et du Hauran, a l'origine arab,..." (My emboldenment and my apologies that I can't put the necessary accents in here.) Renan clearly knew what Semitic meant, even if Marr appears not to have known or maybe not to have cared. If Steinschneider was rebutting Renan he would have had to have used the same meaning for 'Semitic' as Renan, not exclusively referring to Phoenician, or Aramaic or Hebrew or any single Semitic language or any single Semitic people. This is why Bein, presumably, wrote "Semitic races" (note the plural): because he was writing about the Semitic peoples and not specificaly about the Jews. Which brings me to the point: Bernard Lewis (referred to in Note 1 of the Antisemitism article) and the article itself in line 3 both state categorically that the term has only ever been used anywhere against the Jews. It seems obvious to me that by using these absolute terms they are both wrong. That contrary to their repudiations the original use of the word was true to its Latin roots and referred to prejudice against all the Semitic peoples and not just one of them. In this context what am I supposed to make of the statement of yours that I have quoted above?Scottish chap (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By "most reliable sources", I mean "most reliable sources". For example, the Encyclopaedia Britannica (mentioned above), Robert Blobaum: Antisemitism and its opponents in modern Poland (p. 29), Spencer Blakeslee: The death of American antisemitism (p. 14), Daniel Goldhagen: Hitler's willing executioners: ordinary Germans and the Holocaust‎ (p. 69), Jerome Chanes: Antisemitism: a reference handbook‎ (p. 150), George M. Fredrickson: Racism: a short history‎ (p. 78), etc. There are dozens of reliable sources that say this. Marr founded the Antisemitic League, and created the term as a more pleasant/scientific sounding synonym for Judenhass, "Jew hatred". The fact that decades before someone else used a similar term to mean something different is irrelevant; Marr popularized the term, and it is his meaning that was understood and used. The term entered the language via Marr, not Steinschneider. The fact that Marr's usage itself was "erroneous", since it focused only on Jews, is a red herring; Marr's entire thesis was erroneous, since he based his notion of "Semite" on un-scientific notions of race. This has been explained to you several times, by more than one editor; I don't think it can be explained any more clearly, nor need it be. If you still cannot comprehend why this outlying usage in no way makes the statements in the article inaccurate, then please continually review in detail the many responses given to you previously. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

'This has been explained to you several times, by more than one editor'. Apart from your previous post to me Jayjig which explained nothing at all (please check it yourself) there have only been two posts by Paul B, the first of which suggested that some tweaking was needed. Facts are eluding you again.

I say again because my point is all about facts, essential to any encyclopedia seeking to be credible. The entry of line 3 of the article is in absolute terms, and it is wrong. I will acknowledge your point that Marr gave us the current meaning of antisemitism and that this has developed into the current standard usage. But that does not erase the fact that the term had appeared in publication before, in the public domain, with a different meaning (which happened to match its Latin roots), and the description at the start of the article should take account of this. "Since the term was re-invented..." would make it legitimate and honest, which it certainly ain't now. OK it would need a bit of explanation, but that is not beyond the wit of man either. Scottish chap (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, this was explained by Paul B, Steven J. Anderson, and me. Paul B. and I explained it more than once each. That's "several times, by more than one editor". Jayjg (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've told you my opinion of your "explanation". Steven J. Anderson made a comparison which is particularly interesting since Wikipedia is careful not to say that Columbus discovered America and then immediately mentions Leif Erikson. It seems to me you guys are less interested in accuracy than in working your agenda.Scottish chap (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

In reply “Jayjg”, I have indeed read the discussion fully and understood it. I mentioned that this is a clear contradiction given the facts, as it is a clear contradiction given the facts raised by “Scottish chap” which were provided, with references, to which you reply with vague responses.

This article is subjective in the since it is skewed. An encyclopaedia article should present all facts and allow the reader to make up their own opinion, not just present certain facts to build an opinion for them.

I articles like this are the reason Wikipedia references will (or at least I hope) not be allowed as valid references in any University course work (at least in England that is the case from my experience). Common opinion does not make something fact, opinions should be formed from facts, cross referenced of course! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorcrackdown (talk • contribs) 17:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering that we don't allow Wikipedia, or any other wiki, to be used as a reference for Wikipedia, Wikipedia references certainly shouldn't be allowed as references anywhere, University or otherwise. I do fear you're optimistic when you think that opinions should be formed from facts; there is a huge mass of people for whom facts are irrelevant when forming opinions. --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of my optimism, there is no reason to ignore facts (on Wikipedia or anywhere).--Majorcrackdown (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but interpretation of facts also must not be ignored. In this case, yes, there was a usage of a term, but it is indeed like the Viking colonization of America; it did precede Columbus, but it had not lasting effect; the usage did not endure, and Marr's appears to have independently invented it. --jpgordon:==( o ) 19:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And rather than include that fact you will battle to the end to hide the fact, to what end good sir? What is your hidden agenda?--Majorcrackdown (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Hidden agenda"? Bite me. --jpgordon:==( o ) 21:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You like to take things out of context and make them sound worse don't you, that's neither here nor there though. Let me water it down for you (that is a saying); what do you hope to gain by only including facts you deem acceptable (that was what I meant by "hidden agenda" if you were lost, which your question mark implies)? (you can leave that as a rhetorical question if you like)

NPOV policy covers this sort of thing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and you as an editor should be upholding this.

I would rather not bite you thank you very much!--Majorcrackdown (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And this article does indeed mention the earlier use; that's exactly how you found out about it, so there's no issue of failing NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, I think that since the Antisemitism and Holocaust denial articles contain material relating to the the Arab-Israeli conflict, and therefore may be considered to be part of the area of of conflict defined in the  "West Bank - Judea and Samaria" arbitration request case, you should consider ending your involvement in them and their talkpages. -- ZScarpia (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Any article might contain "material relating to the Arab-Israel conflict". While these two may contain material related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, they are not "articles in the area of conflict". Antisemitism preceded the Arab-Israeli conflict by at least 2000 years, and the Holocaust was the genocide of primarily European Jews by primarily German Nazis. Moreover, the discussions on the talk pages of said articles in which I have participated have nothing to do with the Arab-Israel conflict. This discussion, for example, is about the origins of the term "antisemitism" - a term that was invented in Germany decades before there even was an Arab-Israeli conflict. Jayjg (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ZScarpia, it's not appropriate, or fair, to use unrelated ArbCom behavioral cases to win content disputes. Antisemitism and the Holocaust, including Holocaust denial, are only very indirectly related to the I/P dispute, as are many other issues. But they predated it, and will no doubt post-date it too. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 01:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ZScarpia, Jayjg asked me my opinion about whether I thought his editing restriction should apply to this article. I don't see it. As long as Jayjg stays away from directly editing or discussing A-I topics in relation to Antisemitism, then editing this article should be fine. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 02:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a clear limit to what constitutes a problem. We are talking about phenomena that existed for at least 1000 years before the state of Israel and was generally centered in Europe. Even the term is coined well before there's even any form of Zionism or the like. Claiming this is part of the I-P conflict is an interesting argument but ultimately one without any strong basis. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The position hinges on whether the articles are part of "the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted." Jayjg says that, 'While these two may contain material related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, they are not "articles in the area of conflict".' My understanding, however, is that, if they contain material related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, they are "articles in the area of conflict" and editing restrictions apply. If my memory serves correctly, worries were expressed when the final decision was being reached because the restrictions being applied meant that the affected editors could be excluded from articles by the simple hostile expedient of adding a couple of lines of Arab-Israeli conflict-related text. Shortly after the closure of the case, one editor found himself taken to arbitration and banned from editing an article which he had largely created because it referred tangentially to that conflict. It was not a case of it being alright to work on articles so long as parts relating to the conflict were not touched, the ban was total. The affected editors were advised that, if they had the merest suspicion that an article might be included in the restriction, they should leave it alone. The reason the restrictions were applied was to cool the heated atmosphere existing in the conflict-related area of the project. That heat exists here too. If my motivation is to try to "win" any of the content disputes happening here, none of which I'm particularly deeply involved in, the strategy of "neutralising" Jayjg wouldn't get me very far very quickly as I would still have some fairly heavy opposition to contend with.  -- ZScarpia (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Heat exists in all sorts of articles, both articles in the area of the conflict, and, as with this one, articles not in the area of the conflict. The restriction was not to editing articles where "heat exists"; otherwise it would cover hundreds of thousands of additional articles also (like this one) not in the area of the conflict. And since FloNight was one of the arbitrators who made that decision, I think she knows pretty well which articles it was intended to cover. Jayjg (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Further, this talk page is inappropriate for this discussion. Zscarpia, if you wish to bring this up at Arbitration Enforcement, that might be appropriate (though of course you'd be expected to first discuss it with Jayjg on his own talk page.) Since it has nothing to do with improving this article, please take it elsewhere. --jpgordon:==( o ) 03:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, but what are you guys on about? Racism? Yes, Jayjg, racism has been around for a long time, a lot more than 2000 years. If your talking of anti-jewish feelings or anti-Semitism (Antisemitism is not a real word hence why it is not in any dictionary so that’s another change needed to use the correct term anti-Semitism or anti-Semitic) specifically then surely that would be shortly after the introduction of the religion as I don’t believe any religion without any hostility towards the change? This loose use of the term allows it to lose its value and its true meaning, and more importantly its root, hence my argument.

jpgordon: and Jayjg have both had the discussions on the talk pages of articles relating to the jewish faith hence why I feel they may be more passionate than most in respect to this article causing a NPOV issue as this is a very sensitive subject.

The bottom line, I believe, is that simple facts are being ignored, on purpose, to over dramatise the article or over illustrate a point (like the above “2000 years” comment above for example). --Majorcrackdown (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Misnomer
There is no mention of the word/phrase being a misnomer given its current use.

The etymology section seems to have avoided this fact completely. The section needs to include something explaining how inappropriate this word is when describing anti-Jewish prejudices, statements, or actions of Arabs as they are Semites themselfs. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/534157/Semite http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/27646/anti-Semitism

This article reads more like a history of anti-Jewish prejudice rather than an subjective explaintion of the word itself.

The etymology is incorrect/incomplete in short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorcrackdown (talk • contribs) 00:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For better or worse, that's what the word was created to mean, and that's what it has always meant. English is not always a logical language; we must all learn to live with that. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Britannica article on antisemitism referred to above features this statement in its lede,


 * Arabs and other peoples are also Semites, and yet they are not the targets of anti-Semitism as it is usually understood.


 * which supports the tone of this article. 99.153.142.108 (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's exactly the same as "Anti-Americanism", which means opposition to the USA, not to all the nations of the whole continent of America. Words means what they are used to mean. Paul B (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Besides, what's this odd idea expressed by Majorcrackdown that somehow it's inappropriate to refer to hatred of Semites by Semites as anti-Semitic? One can be both a victim and a perpetrator of racism. --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You can, but it does not matter if they are victims or not. It's no different from the concept of Canadian Anti-Americanism. In any case, the article clearly does discuss exactly what Majorcrackdown complains it doesn't. Paul B (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies maybe I was a little unclear, but I don’t believe you fully understood my point. Please read the subject title; Misnomer which means a "misapplied or inappropriate name or designation" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misnomer. This was a point made in the Britannica Encyclopaedia so as such I feel should be included under etymology as it is not currently included, not my "odd idea" as Jpgordon mentioned. There is no disagreement in the fact that the modern day usage of the word/phrase is solely geared towards describing anti-Jewish prejudice.

To argue the fact the English language is illogical is no reason not to discuss etymology. By that reasoning you imply that all English words follow no form of structure, which is clearly not true (or at the very least the English we speak in England, most words can be traced back to there origins or some sort of logical formation, which I can live with).

I am sorry Paul B but this article does not discuss the fact the word is indeed a Misnomer in any since of the word. It does however begin to skim over the fact within the section Usage with the sentence “Some scholars favor usage of the unhyphenated form antisemitism to avoid possible confusion involving whether the term refers specifically to Jews, or to Semitic-language speakers as a whole.” I feel this isn’t clear in fully explaining why the word is a Misnomer and how a more accurate word would be Anti-judism, for example.

Again in short the etymology is incomplete and the word/phrase Anti-Semitism/Antisemitism is indeed a misnomer by definition (in terms of Late Modern English at the very least used in the Oxford English Dictionary). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorcrackdown (talk • contribs) 15:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's no disagreement of the fact that that is what the term was coined to mean, and has always been used to mean, not just "modern-day usage". Even the source you brought says so. As for the "misnomer", the etymology section does deal with this issue. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am glad you understand the issue now. Please quote the sentence, or paragraph, where you state the word is discussed as a misnomer as I can not see any such mention after re-reading the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorcrackdown (talk • contribs) 17:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See Antisemitism. The word "misnomer" is not used; if you can find a reliable source that uses the term "misnomer", it could be added. --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see the below discussion for why I mention it as “modern day” usage. A shared opinion does not make something fact, without facts Wikipedia is worthless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorcrackdown (talk • contribs) 17:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "modern day usage"? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not get offend by the use of "modern day usage" I can understand this is a sensitive subject, what I mean by that is this is a term (not a word), that was invited in modern history or the modern era, and now this term is increasingly being used to summarise/generalise any anti-Jewish feelings. The word does not exist (at least in English dictionaries).

The fact that is a misnomer, (an inappropriate designation) is, I repeat, skimmed over with “Scholarly usage is divided. Some scholars favor usage of the unhyphenated form antisemitism to avoid possible confusion involving whether the term refers specifically to Jews, or to Semitic-language speakers as a whole.” which in its context is used to justify the usage of a made up word “antisemitism” rather than what I believe, and most dictionaries and MS word, the correct term anti-Semitism (I think that’s also why it is in usage also not Etymology where it should be) rather than the inappropriate designation.

This is mention in Encyclopædia Britannica the reference I gave you above already. Here is a quote to make it easier “Although this term now has wide currency, it is a misnomer, since it implies a discrimination against all Semites.” http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/27646/anti-Semitism this should be included in etymology without quotes as it is a fact.--Majorcrackdown (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "this term is increasingly being used to summarise/generalise any anti-Jewish feelings"? It's always been used for that purpose! Let's go over the facts again:
 * The term is generally attributed to Marr, and entered the language via him.
 * Marr invented the term to mean "Jew-hatred", which has always been and remains its meaning.
 * The article already points out that while one might think it could mean some more general kind of hatred, it's actually always meant Jew-hatred.
 * Now, given that these are undisputed facts, and in light of WP:UNDUE, exactly what purpose do you imagine would be served by spending even more time than the article already does explaining that the term might mean something else, but actually doesn't? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Currently there is a contradiction in the article: the Lead section says that the word antisemitism has never meant anything apart from its current usage (using the transcript of a lecture by Bernard Lewis as a source), while the Etymology section says that the word had an earlier usage which meant something contradictory. As the statements contradict each other, they cannot both be facts; at best, one or both of them is an opinion. Using the analogy already made: in the article on Exploration, an editor might, citing sources normally viewed as reliable, state that "Columbus discovered the Americas." Elsewhere in the article, citing another source that may be regarded as reliable, it might say: "Architectural remains showed that the Vikings reached North America." Clearly, there would be a contradiction that needed to be resolved. Unless you could show that the latter statement was a fringe theory, you could no longer state "Columbus discovered the Americas" as fact; you would either have to recast it as a factual statement about an opinion ("Such-and-such says that 'Columbus discovered the Americas'") or amend it in some other way so that it wasn't contradicted by the second statement (for example, "Columbus re-discovered the Americas" or "Columbus was the modern era discoverer of the Americas"). Editors with strong feelings about the subject might try to defend the first statement with absurd arguments however. Firstly, they might argue that Such-and-such is a reliable source and therefore the statement stays, without alteration. No matter the extent to which the source is viewed as reliable, though, it remains true that, given the evidence to the contrary is strong enough, what the source says must be regarded as an opinion and not a fact. In effect, having stated something as a fact which strong evidence contradicts reduces the reliability of the source. Next, it might be argued that other reliable sources support the statement, therefore demonstrating its truth. Clearly, unless those sources manage to rebut the evidence about the Vikings, then it still doesn't establish that "Columbus discovered the Americas" is a fact. And, also, it may be that those sources don't actually directly support the statement, saying things like "Columbus reached the Caribbean in 1492." Finally, they might resort to the argument that, since the Vikings left or died out, that the statement that "Columbus discovered the Americas" is effectively true. Perhaps the end result might be the same as if the Vikings had never reached the American continent, but the effective truth doesn't establish statements as statements of fact. Of course, even if the evidence of Viking settlement can be dismissed, the truth of the fact that people were living in the Americas when Columbus reached them and that therefore someone else had got there first couldn't. Exactly what was meant by the word discovery would have to be explained.
 * That assertion that the word antisemitism has never referred to hatred of anybody but Jews is not an undisputed fact.
 * -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Steinschneider invented the phrase "antisemitische Vorurteile", not the term "antisemitism", so the article is still correct. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The article name should be changed from Antisemitism to anti-Semitism.
Antisemitism is not a word and there for should be changed to the correct term anti-Semitism. Below is a list of more accredited references;-

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/27646/anti-Semitism# Encyclopædia Britannica 2010. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=3203&dict=CALD&topic=racial-issues Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 2010. http://www.answers.com/topic/anti-semitism Answers.com (has a few different references and wikipedia at the bottom incorrect).

--Majorcrackdown (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, Majorcrackdown, there's something I'd like to know. As of this moment your edit history shows that you've made 16 edits on Wikipedia, 14 on this talk page and two on your user page. So here's my question. Do you intend ever to do anything useful on Wikipedia or are you only here to haunt this talk page with useless, unproductive drivel that obviously has no hope of gaining consensus and will never be incorporated into the article? It's not unheard of for editors who are not here to build an encyclopedia to be asked to leave. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sweet please! Remember (from the top of this talkpage): "Be polite, Assume good faith, Avoid personal attacks, Be welcoming."  -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you've read the antisemitism article, you'll realize that there are different ways of spelling the term. Modern usage by scholars and experts tends towards "antisemitism"; for example, the The Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism, The Journal for the Study of Antisemitism, European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism, Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, Center for Research on Antisemitism, and many other examples. Thus your concern that "antisemitism is not a word" is unfounded. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me Steven J.Anderson but please do not summarize my input as “unproductive drivel” (I have been polite throughout this talk I request you do the same), if you must know I have only wanted to make one change as I to mention the fact that the word is a Misnomer. After further investigation I feel this article is infringing the NPOV policy as the editorial rights have been monopolised by subjective editors agreeing with and other (you yourself have made edits on Israeli culture and Israeli cuisine which makes me suspect that you may also find this topic one of a sensitive nature hence your ‘passionate’ response). Fear not, once we come to an agreement on this article, on the facts, I will move on to more subjective/incorrect articles.

Jayjg, I have indeed read the anti-Semitism article before commenting, and looked at the references, and the references you provide above none of which are books or have been published. 'Antisemitism' is not a word in the ENGLISH language (as I said this maybe just the Queens English spoke and spread throught the world). Please state an accredited Dictionary reference if you truely believe it is a word.--Majorcrackdown (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The term is very widely used in English, so it's unclear why you claim it "not a word in the ENGLISH language". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Below you mention original research, which is a no no on wikipedia, are any of the above links for referenced published?--Majorcrackdown (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to material I removed from the article itself, not your Talk: page comments. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"All major dictionaries prefer a hyphenated form"
I've moved the following material to Talk: "There are some arguments over which term is to be preferred. All major dictionaries prefer a hyphenated form, i.e. anti-Semitism or anti-semitism." As is obvious, it is not only unsourced, but almost certainly original research. I doubt there are any sources that make the argument that "All major dictionaries prefer a hyphenated form"; if there are, I'd very much like to see those sources explicitly making that argument. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, I retract that statement that;-

"All major dictionaries prefer a hyphenated form, i.e. anti-Semitism or anti-semitism”

As this is indeed not fact. I instead I would like to say;-

“in my opinion most major dictionaries prefer a hyphenated form, i.e. anti-Semitism or anti-semitism”

Please enlighten me on which accredited published dictionaries do accept the term antisemitic/antisemitism as I still believe this is not a word?--Majorcrackdown (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that, in order to show that statements are verifiable facts, citations to reliable sources need to be provided. Text such as "most major dictionaries prefer a hyphenated form" won't be accepted unless you provide a source which confirms that. You could however say something to the effect that "major reference works such as the Encylopaedia Britannica, the Encyclopaedia Judaica, the Oxford English Dictionary and the Merriam-Webster dictionary prefer the hyphenated form" as that is verifiable by looking at the reference works themselves. For an example of the use of the unhyphenated spelling see the Jewish Virtual Library article on Wilhelm Marr. To change the title of this article, you'd need to obtain a consensus of editors for doing it. If you look back through the talkpage archives, though, you'd probably find that there have been discussions about the spelling which have led to the adoption of the current one before.  -- ZScarpia (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, you couldn't make that claim either, since that would be original research (and more specifically a synthesized argument) based on primary sources. One could as easily state "major centers and journals that study antisemitism, including the The Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism, The Journal for the Study of Antisemitism, European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism, Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism, and the Center for Research on Antisemitism prefer the un-hyphenated form". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A “virtual library” are you serious?!

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

"No original research" is one of three core content policies, along with neutral point of view and verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three."

Do you understand what that means?--Majorcrackdown (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Every word of it. Unfortunately, I don't have time to explain it to you right now. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would have to say that it would not be a good idea to make any changes to articles themselves until you feel that you have a grasp of the policies on sources and verifiability.  -- ZScarpia (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Please enlighten me on what I have failed to grasp? Maybe I was a bit hasty to copy and paste the whole section but what I was try to illuminate was the fact that only Published (in print) articles should be referenced.

Even the Jewish Virtual Library, as you referenced above use the term Anti-Semitism as a pose to the anti-Semitism; “Bibliography & Bookstore, Anti-Semitism & Responses” http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/bibanti.html. I believe they do as Anti-Semitism is more commonly accepted (accept to you guys to which I can not fathom why?).

Please could I request that you only use NPOV references from now on also (impartial Encyclopaedias, non Jewish orientated).

In short, in my opinion, given the references above, the most commonly used term across nearly all NPOV references is “anti-Semitic” or “anti-Semitism” NOT antisemitism. Please change.--Majorcrackdown (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Majorcrackdown, I suggest you strike your comment "impartial Encyclopaedias, non Jewish orientated" because it is not constructive. Anyway I checked Google hits for "antisemitism" (1,250,000) and "anti-semitism" (3,010,000); and because straight Google web hits may be useful but are for a variety of reasons not the best metric for usage, I then looked at Google Scholar to see what term academics are using. There, it was 20,300 for "antisemitism" and 53,300 for "anti-semitism". Finally over to Google news for current media usage: 232 for "antisemitism" and 1,991 for "anti-semitism". This indicates the hyphenated form is significantly more common, hope the discussion can proceed with civility. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * When you quoted the rules and asked, "Do you understand what that means," I took that to mean that you didn't understand what they said.
 * I provided the link to the Wilhelm Marr article because you said that you didn't believe that "antisemitism" was a word, by which I assumed you meant that you didn't believe that the spelling was an accepted one. Reading what you said again, I see that what you were really asking for was a list of dictionaries using, or preferring, that spelling. I don't know of any. In my opinion, though, Jayjg's list is convincing enough proof that the spelling is used in good quality sources, though. An interesting exercise might be to go back through this talkpage and see how many editors use each of the different spellings. That might provide proof of the consensus you would need in order to change the article title.
 * -- ZScarpia (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see comments by RomaC.--Majorcrackdown (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC) To clarify you are trying to argue common opinion; RomaC has proven is common opinion is not as Jayig’s stated.--Majorcrackdown (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The evidence presented indicates that the hyphenated spelling is more widely used and "more correct" so you have a good case for changing the article title. Why not ask editors to indicate whether they support you? -- ZScarpia (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the non-hyphenated form is more common, but that doesn't mean that we have to use it and it certainly doesn't imply it's appropriate to discuss spelling in the lead. The question has two dimensions, linguistic and political. Let's start with the linguistic dimension: As to the political dimension: Hans Adler 16:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Most dictionaries write the word "anti-semitic" (certainly not anti-Semitic.
 * Here are the Google Scholar statistics for the use of the two words in various decades:
 * Given the obvious recent trend, dictionaries can't be our ultimate referee in this case. All dictionaries come with explicit or implicit disclaimers regarding language change and up-to-dateness.
 * Dictionaries also come with disclaimers regarding the spelling of technical terms in technical contexts. This is sometimes different from the most common spelling of the same word in a popular context such as a newspaper.
 * In normal language, the word anti-Semitism almost universally refers to hate of Jews, not of Semites in general. We have agreement about this between dictionaries, up-to-date newspaper articles (except some that represent an extremist POV) and most non-extremist scholars.
 * While there isn't really any such thing as a hate of Semites in general, anti-semites are using the etymological fallacy in order to deny that there is even a word for antisemitism. This is a transparent strategy for disrupting necessary debate.
 * This article is about the mainstream meaning of the word. Most of our articles are about topics, not words. Therefore it is not clear that a full discussion of hate of Semites in general, if it is needed at all, should happen in the present article.
 * The spelling "antisemitism" makes it clearer what this article is about than the spelling "anti-Semitism" would.
 * Any argument that the spelling "anti-semitism" is "more POV" because it's less likely to be misunderstood automatically disqualifies itself.

Hans Adler, you state non-hyphenated is more common, when the stats you provided, and those proved by RomeC, very clearly indicate otherwise.

You state antisemitism is clearer than anti-Semitism as if that was fact when it is clear not, that is an opinion you have. In my opinion it is less clear as google will correct it to anti-semitism so will MS Word. Encyclopaedias and dictionaries that I have searched result in no hits as a result of searching antisemitism in terms of research it is less helpful, again in my opinion.

You state the word is “"anti-semitic"(certainly not anti-Semitic)” when every reference above has use “anti-Semitic” not “anti-semitic”, I believe.

Lastly my point of POV or lack or a NPOV is that no established NPOV reference is being used, instead an editorial monopoly has resulted in only one POV being illustrated.

Please do not make such bold unfounded statements, as if they were fact, without research or reference as they can be quite confusing.--Majorcrackdown (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe the walking lexicon would benefit from being informed that there's no such word as "orientated" (did you mean to say oriented?). --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There will be tears before bedtime! (I can't figure out whether that's a wind-up or you really think that orientated isn't a valid word) -- ZScarpia (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not more valid than "antisemitism", and arguably less so. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that a failed attempted at a personal attack? I’ve made far bigger mistakes in my grammar/spelling and that’s all you noticed (due to haste may I add, I have other things to do :P)?

The value of your opinion just dropped to an all time low sir (Steven J. Anderson)!

If I caused any offence by the rest of that comment I apologise, we are a lot more open and free thinking in England so that would be a fine statement here as most would understand it was said not to cause offence.

Let’s be civil though guys, I admit I am getting a little frustrated but I just can’t understand why the editor won’t listen to reason. The validity of this article is being affected by its inaccuracy I'm saddened to say.--Majorcrackdown (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While both "antisemitism" and "anti-Semitism" are widely used in the English language, it's clear that those who actually study the phenomenon prefer "antisemitism". There is no "inaccuracy" in the article, and its "validity" is not "affected" by those using etymological fallacies as arguments. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, "those who actually study the phenomenon" is patently original research Jayjg and you should know that. Google Scholar, media sources and catchall Google hit counts all say "anti-semitism" is the more widespread spelling in current usage, supporting Majorcrackdown's suggestion. Regarding Wikipedia naming conventions, from WP:NAME, "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article." and "The choice of article names should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." This is quite straightforward, no?


 * For consideration, rename and start the article with:

Anti-semitism (also spelled antisemitism or anti-Semitism) is...


 * Of course a redirect to bring "antisemitism" to this page. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Those actually studying antisemitism: The Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism, The Journal for the Study of Antisemitism, European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism, Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism, Center for Research on Antisemitism, etc. Do you have any examples of institutes studying the phenomenon that use the hyphenated form in their name? Also, Google gives over a million hits for each term, and a Bing search gives 2,550,000 hits for "antisemitism", and 2,290,000 for "anti-Semitism". It's clear that both forms are in common use, therefore either satisfies WP:NAME. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi again Jajjg. I think Majorcrackdown was right the groups you cite are not published secondary sources, they are not really applicable in this discussion. As for Bing I can't duplicate your results (with hyphens you have to wrap the term in quotes). I get 2,300,000 for "anti-semitism" and only 380,000 for "antisemitism". Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the form preferred by those who actually study the phenomenon would not be relevant. Google is is also not a "published secondary source", yet you use it quite liberally in your arguments. Regarding Bing, I can't duplicate your results; when I click on your links I get 2,290,000 for "anti-semitism" and 2,550,000 for "antisemitism". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not say Google was a secondary source. I went there to check on webs hits, usage in peer-reviewed academic papers as reflected in Google Scholar, and news media hits. It's odd that your own links posted above to the other search engine still return me 2,300,000 for "anti-semitism" and 370,000 for "antisemitism." Maybe other editors can hit the links and see what they get. Anyway of course a university-based group like the Center for Research on Antisemitism can spell their name any way they like, and this group's Wikipedia entry would use that spelling (this group does not have a Wikipedia entry however). Perhaps we could start an article on that group. Anyway we don't title article according to the spelling used by a few groups, as you should know. We look at the most common contemporary usage of the word. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You used Google to do original research on the term's usage in certain contexts (ghits etc.), I used it to do research on the term's usage in other contexts (usage by groups studying the phenomenon). In terms of being "original research", there's no difference between the two, and it's odd you would object to me doing the very thing you did yourself. As for titling articles, "common contemporary usage of the word" is certainly one important consideration. And since both terms are very commonly used, we can use either form. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you really think that Jews should not be trusted as a source on antisemitism, I recommend taking a look at this AfD, appropriately initiated on April first. I hope it shows you how absurd that stance is. By the way, a user can do all the original research he likes when constructing arguments for a talk page. It's only in the articles that original research is disallowed. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, characterising what RomaC has written as saying "Jews should not be trusted as a source on antisemitism" is totally unjustified. Jayjg wrote: 'While both "antisemitism" and "anti-Semitism" are widely used in the English language, it's clear that those who actually study the phenomenon prefer "antisemitism".' Actually, since no evidence has been presented to support the statement, it is not clear that the last part of the statement is true. A list of bodies and one journal which use the unhyphenated spelling in their titles was presented. That shows that some of those who study antisemitism prefer the unhyphenated spelling; it is not enough in itself, though, to support the phrasing that Jayjg used. -- ZScarpia (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked RomaC to find any institutions etc. studying it that use the hyphenated form. Feel free to do the same. Until you find some, we can confidently say that those who actually study the phenomenon prefer "antisemitism". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're using false logic and I would have thought that the Google Scholar results are a better indication of which spelling those studying antisemitism prefer. But, you're right as far as finding the names of institutes and journals with the hyphenated spelling in them --- I can't. -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So far, it looks as though RomaC and Majorcrackdown are in favour of a spelling change in the title. Based on what has been said so far, I am also in favour of a change. Jayjg looks to have come out against. If I've read things correctly, Hans Adler  and Steven J. Anderson haven't explicitly stated preferences. -- ZScarpia (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Several things:
 * "(certainly not anti-Semitic" should not have been in my post above. I wrote this before I had finished my research and meant to remove it. I apologise for the mistake.
 * "Orientate" is a normal English verb and can be found in dictionaries. I think I once read that it has been spreading recently, especially in the UK.
 * As should be clear from my post above, I strongly oppose changing the spelling for bad reasons. Bad reasons include belief in the etymological fallacy (that's fringe, since it's rejected by linguists) and the attempt to disrupt this article in the same way that antisemites are generally disrupting debate by using the etymological fallacy as a rhetorical weapon (that's a political fringe position).
 * Both spellings would be acceptable, but the current spelling ("antisemitic") is preferable for precisely the reasons for which scholars in the field are increasingly using it against the advice of their spell-checkers. Just like we have articles about topics whose names cannot be found in any dictionary at all, there is no reason why we shouldn't update the spelling before the dictionaries do so. We have done so already, and it would be absurd to reverse this decision, since it fits the topic of this article better than the more misleading other spelling would. Hans Adler 18:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hans Adler 18:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's clear that at a minimum Hans Adler, Steven J. Anderson and I oppose any move. How much weight, if any, should be placed on the opinions of an editor who has been editing for two weeks, made under 30 edits, edited just one article (this one), basing all of his arguments on an etymological fallacy, is something that also should be considered. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Steven, is it correct that you would prefer to keep the current spelling? Part of Majorcrackdown's argument involves the fact that a list of the major reference works use the hyphenated spelling. As that isn't part of an "etymological fallacy", it's untrue to say all his arguments are based on one.   -- ZScarpia (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be more accurate, then to say, that the "vast majority of his arguments" are based on an etymological fallacy and a false assertion (that "antisemitism" is not a word in the English language)? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * More accurate, but not very accurate. As far as restricting whose vote or opinion is taken into account in establishing consensus for article contents is concerned, do you know of any precedents? -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, there's even a special template used to identify their !votes at XfD discussions: Template:Spa. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the article should be moved to "anti-Semitism", for the exact reasons stated by Hans Adler.—Sandahl  (♀)  18:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Steven J, you wrote "If you really think that Jews should not be trusted as a source on antisemitism" ...Is that directed at me? Because ZScarpia interprets it as such, and it sure looks that way from here. I request you either correct the phrasing if it is directed at another editor, show where I said such a thing if it is in fact directed at me, or, if you can't do that, then strike the comment. RomaC (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be brief since I think this is a waste of time. First, yes, I oppose the move. Second, I apologize for the comment you referenced; I think it had to do with an argument I was having on another talk page. I have struck through it. Third, the reason I think this is a waste of time is that the proposed would move would require the use of administrator tools, and no honest administrator could possibly look at this talk page and find a consensus in favor of it. Thus, it's not going to happen. Thus, all we're doing now is adding a few thousand bytes to the archive. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Then let the bytes add up good sir until this is correct! Given the facts and figures this article is incorrectly labelled, in my humble opinion. You are trying to drawn an argument of facts with hopeless opinion.


 * Firstly Hans Adler, forgive me but I feel English is not your first language (or at least I hope for your sake) as "orientate" is word that’s been around for more than a hundred years (a link encase you don’t believe me http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=orientate&searchmode=none) it's not a new thing.

You also speak of “bad reasons” as you so eloquently put it; I don’t know where to begin with that. Please do not compare me to any sort of racist, or my arguments, for wanting to correct this article based on facts. That again is your very humble opinion.

Your reason that antisemitic is “preferable”, another opinion, is based on a floored reference to original research, without any real references to boot! I say again please see Wikipedia’s policies on “No original research”, that would include white papers and the current workings of scholars.


 * Jayjg, no it is not fair to say this argument is based on etymological fallacy, as it is not, that is another talk above (Misnomer), please do not get confused. If you mean in terms of it not appearing in any published dictionary and as pose to anti-Semitic, I request again you proved a reference to a few well published, non religiously orientated (that any religion so don’t take that as being anti-Semitic or racist!) dictionaries. I think you will find you can not hence why you have not already.


 * Sandahl, thank you for your opinion and what little you have added.


 * Steven J. Anderson, any editor with Wikipedia’s interests at heart, not there own, would listen to facts and not incorrect common opinion.--Majorcrackdown (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Majorcrackdown, with respect, you are not paying attention. I am not Steven J. Anderson, who, to judge from his name, is a native speaker of English, but seems to be under the recency illusion concerning the perfectly valid verb "orientate". Can we please stop this silly discussion immediately. There is enough real disagreement left. Hans Adler 01:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

{Reply to Steven J. Anderson comment of 15:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)} Changing the article title would, of course, involve taking a formal vote like the ones recorded in archives 29 and 23 of this talkpage (the vote in archive 23 being the one which resulted in the article title changing from Anti-Semitism to Antisemitism). The current conversation seems to be indicating that there is no great enthusiasm for reverting the article title. Unless there is a rush of editors supporting a change then having had this conversation should hopefully end debate over whether to use the hyphenated or unhyphenated spelling for another year. -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One can only hope. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow so common opinion wins over fact regardless of references! K …. I think that’s a perfect illustration of why there isn’t a referendum on every issue in politics, because people are stupid (thats in general)! --Majorcrackdown (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't look now, but it looks as though the same bunch of hyphen-dropping editors have been over to the Skiing and Cooperative articles. -- ZScarpia (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And they've done a real POV-job at the Antibiotic, Antimicrobial and Antiseptic articles too. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's all try to keep this discussion rational. This article uses a spelling that is gradually moving from misspelling/eccentric to standard spelling, and is not yet reflected in major dictionaries. It's not fair to compare this with other spellings without a hyphen that can already be found in all or most dictionaries.

Wikipedia involves a lot of original research that is not "original research" in the sense of WP:NOR. Wikipedia can't work without editorial decisions. How to spell a word, when there are several possibilities, is a typical case of such an editorial decision. In this case one of the two spellings is better because it can be found in all dictionaries, and the other is better because it counters a widespread misconception about the word. Since each spelling is better than the other, we need to pick one. This has happened already, and there seems to be no consensus to reverse this decision. Hans Adler 01:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hans, I support what you say, actually I don't really care about this spelling issue and personally avoid hyphens when I can. I support your call to reason, am a little concerned with the rudeness and dismissive attitudes that have met Majorcrackdown, who, despite being a new SPA, is relatively civil and does make good points: the spelling "anti-semitism" is in fact more common than "antisemitism", which does not appear in many or most dictionaries.
 * I agree it is very possible that "antisemitism" will catch and overtake "anti-semitism" in the future, so how to deal with that? Well, we have a helpful policy that says we should not anticipate the future: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Policies are there for a reason, we should look to them and avoid emotive arguments.
 * I am unsure what you mean by "(antisemitism) is better because it counters a widespread misconception about the word". Can you explain this?
 * Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the widespread misconception is the etymological fallacy: Because the word "anti-Semitism" looks as if it meant something that is against "Semitism", people are prepared to believe that that's what it "really" means. Note that this is similar to the canard that antisemitism is hate of Arabs as well as Jews, but not quite the same.
 * Also, we are not breaking WP:CRYSTAL at all. Many scholars are using the new spelling, and I easily found several reliable sources that explain exactly why this new spelling is being used. It's far from clear that dictionaries take precedence over these scholars. There is a widespread misconception that reliable sources somehow determine automatically every last detail of our articles. They don't. A lot of things are up to editorial decisions, and that includes the spelling in this case. Editorial decisions are routinely based on original research, and that's totally proper. Hans Adler 02:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hans that's clearer for me now. First exposure to this etymological fallacy concept, but on a side note have always found it amusing that the original meaning for "nice" was "foolish, stupid, senseless". I was also unaware of any discussion or debate on the spelling of "anti(-)semitism", and agree both spellings are in use. As it happens I use the spelling "antisemitism", in part for the reasons you give -- so to be clear I personally think "antisemitism" is a better spelling. But my own preference is not relevant, and the thorny fact remains that "anti-semitism" is the generally preferred spelling in international media, academics, and according to tertiary sources such as dictionaries. So my concern is whether we should "nurture a neologism". I am not convinced that sort of editorial choice falls with the scope of the Wikipedia project. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the spelling has been around since at least the 1950s, gets millions of ghits, gets approximately the same number of Bing hits as "anti-Semitism", and is the preferred spelling for researchers of the phenomenon, it's hardly a "neologism", nor is having the article at "antisemitism" in any way at odds with any of Wikipedia's policies. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, the Bing hits results you cite are much different from what I get. (Incidentally, are you suggesting that Bing is more accurate than Google?) Anyway, maybe other editors can click on these and see what they get? "anti-semitism" and "antisemitism". Or do their own searches on this Bing site. Thanks. RomaC (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On the first 2,320,000 results and on the second 2,320,000 results also.—Sandahl  (♀)  15:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just did it again, this time "anti-semitism" 2,350,000,  "antisemitism" 2,340,000.—Sandahl   (♀)  15:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * RomaC, I only suggest what I actually suggest. It's best to stick to what I've actually written, rather than searching for additional hidden meanings. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A weakness of the searches done so far is that many of the the items found include both the hyphenated and unhyphenated spellings.
 * With Google:
 * Items found ("anti-semitism" included; "antisemitism" excluded): about 2,970,000.
 * Items found ("antisemitism" included; "anti-semitism" excluded): about 968,000.
 * With Bing:
 * Items found ("anti-semitism" included; "antisemitism" excluded): 1,660,000.
 * Items found ("antisemitism" included; "anti-semitism" excluded): 359,000.
 * -- ZScarpia (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks ZSarpia, I forgot to narrow the search that way -- my results:


 * With Google:
 * Items found ("anti-semitism" included; "antisemitism" excluded): about 3,230,000.
 * Items found ("antisemitism" included; "anti-semitism" excluded): about 1,050,000.
 * With Bing:
 * Items found ("anti-semitism" included; "antisemitism" excluded): 1,820,000.
 * Items found ("antisemitism" included; "anti-semitism" excluded): 276,000.


 * With Google Scholar:
 * Items found ("anti-semitism" included; "antisemitism" excluded): about 47,800.
 * Items found ("antisemitism" included; "anti-semitism" excluded): about 14,100.


 * Jayjg and others can you please try this? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I get quite different numbers, but the ways of search engines are mysterious. In any event, it's hardly relevant which terms are found in the absence of others. If a page (like, for example, this article) uses "antisemitism" throughout, but happens to mention that there is another form, it would be excluded from the "antisemitism" search. It's clear that both terms are widely used, and that those studying the phenomenon prefer the un-hyphenated form; again, there is no policy based reason to move the article to another name, nor any consensus for doing so. Since none of those are likely to change, at this point this is just wasting time. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The unhyphenated form is preferable. It is a word; it refers to a real phenomena. Bus stop (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You may, of course, be getting different results because of things like your language preferences. The problem with the former searches was that there is a huge number of web pages in which both spellings occur and therefore, as in the searches done by Sandahl, where Bing returned the same number of results in each case, the results become meaningless as far as establishing what the preferred spelling is. In the case of the Wikipedia article, it was being returned by both searches not only because the alternated spellings are mentioned but also because they appear in the "See also", "Notes", "References", "Further reading" and "External links" sections at the bottom of the article (and there is irony in the fact that the spelling used in the Wikipedia article was being used to establish the spelling that should be used in the Wikipedia article -- in fact, the search strings should have included the expression NOT Wikipedia). Given the problem with the high proportion of items commonly returned, finding the relative number of pages exclusively using each of the spellings becomes a more useful indicator of preference.
 * You say that "those studying the phenomenon prefer the un-hyphenated form." As far as I can see, the only evidence presented for that is that the small number of institutes with the word (antisemitism) in their titles all use the unhyphenated spelling in their titles and in the names of the journals they produce. Have I missed anything? Another editor asked the same question, but did not receive an answer. Curiously, I found that some of the articles these institutes produced used the hyphenated spelling. (By the way, I did some Google searches to find out whether the unhyphenated spelling of un-hyphenated was preferred ..... )
 * -- ZScarpia (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you would assert that "the relative number of pages exclusively using each of the spellings becomes a more useful indicator of preference." One cannot possibly tell from such a search how prevalent each term actually is, merely how often one is used without the other; as pointed out, this can happen for many different reasons. The only way to even get a vague estimate of the actual popularity is by the raw ghit or Bing count, and the bottom line is that both are very popular. Also, the fact that the institutes that study the phenomenon use the unhyphenated form in their own names is clear evidence that that is the form they prefer. By the way, at least one dictionary, Webster's, indicates the unhyphenated form as an alternative spelling."antisemitic" Anyway, I don't need to repeat what has already been shown here; there is no policy-based reason to move the article, nor any consensus for doing so. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there is no consensus for reverting the article title (and it would be better if discussions about it didn't happen so regularly and at such length). Agreed also that both spellings are popular (and that the presence or absence of the hyphen isn't hugely important). I suspect that most people doing research on antisemitism don't work in the small number of institutes that carry the word in their titles. For that reason, the Google Scholar results probably give a better indication of preference among researchers. Policy-wise, it is normal to use the most common form to name an article. Any editor's view of the policy situation here should depend on what they consider the normal form is and whether there are good reasons for, or against, using it. Performing a straight search on each of the spellings indicates how many items each spelling appears on, but, due to the large group of common items returned, the results are useless on their own as an indicator of preference. For that, you really either need to also know how large the common group of items is or to know what the results are with the common items removed. Over that, I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree, though. You can have the last word if you like. -- ZScarpia (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hans Adler you say I quote, “Editorial decisions are routinely based on original research”(which again is opinion surely) please, I say again, take the time read Wikipedia’s policies on original research. To break it down, I guess their reasoning is they would like this to be an encyclopaedia, of sorts, and as such encyclopaedias do not use original research as this can sometimes be wrong and would result in them having to make amendments (I can’t say that has ever happened in Britannica, otherwise I would like money back!).

“Note that this is similar to the canard that antisemitism is hate of Arabs as well as Jews, but not quite the same.” I believe this incorrect if you look of the origins of the term. When the term was first coined it was used to describe the hatred of those who showed genetically features of a Semite, also encompassing the Jews people and Arab people (or even both as they are not mutual exclusive). This is further illustrated by the Ernest Renan's ideas about how "Semitic races" were inferior to "Aryan races."

Surely by that argument of what it really means anti-jewish or antijewish would be a much more descriptive term?

There is no question anti-Semitism is the more common used phrase. I still await any a reference from any published, non-religiously orientated, dictionary or encyclopaedia where antisemitism is more predominately used. --Majorcrackdown (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But would you agree that, once all the for and against arguments have been made, the article title should be determined by consensus? Another issue that you wanted addressed was the addition of text mentioning the use of the hyphenated spelling by major reference works. My recommendation would be to add a note which gives a list of the most important of those. As far as the idea of "Semitic races" is concerned, it's worth reading the article by Bernard Lewis which is given as a source.   -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The word "anti-Semitism", or rather "Antisemitismus", came up in a European context in which there were many Jews but virtually no Arabs at all. Lumping Jews and Arabs together in this way was probably a rhetorical trick: Stressing the kinship between Jews and Arabs made it easier to argue that there was no place for Jews in Europe and that they had better go to the Middle East, to the other "Semites". (This seems obvious, but I don't know if there would be a source for it.) And then, of course, that was a time when "race" was fashionable. So it was only natural to express hate against Jews as hate against their "race" (in contrast to earlier times, when the excuse for hating Jews was their religion). In any case, the word "Semite"/"Semitic" in this context stands for Jews rather than Jews and Arabs, in the same way that "America" in most contexts stands for the United States rather than North and South America. "Anti-Americanism" is not hate or rejection of the North and South American continents, and it is not hate or rejection of everybody living on those two continents. It is specifically hate or rejection of the United States.
 * As to original research, I am very familiar with the policies and have a good sense for which policy means to regulate which aspect of Wikipedia. It's important not to try to apply the Highway Code to a Tube passenger without a ticket. Perhaps you will understand my argument after reading the little known essay WP:Editorial discretion. To apply this to our example: Saying "The spelling 'antisemitism' is preferable." without a source would be improper original research. Saying the same with a reference to a scholar who says so would not be original research, but might fall foul of WP:NPOV if other scholars have the opposite opinion, or if the scholar's opinion is fringe. Using the spelling can never be original research in the sense of WP:NOR; it's a matter of NPOV. Hans Adler 17:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to be saying that NPOV is more important than NOR. If so, I would tend to agree. Bus stop (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's not at all what I said. I will try to say it again, even more clearly:
 * (1) What Wikipedia does:
 * (1a) Wikipedia editors decide to use the spelling "antisemitism" rather than "anti-Semitism". They do this because, while still somewhat less popular, it's less prone to misunderstandings and therefore helps the reader to understand the article subject.
 * (1b) Wikipedia editors decide to use the spelling "anti-Semitism" rather than "antisemitism" because that's what you (still) find as the only spelling in dictionaries.
 * (2) What Wikipedia says:
 * (2a) The article says: "The word was once spelled 'anti-Semitism', but nowadays the spelling 'antisemitism' is preferred."
 * (2b) The article says: "The word is often misspelled as 'antisemitism'."
 * Scenario (1a)/(1b) is a matter of editorial discretion. In this context WP:NPOV is an important policy.
 * Scenario (2a)/(2b) is a matter of facts. While editorial discretion and NPOV play a role even here, we must also stick to WP:NOR. Since the situation isn't entirely clear, neither (2a) nor (2b) is acceptable. It would be improper original research to give one of the two conflicting sides precedence over the other without good reason. On the other hand, both (1a) and (1b) are perfectly fine. Our choice is a matter of consensus, and that's how we have done it in the past. Hans Adler 18:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In respect to (1a), how is "antisemitism" "less prone to misunderstandings"? Bus stop (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the problem with endless discussions: They get even longer because you have to repeat every argument each time someone asks who (understandably) didn't read everything. "Anti-Semitism" gives a very strong impression that it is a response to "Semitism". But there is no such thing, and there never was. This only came up because the German word "Antisemitismus" (which does not have this particular problem) was spelled misleadingly when it was first translated. Hans Adler 19:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, this thread is getting a bit lengthy.

I think that the hyphenated form of the word has some unfortunate implications. Hyphenation implies a cobbling together, which raises questions about the legitimacy of the cobbling together. The lack of legitimacy may be tied to the "strong impression that it is a response to "Semitism"", as you say. But the lack of legitimacy may also be tied to assertions of the nonexistence of a concept of "antisemitism."

As I think the phenomenon is well accepted and widely documented I think the more unambiguously assertive form of the word is preferable. Without the hyphen this article states emphatically that the type of hatred without provocation being referred to is thoroughly established. Bus stop (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions guys, but this is an encyclopaedia, let us stick to reference & facts.

Any reference from any published, non-religiously orientated, dictionary or encyclopaedia where antisemitism is more predominately used?--Majorcrackdown (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would that be the specific criteria we would use to name the article? Please review the discussion above. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Because that’s how encyclopaedias are written, have you never read one (or the Wikipedia rules)!?! You cite your sources and compile a list of facts. You do not, however, build and article around your own opinions, or others, and try and pass them off as fact.--Majorcrackdown (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, we are writing an encyclopedia. If an encyclopedia is too strongly based on other encyclopedias then there is a problem. We can use them to guide what we are doing, but only if they are up to date and don't contradict the experts. Also, to quote WP:NOTLEX (which generally advises to use dictionaries, not to second-guess them):
 * Dictionaries are extremely conservative in what they recognize, and are descriptive of an existing definition, not creators of it. More immediate sources, like books, academic writings, or others are often more direct and accurate, especially when they are responsible for the definition in the first place. Stephen Colbert is a much better source for a definition of truthiness than Webster's.
 * This is very much analogous to the situation we have here. The relevant scholars use a recent spelling and know and explain precisely why they do that. There is no need for us to be as conservative as the dictionaries. Hans Adler 14:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * PS: Majorcrackdown, please have a look at WP:DEADHORSE. You may think that it does not apply to you because you had valid arguments in this discussion and your opponents didn't. But that's normal. Everybody thinks that. Your options at this point include (1) waiting until the topic comes up again at some point in the (not too near) future, preferably with substantially new arguments or many new participants, and (2) following the advice given at WP:DR. But you should be aware that you can expect better results if you first become interested in other articles as well as this one. Hans Adler 14:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Dead horse" in this case represents a short-circuiting of the consensus-reaching process. My position is in disagreement with Majorcrackdown. But I am opposed to silencing someone who has been consistently raising valid and thought-provoking points. It has been a challenge to respond to those points. This is not an easy issue to resolve. Majorcrackdown has been completely respectful of the process of reaching consensus on this issue. I take issue with the suggestion that he/she "wait[ing] until the topic comes up again at some point in the (not too near) future, preferably with substantially new arguments". Bus stop (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the contribution history of this classical SPA and the amount of work that went into humouring them are completely beyond any reasonable proportion. For 3 weeks this editor has managed to get themselves interested in nothing other than (1) pushing the canard that antisemitism doesn't refer specifically to Jews, ending with the proposal to at least get the word "misnomer" into the article as if there was anything wrong with the current formulation ("While the term's etymology might suggest..."), and then (2) pushing the misleading standard spelling based originally on the claim that "antisemitism is not a word" . I am sure I am not the only one who can see the pattern here. Civil POV pushing is still POV pushing.
 * And his arguments aren't all that good. We can use words that aren't in any dictionaries yet, we can use words that are too special to be in dictionaries, and of course similarly we can use new or specialist spellings that aren't in any dictionaries yet. The hyphen spelling is not going to win against a consensus of the majority based simply on its being obviously the only valid solution according to policy. Because it isn't as simple as that. This thread is far too long and we are going in circles. Continuing to fight against the status quo without substantially new input is disruptive at this point. Hans Adler 15:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. What he said. Times ten. This went beyond ridiculous a long time ago which is why I've been trying to avoid making this thread longer. And read WP:GOOGLEHITS. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Exclusively" in lead section?
Lead section says that the term is "exclusively" applied to Jews. Yet there are many examples where it is not, just one of which is Ralph Nader at http://www.counterpunch.org/nader10162004.html. This article, in the lead, includes a cite for a book that says it the term is used exclusive to Jews, but there is a big difference between "should be exclusive.." and "is exclusive". Since there are significant examples, shouldn't the lead section incorporate that? Maybe something like "some notable people use the term for non-Jews, even tho many people think that usage is wrong?" --Noleander (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I read some of the archives, and it looks like this "exclusively" issue has been discussed before, somewhat obliquely. Certainly there is some wording that is more accurate than what is presently in the article (without diluting the prescribed meaning of the word).  How about
 * "The term antisemitism is primarily used in relation to Jews only, but is sometimes (rarely?) used for any Semitic peoples" or
 * "The vast majority of uses of the term relate to Jews only, but some sources use the term to apply to any Semitic people, but this minority usage is strongly objected to by many authorities".  Or
 * "The term has been used nearly exclusively in relation to Jews only, but is sometimes used to apply to all Semitic peoples, although that latter usage is considered incorrect by many authorities". Or
 * "Most authorities prescribe that the term should be used only in relation to Jews, and that prescription is almost universally followed, but it is sometimes used to refer to any Semitic people".
 * --Noleander (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a second notable person, James Zogby, that uses the term to include non-Jews at http://www.aaiusa.org/washington-watch/1185/w070494. The other example of non-Jewish usage is  Ralph Nader, who is also pretty notable, so that is two, certainly enough to demonstrate that the "exclusive" term not accurate.  Although such non-standard usage may be discouraged, it should not be ignored.  --Noleander (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Zogby and Nader use the term in a non-standard way to make a theoretically linguistic but actually political point; the overt text is that "Arabs are Semites too, and also suffer from discrimination", while the subtext is "therefore Arabs can't be antisemites, and Jews should stop whining about discrimination anyway, since Arabs suffer far worse". Despite this illogical political point-making, the reality is that the term still means "hatred of Jews", regardless of the way in which a tiny number of activists would like to change the English language. Since people keep bringing dictionaries as evidence, for example, here's how the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the term: "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group". WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE apply here. There is already a term for hatred of Arabs, it's Anti-Arabism. See the article there for more details. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% on the meaning of the word. My only issue was with the lead parag sentence:   since the term was invented it has been used to refer exclusively to hostility toward Jews .  That is a very confusing, poorly worded sentence.  There are a couple of ways to parse it.  One way means that NO ONE has ever used the term for non Jews.  All Im saying is that sentence needs to be clarified.   Also, but unrelated:  down in the Usage section, it may bear noting that there are some notable people that have used the word in an unorthodox way to mean "anti Jew or anti Arab" but those rare usages are clearly to dilute the word and to make a political point.  --Noleander (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the phrasing needs a bit of tweaking. As it reads, it's literally incorrect; it is not true that it has been used exclusively that way. It has been correctly used that way exclusively. Perhaps, "since the term was invented (coined?), its meaning has been hostility toward Jews." --jpgordon:==( o ) 06:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with jpg. --BozMo talk 10:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest a change of tense to the present: "Its meaning is hostility toward Jews." The difficulty with the historical references, amounting to a refutation of the truth of the statement "since the term was invented, its meaning has been hostility toward Jews," is that, firstly, its arguable that the term as first used didn't confine itself to Jews specifically (from which arose the objection made by  Scottish chap which centred on the contradiction between the Lead and Etymology sections) and, secondly, its modern usage stems from a political philosophy which, although it may have added up to the same thing, was more complex than a simple simply a hatred of Jews (or that's the impression I get). Given more time I'd have been able to make myself clearer, but such is life.  --  ZScarpia (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC) (amended: changed text from "a simple" to "simply a".  -- ZScarpia (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC))
 * The whole thing has been re-worded and sourced to deal with the issue, so it's moot now. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"Antipathy"? --jpgordon:==( o ) 19:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you'll have to explain.  -- ZScarpia (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. I was just thinking of what would be a better word than "hostility". Antipathy? Antagonism? At the time, anyway, it really was pretty complex; it was "we're not those vulgar religious Jew-haters, we're philosophical/political Jew-haters." --jpgordon:==( o ) 21:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Now go back and figure out what I actually did mean rather than what you'd like to think I meant.  -- ZScarpia (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, per above by jpgordon and BozMo, I'll make that sentence less confusing. --Noleander (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't, Noleander. Instead, please propose new wording here. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would leave out "often rooted in hatred of their ethnic background, culture, or religion." What is the point to listing components?


 * I would suggest this as the first paragraph:


 * Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is prejudice against or hostility towards Jewish people. Semites include other than Jews, but the correct use of the term since its inception has involved applicability to Jews only. Thus the term antisemitism is used only to refer to hatred of Jews; it is never used when making reference to other groups of people who might be called "Semitic." The term can be spelled in the hyphenated form both with "Semitism" capitalized or in lower case, but in this article an editorial decision has been made to use the unhyphenated form of the term throughout."


 * I have also left off the last sentence:


 * "In its extreme form, it "attributes to the Jews an exceptional position among all other civilisations, defames them as an inferior group and denies their being part of the nation[s]" in which they reside."


 * I think this first paragraph should be used to address the issue of the use of the word, the definition of the word, and the spelling of the word. I would add that sentence to the beginning of the second paragraph, with a few minor adjustments, so the second paragraph read:


 * "In its extreme form, it "attributes to the Jews an exceptional position among all other civilisations, defames them as an inferior group and denies their being part of the nation[s]" in which they reside. Antisemitism is manifested in a variety of ways, ranging from individual expressions of hatred and discrimination against individual Jews to organized violent attacks by mobs or even state police or military attacks on entire Jewish communities. Extreme instances of persecution include the First Crusade of 1096, the expulsion from England in 1290, the Spanish Inquisition, the expulsion from Spain in 1492, the expulsion from Portugal in 1497, various pogroms, the Dreyfus Affair, and perhaps the most infamous, the Holocaust under Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany." Bus stop (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The individual components are helpful for understanding the scope of the issue, and there's no point in including fringe usage in the very first paragraph. Also, it's "Jews", not "Jewish people"; no need for wordy circumlocutions here. The article shouldn't refer to "Semites" as containing any peoples, since the whole idea is an outdated racial concept. In addition, Wikipedia articles aren't self-referential, so they don't talk about their own editorial decisions. The last sentence is fine too. We are looking at refining the wording of one sentence, no more. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I linked "Jewish people" to the article "Jews." My only reason for choosing "Jewish people" instead of "Jews" was to create a non-linking word in the word "people." Bus stop (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the lead to deal with the issues raised, here, and added sources. The lede now actually explains what antisemitism is before it starts discussing esoteric linguistic points. When it does discuss the etymology, it explains the origins of the term, and no longer uses the word "exclusively". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that is acceptable to me. Bus stop (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

{reply to User talk:Jayjg comment of 00:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)} -- I think that your changes are good. The only small change I would suggest is changing the final sentence to read "and that has been its normal use since then." Well done. -- ZScarpia (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Very good changes, and "normal" adding makes them even better. That seems to be just the right weight for discussing the alternative usage in the lead. I will just go ahead and add the word. Hans Adler 09:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)