Talk:Semitism/Archive 1

I am Jewish and I have never heard any other Jew use "semitism" as our term "for cultural unity, to counter the natural assimilation that follows life within larger culture-societies." This sounds like a neologism -- who invented it? Who uses it? The article makes sweeping claims about how the word is used, but no concrete information on who uses it this way. Is this for real? Slrubenstein


 * Hm. I didnt know the meaning of the term neologism. According to article, though, "radar" is a neologism - a"new" word; even though it was coined in 1934 thereabouts. So, according to this definition, anti-Semitism is neologic. Follow?


 * I could stake a defense on the above, but I want you to consider the article, its substance, plausibility, and how it fits into the whole picture, logically, and without prejudice. Lastly, I would as you to please consider the meaning of objecting to the existence of a term for which there exists a negative of.
 * Be well, -Steven
 * p.s. If that doesnt work, then Ill go through the labors of finding actual sources... "how quaint."

"go through the labors of finding actual sources?" Please! This is what we are supposed to do before writing an encyclopedia article! One does research before writing!

I do not have problems with articles on neologisms like radar, where the neologism is widely used, and the article can state (backed up by sources) who coined the neologism, when, and where. If "semitism" is a neologism that is in wide use, and the article can inform us as to how it came into use, that would be fine (which is what I wrote above). But from what you wrote on the anti-semitism talk page, it sounded like you were making the word up. I would still like to give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you did make it up -- well, that is just wrong for wikipedia. This is not a vehicle for expressing our own opinions and for promoting neologisms of our own invention; it is a vehicle for summarising the current state of knowledge, or debates about, a particular issue. If this is not a neologism of your own invention I apologize now -- but reiterae what I wrote above: the article must explain who coined the word and in what context, and give an account of how and why it spread in usage (e.g. "radar" is a needed neologism to describe a new invention, and it became a widely accepted word because the invention was so important during WWII and became standard equipment on many vehicles after). Slrubenstein

There is no such thing as "Semitism

Another article: There is no such thing as "Semitism -RK

Hey there, RK, are you gonna stop, for a minute? -Stevert

RK, you're asking a systop to ban stevertigo but haven't provided any rational reason for it. I read the article and while it does have NPOV problems, it's hardly racist in any way obvious to me. Stevertigo, you offered to cite sources that this term exists. Please do so, as I've never heard it, so I'm currently leaning towards deletion (after there is a civil and reasonable discussion about whether or not to do so). Tokerboy

I removed this until it can be improved:

Semitism is a neologic term describing political, social, and cultural attitudes that are in harmony with the majority of Jewish opinion. As all societies are not homogenous, Semitism, more than anything else represents an attitude that defends a unity within Jewish society as to the nature of its identity, and purpose. The attitudes of Semitism, largely reflect similar attitudes of ethnic unity within all cultures, particularly "endangered" ones.

Where distinct ethnic divisions exist, enthoconvergent forces are seen to have the effect of scattering a population, and destructively weakening its culture. Further, cultures threatened by this phenomenon see this as highly destructive, and refer to it as "assimilation". Semitism has, historically, been largely successful in keeping a certain cohesion among Jews. In the modern global context of hyper-transport, hypercommunication, and limited land and resources, the threat of "hyper-assimilation" is only another burden to Semisists, who continue to try to patch, within their own communities, cracks in their percieved cohesion.

A problem semitists and other ethnic cultures face is the new concept of their own traditions as being outside of newer, perhaps more developed values - such as those that reflect unitarianist and multi-ethnic points of view. The struggle of Jews in history has largely been the attempt to simply hold onto their culture. The reason is that within larger, more dominant cultures, Jews have felt that it is they who must compromise their culture.

In marriage, for example, the woman has historially compromised to her husbands' culture. While in a person to person context of a human relationship; these issues seem, from a developed-world point of view, as being quite normal. But to the Semitist, this still represents an erosion of his culture, considering that the tendency of the majority culture to migrate to the minority culture is slight, by comparison. This is also compounded, in Judaism, with the nature of Jewish culture being decided by inheritance, alone. Though today, the issue of universalism; inclusiveness of converted Jews, is a contentious issue.

Within Judaism today, there are emerging attitudes that reflect an anti-Semitist view, that Judaism can be a universalist culture, while still maintining its culture.

Anti-Semitism, has long been used as a term describing a specific type of anti-Jewish attitude. However, it is now often used as an ad hominem attack, quite indiscriminately; even against Jews themselves.

See also Aryanism, Hispanism,  [[Sovietism,

I think the article must make clear who invented this word and under what conditions; shose definition of "semitism" is being used, and name some avowed self-identified "semitists". Slrubenstein

Hey Toker. Jeesh, Im glad RK doesnt have sysop status. Just delete it ! RK says. Quite the classical, he is. Im working on it: This google search reveals some varied use of the term, in light discussion. A new word springs forth. Its quite common. -Stevert

Interesting...Webster's (www.m-w.com) defines a semite as being "a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples", but defines anti-semitism as what amounts to "Jew hatred". matt


 * Tokerboy, I have raised my own objections above. I think I can say a bit more, based on RK's points.  "Anti-Semitism" was coined by a racist.  The reason that person coined this term, instead of using the phrase "anti-Jew," was to make clear that he was refering to a race, not a religion.  I think RK's point -- which I agree with (so maybe I am reading him in a biased way), is two fold: that it is wrong to define anti-Semitism to include hatred of Arabs (who, like Jews, speak a "semitic" language) because the term refers specifically to Jew-hatred.  Second, although anti-semites define Jews as a race, Jews do not consider themselves to be a race (in the particular way that anti-semites think of "races").  Despite this, we use the word because it has established itself as a term describing a form of racism.  But to coin a word, "semitism," to describe the "race" that anti-semites hate, is to play into their hands. In any event, the contents of the article does not correspond to anythink I have ever heard of and I doubt its scholarly value. Slrubenstein

Just saw this article. WOW! I have to agree with Slr and RK. I have never heard this term before. What is its source? What is the basis of its definition, as given in the article? Where is it defined as that (besides on Wikipedia). Finally, can someone please explain to me how the following statement: A problem semitists and other ethnic cultures face is the new concept of their own traditions as being outside of newer, perhaps more developed values - such as those that reflect unitarianist and multi-ethnic points of view. Cultural imperialism aside, how is it possibly NPOV to rate in terms of more or less developed? Danny 00:00 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Googling does seem to reveal varied use of the term, but not with any consistency. It seems to refer to anything characteristic of the large class of Semitic ethnicities, such as cultural mores, words, attitudes, etc. Anyway, I didn't intend to get into a discussion about whether or not the article deserves to exist as it was or in any form, I was just responding to RK's request that a sysop (such as myself) ban stevertigo for racism... RK, please don't be so alarmist. There's lots of reasons to oppose this article, but constantly calling virtually anyone racist for no apparent reason makes me want to distrust you even when you are right. Stevertigo may be wrong, stupid, self-centered, misguided or even anti-Semitic, but all his article seems to be saying is that there is such a thing as "Jewish culture" and it is called "Semitism". Tokerboy
 * I'm not saying Stevertigo is any of those things, just that it's possible yet still doesn't reflect on the quality of his contributions to this or any other article. Tokerboy

"Semitism" is certainly a word: However, it seems to be a somewhat vague adjective, and not something we need an article about, as it would be covered by the Jewish topics we already have. -- Stephen Gilbert 00:14 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)
 * http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Semitism
 * http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=semitism

well, Im juggling tasks right now, so briefly: RK, Danny, SLRub... but mostly RK... who outright makes a horses ass of himself on a regular basis. Im curious how you all felt when you read that semitism is in the MW dictionary? Keep that feeling in mind, when you decide to assume things. As for meaning and use... what about Philo-Semitism? there we have two terms, which include the word semitism... one of them being the inverse of... (which RK and others have previously stated that its use applies to Jews only. )

I dont have a word for RK - he repeatedly calls me an "anti-Semite", and he no would doubt be an embarrassment to his particular ethnicity, if most of his people were'nt smart enough to attribute his stupidity to him alone.

By the logic of SG, above - that it would "aready be covered", ( and therefore its in need of censoring ) - this would mean that anti-Semitism itself is "already covered" under the heading of racism. ( Racism> Anti-aryanism,anti-Semitism, anti-nihonwenism, anti-Asianism, anti-Africanism etc...)

Note, that of the above "categories" - only three stand out as being vague or indistinct - a-aryan (what is "white") anti-semitism (what is"semitism" again) and "anti-nihonwenism" - "anti-Japanesism" (is this really a phenomenon?)

you all raise interesting points. And most of you seem to be of Jewish decent. Im I to make some inference from this? How is it that RK is gallant and unrestrained in editing article after article, Is-Pal conf, islamism, al-qaeda, terrorism, ad inf.... none of these things are about Judaism. Theyre about Arabs. How do rabid racist like RK, and the passive racists like some who unwittingly support him propose to make indiscriminate and unhindered comment on Arab issues, disguised as NPOV? At the same time, proclaiming defense of this term, - for which he says "it doesnt even exist" - I would have loved to see his face when he came across the MW and AH dictionaries.

What am I to say to all of this? Can there be any argument that there is no "Semitist" bias? Amer Heritage Dic defines it as


 * SYLLABICATION: Sem·i·tism
 * PRONUNCIATION:  sm-tzm
 * NOUN: 1. A Semitic word or idiom. 2. Semitic traits, attributes, or customs. 3. A policy or predisposition in favor of Jews.

Semitism (Page: 1309) Sem"i*tism (?), n. A Semitic idiom; a word of Semitic origin. [Written also [[Shemitism]

Now, give me credit for writing, in extremely short time, a decent stub. It even avoids the simplistic definition of predisposition - (preference).

Its unfortunate that we here at en.wikipedia dont have adequate Arab representation. This doesnt mean that we let people like RK jump over everything that cuts through his crap. He scatters inuendo, and anti-Arab propaganda around, and I - ethnically "Irish-American Catholic", am among a few to dispute his crap. Please Dan, SL, dont let this be a fight of SV against "all Jews everywhere" or (more ttp) of SV vs RK...... time is too precious, and Im weary of arguing with the fool, and such foolishness its often bound to me seen as mine. Murphy's Law, of course. Be well, Without any objective objections, Im restoring the article later, when I have time. --Stevert

Hi, Stevert. I guess I will give the first response to you. Obviously, this should not be seen as a fight between "you or anyone else and all Jews everywhere." I will, however, disagree with some of what you say, which I think you will agree is legitimate. Our goal should not be to score points against each other's beliefs, but to come to some common consensus about what is NPOV and report on it accordingly. By the way, you are also right in assuming that I am socially and culturally Jewish--I'm not too keen on any definition of ethnicity that fits my particular circumstances (long story ...). I am also professionally Jewish, working at a Jewish museum developing curricula and actually dealing with a lot of these issues in a professional capacity. While I am the first to admit that my education, focusing on Judaic studies, may prejudice some of what I write, so will the facts that I am also a staunch agnostic (I think God is too irrelevant to address the issue of its existence), a socialist, and the holder of three passports (American, Canadian, and Israeli). Before you jump to any conclusions, I also define myself as a disillusioned Zionist and currently a "cultural autonomist" (I believe in the preservation of a Jewish cultural identity in the Diaspora).

Why am I saying all of this? To give you some idea of the complexity of defining one's self as Jewish. There are too many interpretations and shades of interpretations within Jewish life to define Jewish identity as a homogeneous unit. There have always been fierce debates within Jewish life to give some uniform definition of what being Jewish is. Furthermore, Jewish identity is not stagnant. It is ever growing and developing and it is ever changing. Very few (if any) Jews today have the same sense of identity that their grandparents had 100 years ago.

Nevertheless, people who identify as Jews do share a certain sense of kinship with other people who identify as Jews. Kinship, however, is not particularism. Unfortunately, particularism also exists among Jews in some quarters, but in many quarters it does not. Even here, there is no homogeneity.

As for your comments: I was surprised to see that Semitism appeared in the dictionary cited. Never did I say it did not exist. I questioned whether it existed and found out it did. Looking at the term, I still see it defined primarily in terms of linguistics, rather than of ethnicity (the third definition), and even that definition does not go quite so far as your article would have it.

You bring up philo-Semitism. If you look above, I was the one who introduced it into the discussion, so I know that that term does exist and how it is used. Both that term and anti-Semitism, however, generally refer to the attitudes of outsiders to Jews: Anti-s hate them; philo-s love them. The term you are introducing adds an entirely new dimension to the discussion--what do Jews themselves think about Jews? While that is the basis of your article, I still do not find that in either of the two definitions you bring. What is the source of your definition? Also, I would be grateful if you would address my concern about cultural imperialism ("perhaps more developed values"). (Something to look up on the topic with reference to Judaism is the Toynbee-Herzog debate in the 1950s. You can find the transcript online.)

I hope it doesn't surprise you that I am also upset that there is what I believe to be an anti-Islamic and anti-Arab bias in many of the articles. I concur with you that more knowledgeable Arab and Muslim contributors be encouraged to participate in the discussions so that their voices be heard. Your claim, however, that it is a "Semitist" bias does not bode well with me. After all, I am a self-proclaimed Jew, a committed Jew, and an active Jew, yet I agree with you on that point. And I am not an anomaly. Most of my Jewish friends and colleagues would agree with that point too.

As for objective objections: the first definition gives something only vaguely similar to what you wrote as its third point. The second definition doesn't mention it at all. That doesn't convince me. In academic forums, I may be limited in scope, but I have never encountered the term before (I am flipping through an old Akkadian textbook I have around the house to see if they use it), and certainly never in the context you use it. I therefore think that it needs further consideration. Danny 02:28 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC) Oh, and sorry my response is so long.

Sorry Danny, I havent read your above yet, this is just cut and paste, while I go eat.


 * Jews do not consider themselves to be a race (in the particular way that anti-semites think of "races").Slrubenstein


 * Ah yes, the ever-morphic identity of the everlasting xenoculture. I thought we were in agreement - "race" is an invalid word in any context - everybodys related to within +-75K years. "Ethnicity", simply refers to the sociogeographical ( cultural/religious ) differences. -SV


 * I think the article must make clear who invented this word and under what conditions; shose definition of "semitism" is being used, and name some avowed self-identified "semitists". Slrubenstein


 * who "invented" the word "grok". Ok bad example, how about "English"  or "Hebrew" -SV  "hiberu" ? :)


 * I do not have problems with articles on neologisms like radar.... is widely used (1) and the article can state (2) (backed up by sources) who ( 3.) coined the neologism, (4) when, and (5) where. If (6) "semitism" is a neologism that is in wide use, and the article can inform us (7) as to how (8) it came into use, that would be fine (which is what I wrote above. Slrubestien


 * Are you sure you dont have any more qualifications for what constitutes a stub, SlRub?


 * Interesting...Webster's (www.m-w.com) defines a semite as being "a member of any of a number of peoples... but defines anti-semitism as what amounts to "Jew hatred". matt


 * Precisely, matt - hypocricy goes as deep as to the level of semantics!? wow. No wonder this stuff is hard to figure out. -SV


 * However, it seems to be a somewhat vague adjective, and not something we need an article about, as it would be covered by the Jewish topics we already have. -- Stephen Gilbert


 * No its not. Its a noun - a thing. - "Function: noun Date: 1851... " ahem. -SV


 * all his article seems to be saying is that there is such a thing as "Jewish culture" and it is called "Semitism" 'Tolker


 * Thats a bit simplistic, but... thanks. ...But what I am saying is that Semitism is a culture/ethnic- based predisposition, and then I went into some of the basics about assimiculture, and the varied opinion of "being assimilated" as a threat to culture.

all done on a shoestring budget, and less than 20 mins.


 * Anyway, I didn't intend to get into a discussion about whether or not the article deserves to exist as it was or in any form, I was just responding to RK's request that a sysop (such as myself) ban stevertigo for racism... Toker


 * I wonder if RK has a history of this, and whether it merits a suspension - a time-out in the corner, if you will. Of the numerous times he has called me an anti-Semite, in just a few discussions, - I have no count. And in all cases, these have been reactive, alarmist - and I wont say undeserved, because its not about who deserves what. Hmm...


 * "newer, perhaps more developed values - such as those that reflect unitarianist and multi-ethnic points of view."-Danny, quoting Sv


 * Yes, Daniel, its fishy... gimme a break. I was trying (too hard ) to explain a conflict that ethnic minorities have, in reconciling their presence within another culture, hence Jews in the US, and the tendencies of living within a different culture to sap the minority. "Mr. Dan, Im in love with your daughter. No, Mr Dan Im not Jewish. Youre not cool with that? Why?"  Entropy applied to culture. If is not resisted, the culture becomes assimilated. Its my kind reasoning to explain for people like RK.   -Stevert

There _has_ to be a way of dealing with this so as to maintain articles on semitism and anti-semitism, while still doing the right thing by those of the Jewish persuasion. I (a roman catholic, BTW) have come to the conclusion that semitism and anti-semitism are anomalous, and quite likely defined formally by someone who did not do their homework on the base work, semite. Maybe the people who defined them were "racists". Who knows? What is done is done. Its not our fault that some ignorant people defined these words n years ago.

'A Modest Proposal...'

The words are anomalous, but they are commonly used. I admit I haven't ever seen "semitism" in a sentence, but it seems illogical to have ant-semitism and not semitism. Perhaps instead of arguing, we should work together (objectively) to clarify these words in their articles as a pre-amble to the article. Let's recruit a couple more Jews to make sure we are getting a neutral point of view on this topic, and a few of us faithless disilusioned Christians who don't care either way can verify that the text looks neutral.

matt 03:11 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

This is my response to Danny, skipping Matt for now - apologies...SV

As I learn.. one of the things Im discovering is the varied opinions among Jews, about all aspects of their status as Jews. Is it just a light, historical reference. Who isnt a Jew? - I might ask, as a yosu-miru ... As a Christian, am I not also a Jew? Another thing I notice is the fact that religious Judaism, being old and ripe, has settled to a degree that its spawn have not. With this maturity, comes a sense of secularism, call it atheism, if you like, or agnosticism... perhaps Deism fits best. In this respect the line between Secular American Deist Jews and Secular American Deist Christians... seems almost invisible. Perhaps this is what I meant by "development". But the obstacles to this agreement are, of course, the literalists, and the Orthodox, and the devout, the faithful, the conservative ( with their WikiLove), - those for whom belief hold no understanding... Its a static entity, wherin human issues must fight for their righful place, rather than being simply accepted. Our American society embodies a "experiment" (poor word-implies acceptablility of failure), in tolerance (another poor word for respect) Substituting good words for the poor ones, We have an opportunity to learn a new kind of respect: The kind that is familiar with the unfamiliar.

...Back to reality... So, we have here an article, which if well done, promises to reveal differences among Jews in their attitudes toward other cultures. I apologise for the accusation of a "Semist bias" - the fact that I used the term at all, however, I think serves my premise, and it was to this effect that is mostly why I used it. Ill admit to some degree of frustration, for which I cannot excuse..

I would be happy with leaving the article as I wrote it, and not interrupt the natural re-ordering process. Since we all seem now to be in some agreement that there is such a thing, as "semitism", and that the argument that says that "this belongs elsewhere," is too apparently a logic that is only fashionably applied. We are only human. Stevert

I'm not in agreement. Frankly, I don't really understand a lot of what you are saying. On the other hand, even if there is such a thing as "semitism," I have yet to see it defined anywhere as you defined it. Furthermore, in one of my comments on anti-Semitism, I explained how the term was created as a euphemism, just like bathroom. It seems that we are bending over backwards to explain a euphemism literally. Does a bathroom require a bath? Danny 03:23 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

hmm, I see your point. Ive got to go. I appreciate the depth of your responses, in general, Danny. As far as "bending over backward to explain euphemisms" well.. there's familiar precedent for this behaviour. Be well, and goodnight. -SV:)

Good nite! :-) Danny 03:31 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

In addition to endorsing everything that Danny has written, I just want to make a few brief responses to Sv.


 * I do not know what you mean by xenoculture, but I really do not understand why you claim that we have all agreeed that race is a meaningless term, when you were bringing it up. I do not mean that you used the word "race" or even that you intended to.  But RK's point, and mine, is that any meaning that "semitism" has is rooted in racial thinking, so if we want to avoid race, we should avoid this word.  One of the first assaults on racist science was the argument that group and language boundaries are not isomorphic.  People once claimed that they were -- thus, if "semitic" refers to a family of languages, it also refers to a family of people (and some definitions reproduce this false logic).  But that just isn't true, and it is based on dangerous assumptions even you seem to reject.


 * Perhaps "semitism" is a word -- I do not question that in and of itself; I just point out that I never heard of it, and given that I studied at a seminary and know an awful lot of Jews, when the article claims that semitism is how Jews talk or think of themselves, you can understand why I have a strong reaction.


 * I do know that "semitic" and "philo-semitic" are words, as well as "anti-semitic," although these words do not mean the same thing (semitic generally refering to a language family, philo/anti-semitic refering to attitudes non-Jews have towards Jews). That the meaning of these similar words are in some way inconsistent is not a sign of hypocrisy, it is a common feature of language.  The word "cleave" and "sanction," depending on context, can each have two opposite meanings -- this doesn't make English hypocritical, it makes language rich and complex.


 * I also know that just because semite and anti-semitic are words, does not mean that the word "semitism" naturally must exist as well. There is a word "chair."  That does not mean that there must necessarily also be a word "chairism."  Maybe the word does exist -- all I am saying is that it doesn't "have" to exist.


 * You ask who invented the neologism "Grok" and then say that this is a bad example. I say, "No, Sv, it is a fabulous example."  I do not know who invented the word "English."  But don't you see: if semitism is (as you now seem to agree) a neologism, we should compare it to other neologisms like grok, not to words that are not neologisms, like "English."  The reason I do not know who invented "English" is that it was invented so long ago.  The reason it doesn't matter who invented it is because it is so widely used.  But "grok" was not invented a long time ago, so we can know who invented it (Heinlein); nor is it so widely uesed, so it is important to discuss its origin and spread.  The same goes for "semitism"


 * Finally, I am sorry you think that RK, Danny, and I think that non-Jews have no right to write about Jews or Judaism. I do not know why you think that.  I think Danny, RK, and I have all drawn on non-Jewish scholarship about Jews in our contributions here.  But we draw on the work of non-Jewish scholars, people who have done solid research.  And this is, and has been, my question to you which you have not yet answered: before you wrote the first version of this article, what research did you do?  Well?  Please tell us: what research did you do before you wrote the first version? Slrubenstein


 * " I do not mean that you used the word "race" or even that you intended to. But RK's point, and mine, is that any meaning that "semitism" has is rooted in racial thinking, so if we want to avoid race, we should avoid this word."


 * On the very surface, I would agree with this, but c'mon.... We live in a world of racist stereotypes, each of which is slowly being changed to its valid, rather less volatile meaning. Take anti-Semitism. We can stipulate to it as being a kind of racism, dont agree? I think thats being too particular, but perhaps the disagreement is about Race itsef? Racism, therefore, is not a valid term either, because we here all know that race is an invalid distinction. Do we get rid of racism? The article, I mean. By partucular, of course, I do mean "predisposition towards...."


 * "Perhaps "semitism" is a word -- I do not question that in and of itself; I just point out that I never heard of it, and given that I studied at a seminary and know an awful lot of Jews, when the article claims that semitism is how Jews talk or think of themselves, you can understand why I have a strong reaction."


 * Hmm. Yes! Yes!... No doubt this is how Arabs feel when they come across articles like Islamism. Unfortunately this kind of sublimely (for lack of a better word - anti-Semitic? sometimes..) racist rhetoric permeates the culture. I realize now, after a beautiful nights sleep, that this must be what its like to try to explain water to a fish.

If you point to it, theyll think your pointing at a rock, or something. "Wah-tur? - No, we call that 'a rock"". Iraq? hehe.


 * "I also know that just because semite and anti-semitic are words, does not mean that the word "semitism" naturally must exist as well. There is a word "chair." That does not mean that there must necessarily also be a word "chairism." Maybe the word does exist -- all I am saying is that it doesn't "have" to exist."


 * Ah, yes. But it does. The question is, what does it mean? And perhaps, yes its a term coined in a rhetoric-propaganda context. ("rabid Islamic fundamentalism" - practially racist.) Logically, it means something like what I wrote. Of course, Arabs can, (and apparently, already have)  use it in a ethnically derisive context. This means, the term, if we agree, should have any validity at all, should be defined outside of the propaganda context. Unfortunately for people like RK, this represents a mirror, within which he is forced to see himself and the invalidity, and stark anti-NPOV of his previous agendas. My agenda, is clear, and Im not shy about it... to swing the balance from pro-Israel-anti-Arab to PNPOV. Perfect NPOV. This quest for perfection is no doubt flawed, but we all use this term to represent a striving for an idealized concept called "perfection".


 * Interestingly, reading the rhetoric on that "Arab symposium", I would point out its near-identical character to RK's characterizations. In fact, I dont disagree with it on the surface at all - except to say that under the rhetoric lies a very insidious agenda. This characterization goes both ways, or at least it does with me. The hard part, Ill admit for me is to see my own culture in an objective way, and this is why I dont object much when people badmouth Catholicism, or the Irish, or Western foriegn policy. ("We have to reserve the right to bomb the niggers" -Lloyd George) I will correct these when they gets out of hand, like on the IPF article, which wasnt really a derisive diatribe so much as an exact article that lost track of its human elements. Perhaps this is what your objecting to in Semitism?


 * ... I included "neologism" only as a joke to lighten things up, and rightly so. It doesnt really belong in the article... "radar" doesnt have it... its axiomatic... although, it would be nice to someday to link to terms in their related context, in a map style deal...software issue.


 * Finally, I am sorry you think that..."


 * No, I dont, I do exagerrate a little, quite normally when I think its more important to make a point. (and when Im outnumbered, and slow to type.) And I don't think of you three all in the same way either. RK has been a royal pain in your p'tookus at times as well, from what Ive gathered. Probably his limited imagination: Being "more important than knowledge" and all, you'd think more people would choose the former.

-Be well. -Stevertighosticism

ps: clarification: "...its near-identical character to RK's characterizations. In fact, I dont disagree with it on the surface at all - except to say that under the rhetoric lies a very insidious agenda.-

Perhaps, I got this backwards - perhaps the 'bark is worse than the bite', and the idea behind this "syposium" is sincere - as counter-propaganda, only its garnished with the typical rhetoric that most isolated, xenophobic societies have...-sv


 * Sv writes, "No doubt this is how Arabs feel when they come across articles like Islamism." and revelas his own racialist misunderstanding. Many Arabs are not Muslim, and most Muslims are not Arabs.  You would have been closer to the mark had you written, "...how Indonesians feel..."  In any event, maybe many Muslims would be offended -- I do not say no doubt because I think it is an imperialist presumption to speak for them.  Certainly if a self-identified Muslim commented critically on that page, I would take their comments very seriously.  In any event, the page states clearly that the term is widely used by Western Scholars of the Islamic world -- the article is not making up a word, it is reporting on how others use a word.  This article provided no such context. Slrubenstein

"revelas his own racialist misunderstanding" - Oh you know what I mean.. While I may make the casual mistake of generalizing, your making the deliberate mistake of specifying! Your role as neutral observer, appears compromised, Professor Rubenstein. -Stevert


 * I am not sure what you mean, Sv -- I never claimed, nor claim, that I am a "neutral observer." Like most people here, I do claim to be committed to articles that are accurate and well-researched accounts of various areas of knowledge, and to NPOV.  By the way, you never answered my last question (in the last bullet point) in the section above. Slrubenstein

Im taking my time, in responding to this SlRub. In a sense, I need to sort out a few things. Among them is 1. policy: do you have a case in simply deleting this article. 2. Are you sincere in your presentation of moderacy and NPOV, with respect to this issue, which no doubt is of some concern to you.? "Neutral observer" was poorly chosen on my part.... Thats all for now. Time is on our side. Be well. -SV

p.s (If you thought "What did he mean by 'our'" - you may be laboring a hyper-reactive misconception )


 * all of my comments above, including in the archived talk section, were sincere; moreover, I have strived to make my reasons clear in a way that any scholar, Jewish or non-Jewish, could understand and appreciate (whether they would agree with me or not) Slrubenstein

What exactly is Jew-baiting anyway? It sounds anti-Semitic in its own right. I understand political trojan horses, and all, but... Do Indians call people "Indian giver"... LOL: Jerry Seinfeld... hey! Proof I'm not anti-Semitic. I like Seinfeld...             ...heh.

Judeocentrism, has been created, (albeit not proven) to leave this topic for a while... A rule in the Go is dont make moves that are aji-Keshi: I highly recommend Go, btw, and would be happy to teach anyone....

Your comments, everyone are much appreciated, and I know the feeling is mutual. Challenges make us stronger. -Stevert

I'm going to take this from the top. My apologies in advance for lack of tact - as so often on Fridays, I'm tired and frazzled. Please read all the way through before responding - it's not all negative by any means! The original entry:


 * Mistakes the term, the primary meaning of which is linguistic. Given that rather minor point -


 * Describes "semetisim" as a special case of ordinary ethnocentrism. Fails to bring any evidence to suggest that there is anything particularly "special" about this case. (As opposed to, say, ethnocentrism among the Irish, or New Zealanders, or Catholics - whatever.)


 * Maintains that "the attitudes of Semitism largely reflect the attitudes" of ... well, of any other comparable social group. Mentions pride, unity, assimilation ... all things that go with social groups and their relationships - both internal and external - the way ink and paper go with books. Thus far, mistaken terminology aside, it is as uncontroversial as it is pointless.


 * Makes claims that "Judaism and its related cultural traditions and values are not open to scrutiny from outsiders". Brings no evidence to suggest that this is different from, say, Catholicism or Communism.


 * Claims that the term anti-Semitism is "often used as an ad hominem attack ... even against Jews themselves". Again, this is "of course" stuff. Exactly the same sort of tactic is used in just about any political disagreement you care to mention - "developers" vs "environmentalists", for example.

As a whole, not an article that should cause anyone to have a heart attack, but it actually says little that isn't obvious and banal, and yet manages to seem like a veiled attack on Judaism in general. In summary, although the topics it hints at could be worthy ones, investigating them is not a task to be taken on lightly. In this version, the article has nothing useful to say and is best deleted.

Several revisions later, the one as of 22:49 Feb 5, 2003:


 * Much better to start with - it reads rather well now, at least the start.
 * Alas, the overall message - or I should say, lack of message - remains much the same. Perhaps it would be better shrunk down to its central point. This can be done in a single sentence: "Jews are people rather like other people, and Jewish culture is rather like other cultures too." Read it over: that's what it says. This leads to the next point:
 * What, besides that banality, does it have to offer? There is a confused and (to my mind) vaguely insulting para about marriage, culture and assimilation, and another generality cloaked as a description of what "the Semitist" believes, which actually just outlines the universal issue of maintaining identity that all minority cultures have faced since  the beginning of time.

Summary: a little clearer, a little more insulting, just as pointless as it stands. And yet it raises issues that seem to me to be important, even vital ones. If I seem to be on the one hand damning Stvertigo for writing a pointless article, and on the other hand praising him for raising worthy issues, that's exactly right. (A very quick skim of the second talk page seems to bear this more positive view out.)

A short edit war later, it is empty, bar "Racist-coined misnomer for Judeocentrism". As will become clear, I don't think that that is any better.

Let's move on to the talk pages. The term exists in dictionaries. My quick Googling found:


 * The American Heritage dictionary says: NOUN: 1. A Semitic word or idiom. 2. Semitic traits, attributes, or customs. 3. A policy or predisposition in favour of Jews.
 * Webster's 1913 edition only includes the first meaning: A Semitic idiom; a word of Semitic origin.
 * But I don't ever really trust on-line dictionaries, let's turn to the real thing: my faithful 1977 Shorter Oxford: 1. The attributes characteristic of the Semeitic peoples. Also, the fact of being Semetic. b. Jewish ideas or influence in politics or society 1885. 2. A Semetic word or idiom 1886.

It seems, then, that the word itself is not a neologism at all and in fact the "new" sense is older than the more broadly recognised linguistic sense. My first point above, that the original entry "mistakes the term" is obviously wrong.

Danny, I agree with you about "newer, perhaps more developed values". We should avoid phrases like that - or, more to the point, we should avoid the thinking that produces phrases like that. But let me recast that sentence a little, just to show the general problem of which this is a specific instance in a different light. A problem the Ibo and other African cultures face is the new concept of their own tradition of female genital mutilation as being outside of newer, perhaps more developed values - such as those that reflect unitarianist and multi-ethnic points of view. Just where do we draw the line? (Not expecting answers here - just raising the question, and perhaps hinting that it is impossible to study human beings from an unbiased point of view.)

More generally, the call for banning of a contributor for this article seems to me to be way over the top. Only if it were one of a long series of racist contributions, including much more explicitly racist entries than this one, would such a call be something that ought to be considered. (Please note: I make no comment about Stevertigo's past here: I don't recall reading any of his other work for good or ill. I am commenting on this present entry and this present entry only, for (so far as I recall) it is the only one that I have seen.)

Stephen Gilbert puts the whole thing in a nutshell: a somewhat vague adjective, and not something we need an article about, as it would be covered by the Jewish topics we already have.

But that notwithstanding, there is a wealth of interest in examining the relationships within and between cultures, the Jewish culture no less than, and quite possibly more than, most cultures. This is almost certainly not the right article to do it in, but, sooner or later, the attempt should be made, and STV seems to have started the ball rolling in that direction. Good for him! I have no expertise in Jewish culture, but quite a deal of training in the study of societies generally. It seems to me that a cooperative effort between Jews (like SLR and Danny) and non-Jews (like STV) could produce some outstanding results here. I'd be interested in taking part myself, but I am way over committed to other projects already. (I could spend about 9 lifetimes on Wikipedia.)

OK, cop-out time for me. I got about one-third of the way down the second talk page and two things happened: (a) I got the strong impression that there is some really useful rational discussion and understanding starting to happen in this thread. Very encouraging. And (b) my brain went splat - I just can't concentrate for a long time the way I used to when there was younger blood in my veins. I'll take a break and go play with something nice and easy, like the proper wiki names for aircraft, and come back to this tomorrow maybe. (Disclaimer: as is probably obvious by now, I am not Jewish, nor do I have any religious belief.)

Tannin 15:13 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * Tannin, thank you for your constructive and thoughtful comments, most of which I agree with. I do have one comment to add: I think the basic issue is, what is the function of Wikipedia?  I think it should be a little mor elike a conventional encyclopedia, and a little less like a chat-room. A number of contributers are intelligent, well-informed, and interesting, so there is an unlimited potential for thoughtful discussion.  Thus, I think it is very important to limit such discussion to improving legitimate articles.  With all the discussion, much of it thoughtful, my initial judgement has not changed: the semitism article was a mistake. Slrubenstein