Jump to content

Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36

Thwarted attempt to improve section "Causes"

Two days ago I attempted to improve the section called "Causes". My edit was quickly reverted by User:Alfietucker, with the comment "This appears to violate WP:OR." I put the following questions on his talk page, with his reply below:

Why did you revert my edit [1] of Antisemitism? What "original research" did I do? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is that your main source, an essay by Hilaire Belloc, is more a personal opinion piece (by a notorious anti-Semite) than a piece of reliable research, and says more about Belloc than about the subject of the article. You further describe Belloc's writing as "[A] more nuanced attempt at explanation": that is your opinion, not objective fact, and as such is contrary to Wikipedia policy in which such value judgements may only be expressed if supported by a reliable published source, and even then probably only if the author of that opinion is named. Alfietucker (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to protest this reversion. I made a serious attempt to set up a framework for further expanding this section. I started by noting that it is difficult to discuss the causes in this Wikipedia article because of the "neutral point of view" policy. (As we all know, or as one can see by looking at the Talk archives, if someone tries to write about the causes, it quickly gets deleted by someone else who finds it offensive.) I pointed out that even in Wikipedia we can discuss the history of theories on antisemitism, and objective analysis of the claims of antisemites. I then stated the obvious fact that antisemites blame the Jews. I added that the opposite view is also taken – that antisemitism is the work of Satan (with a reference). I then attempted to give one historical view, that of Hilaire Belloc, who wrote a book called The Jews back in 1922. I apparently sinned by calling Belloc's book "a more nuanced attempt" than saying everything is the fault of the Jews or than saying antisemitism is simply the Devil trying to wipe out the Jews. As for Alfietucker's claim that Belloc was "a notorious anti-Semite", I suggest people read the reference I gave on exactly that ("In Defense of Hilaire Belloc") or the Wikipedia article G. K.'s Weekly#The Chesterbelloc and anti-Semitic prejudice. In any case, even if Belloc were an antisemite, his book would be worth mentioning. We can't just ignore the subject of why antisemitism exists in Wikipedia because we think all who wrote on the subject must have been notorious antisemites themselves.

Can we please be a bit more mature level-headed?

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I will be interested what our fellow editors have to say about this. One may indeed argue that Belloc has a place in this article, but I seriously doubt that his writings can be the foundation of what should be a factually based (as far as is practical) subsection on "Causes". What exactly were Belloc's qualifications to write about this other than his celebrity? Is he what Wikipedia would define a "reliable source" for anything on this subject other than of his own opinions? Alfietucker (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Here's your original research:
It is difficult to discuss the causes of anti-Jewish ideas in Wikipedia without violating in someone's view the rule of "[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]]". It is possible though to discuss the history of explanations of anti-Jewish feeling and whether objective facts do or do not support these views (see [[#Analysis of anti-Jewish claims]]). In the view of anti-Jewish people of course the blame lies with the Jews themselves. On the other hand, certain strands of Christianity attribute hatred of Jews to [[Satan]]'s attempt to wipe out the Jewish people.<ref>A recent booklet may serve as an example: {{cite book|title=When the Cross Became a Sword|date=2012|isbn=978-0984803002|author=Merrill Bolender}}, which begins, "Throughout history there have been satanic attempts to eliminate the Jews by many peoples, nations, and religions."</ref>
The first three sentences are clearly your own opinion. Your fourth is a generalization from an example with the example cited as a reference. Generalizing from an example is original research. The only way the Belloc material is appropriate is if it's used as an attributed example. For it to be included, we should have some evidence that it deserves due weight as an antisemitic opinion, which would come from discussions of it in independent sources (see WP:UNDUE). Also, we don't quote Wikipedia policies in articles like that ever. I don't see much hope for salvaging anything from this material without secondary sources discussing this actual material. Are there some?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I strenuously object to calling such things "original research"! It is not research at all. And as I explained, I was just trying to state a few obvious things as an introduction to this section!

There are plenty of people who say that antisemitism is Satan's attempt to get rid of the Jews. I have heard it many times. I do not have to prove how many different people say it. One example is enough. Do you seriously doubt that this is true?

As I explained above, we cannot, in Wikipedia, really tackle the issue of what the true causes of antisemitism are. Any time anybody writes something, someone else will shoot it down immediately. But we can talk about the history of ideas on the subject, and that is what I was doing with the material on Belloc.

This business of having to prove that everything is of sufficient weight is getting ridiculous. If I were to find a source that says that Belloc is an important person in the history of ideas about antisemitism, then you (or someone else) will come along and say that THAT source is not of sufficient weight.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"Original research" is a term of art on Wikipedia. You can read the definition here: WP:OR. If we don't require secondary sourcing to establish weight we'll end up with everyone quoting their favorite anti-semite on this page. That won't end well. If we let people put stuff in just because they "have heard it many times" we'll end up with an awful lot of bad material. You must be able to see that. In any case, "sufficient weight" is also a term of art on Wikipedia. It's defined here: WP:UNDUE. You're absolutely right that we "can talk about the history of ideas on the subject." That's perfectly appropriate. But we have rules delineating how we talk about any subject. You may not like those rules, but they work pretty well, and they're unlikely to change any time soon. You might find it more pleasant to learn to work within them than to rail against them, but de gustibus non disputandum est, right?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Eric, have you actually taken time to read WP:ORIGINAL? Since it is Wikipedia policy, it's not to be gainsaid. The pertinent sentence given in "This page in a nutshell" is: "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source". i.e. what is meant by "original research" here is anything which can't be substantiated by such a reliable, published source as may be used as a citation.
Never mind that you "have heard it many times" - that is not sufficient grounds for adding any material to a Wikipedia article. How it works here is that any statement open to challenge *must* be supported by a citation from "a reliable, published source".
Give it a go - and try not to assume in advance that any source you provide will be shot down regardless. Some sources may be considered unreliable, but presenting a published source will at least be a step in the right direction and more likely to be a solid foundation than relying on hearsay. Alfietucker (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You have to be reasonable. Let's take the third sentence of the article: "As Jews are an ethnoreligious group, antisemitism is generally considered a form of racism." There's no reference! No source!

As I have told other people on Wikipedia, nobody gave you the mission when you were born to enforce the rules of Wikipedia. It's not like the President of the United States who is sworn to uphold the Constitution. In other words, if you think a rule should be enforced, then go ahead and enforce it. But if not, then don't. Live and let live. So let's get down to brass tacks. Do you think that the statement that "certain strands of Christianity attribute hatred of Jews to Satan's attempt to wipe out the Jewish people" is dubious? If you don't doubt that statement yourself, then stop enforcing the "rule" that every statement has to be referenced! If people keep using the label "original research" to shoot down everything anybody writes here, then I predict that in five years time this "Causes" section will be no better than it is now.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Eric, seriously, this is nothing personal. But I don't think Wikipedia can "work" at any level if it coagulates into various groups of editors who happen to agree with each other and edit solely on that basis. Ultimately it can only work if we agree to allow external published secondary sources to be the ultimate resort if any statement in an article is questioned by another editor. By all means tag the sentence "As Jews are an ethnoreligious group, antisemitism is generally considered a form of racism." if you think this is untrue, or even delete it; but don't use this as an excuse to impose more text for which you cannot or will not provide a citation. Alfietucker (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Eric, lead paragraphs summarize their articles. Sources then is referenced in detail in the article itself. Controversial points are sometimes referenced, but the use of references is kept to a minimum, as adding too much would defy the idea of an introduction. Please read: WP:LEAD. If you think the lead is controversial, please make improvements. SK (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think the lead is unacceptable. I was just using that sentence as an example of a sentence that is not referenced, and it's fine not to give a reference. And by the way, I don't think there's a reference further down to support it either. I'm not complaining about that sentence (although one might say that it's an opinion). I'm saying that it's ridiculous to go around deleting every sentence that doesn't have a reference, or marking them with "citation needed".

You yourselves admit that one should react only if one thinks a statement is untrue or controversial. So again I ask, do you really think it's untrue or controversial to say that certain strands of Christianity attribute antisemitism to Satan?

If I were to go look for a couple more references that say antisemitism is the work of Satan (in addition to the one I gave), then I will be accused of doing "original research" because it was I who went and found those references! Or I'll be accused of "synthesis".

Look, I made my best effort to make a start at improving this section. If you think my text was bad, then do something better yourself instead of just reverting!

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Again: this is not about you, it is about the article. The text you inserted was not encyclopedic in style(WP:Style), featured your own, unattributed opinion (WP:NPOV, WP:Synth) and was poorly sourced. Please tackle these points head on and improve your additions accordingly if you want your edits to stand. (Also, please re-read your fellow editors comments, as there appears to be a misunderstanding of what was actually said.) SK (talk) 07:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Quick Question

I was reading through the page when it mentioned that Anti-semitism is specifically for Jewish ethnicity/race however I wished to know what, if any, terms exist to describe general anti-semite ism? as in against Hebrew, Jewish, Arabic and other semitic races of the middle east and if a page exists for it, I realize that the religious differences often lead to different terms for each but I was looking for a general term to encompasses all semites regardless of sub group or religion/theist/atheist alignments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.172.92 (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

There isn't a word because the phenomenon doesn't exist, at least not sufficiently to require a word. --jpgordon::==( o ) 13:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

More material is needed on economic antisemitism - particularly on the topic of accusations of usury

A major component of antisemitism in the Christian world has been over accusations of Jews being involved in usury. This has been both a mixed religious-economic antisemitic element. After Jews in Europe had been expelled from various trades, the absence of Christians in the loan-lending sector because of the Catholic Church's opposition to usury coming from it, allowed Jews to enter that trade. However this evoked a new antisemitic campaign. The Catholic Church announced a campaign against usury in the 12th century that regarded usury on the same level of sin as homicide. Thus the issue of usury as a sin was applied as a justification for persecution of Jews on the basis of accusations of Jews committing the sin of usury. The book Anti-Semitism: Myth and Hate from Antiquity to the Present that is available on Google Books describes this from pages 122 to 124. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.195.248 (talk) 04:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I've overlooked something, but it seems odd that this apparently legitimate point was been so swiftly hoovered by a bot into the archive before anyone has had a chance to react/act upon it. (I write not as the author of the OP.) Alfietucker (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Reasons and causes of Antisemitism

Definitely this needs to be researched. People don't start to hate other people for nothing. So why the Jews are hated everywhere? Maybe some Jews could answer this - what they think is wrong with their behavior that causes anti-Semitism all around the globe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.139.66.194 (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You can start your research by actually reading the article. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
We here on Wikipedia don't play "blame the victim" a woman wearing a short skirt is not an excuse for men to sexually assault her, a Jewish man wearing a kippah does not give anyone an excuse to beat him. You really need to take a basic sociology class 175.139.66.194.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Jpgordon and Rainbowofpeace are obviously correct. But please note that the very question asked by this anonymous IP user is wrong. It was implying that only "Jews are hated everywhere", which is not true by any means. Despite the fact that Jewish people are also loved and admired by so many people around the world, just look at these examples: Christians are hated in the Arab world nearly just as much, if not even more in some areas. Anti-Islam hate (Islamophobia) is a fast growing phenomenon today too. Blacks are also hated by millions of racists everywhere. As are Asian people, Hispanics, disabled people, and, unfortunately, many more. Even certain countries are hated, such as North Korea, Afghanistan, etc.! In short, every human being on this earth is hated..

Now, as disrespectful as this IP user was in asking that question this way, the causes section should indeed be expanded. Because just like the hate directed at these different ethnic/racial/religious groups I briefly discussed above, there are various reasons for the phenomenon of anti-Jewish sentiments as well. I was actually planning on expanding that section myself some time when I have time, but if anyone would like to go ahead and do this, please do. A few well known and notable academics, books, and writers have examined the reasons for antisemitism: See

Lastly, a few of these sources may not be reliable, but I'd encourage using them to find some relevant and useful information first, and then continue from there. Regards, Shalom11111 (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok first off any reason why we could provide for antisemitism would be based on stereotypes. The fact of the matter is that antisemitism is based on power and privilege. If you understand anything about sociology you would already know this. Antisemitism is a combination of Xenophobia, Racism and Religious Intolerance. If you want to talk about power and privilege please feel free to discuss so. If you want to use antisemitic stereotpyes and conspiracy theories get a life. Racism is never justifiable period.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Let me first respond to what you wrote in the edit summary of this comment ("Antisemitism is wrong. And there is no excuse for it"). Of course it's wrong, it must be. When considering the fact the there are Jews of all races, different origins and countries, converts who converted to Judaism from other religions, Jews with all kinds of different opinions (i.e. some are anti-Zionist, some are even adherents of Christianity), different Jewish movements with various ideologies etc., hating all Jews is absurd and an antisemite would indirectly hate himself has well. That sections is titled "causes" because it should cover the different causes that make people around the world feel hate towards Jewish people. This subject has been studied as the above links I attached show, and it's important to educate readers about it, and ultimately allow them to understand and see how antisemitism is debunked.
You said "Antisemitism is a combination of Xenophobia, Racism and Religious Intolerance." - alright great, we should find a proper source that says this and add it to the relevant section in the article. That's my point. Lastly you said "If you want to use antisemitic stereotpyes and conspiracy theories get a life.", to which I suggest you look at my user page and see for yourself that I'm the last one who would ever want to do such a thing - the opposite is true. Don't forget trying to WP:AGF whenever it's needed. Shalom11111 (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Shalom11111 I was not speaking of you personally in the get a life comment. Its not that I think a section would be completely unuseful. I'm just worried that it will give antisemites a place to spread their hate speech. I have no intrest in attacking a fellow Jew nor any non-bigoted gentile. My only concern is that the suggestion for a cause section is fly paper for antisemites to spread their vile hatred. You must admit that is a reasonable concern.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I understand the concern. Listen, antisemites increasingly "spread their hate speech" and "spread their vile hatred" everywhere all the time anyway. Expanding the 'causes' section can do little harm and it'll only educate about the causes of antisemitism and show it's absurdity and contradictions - don't imagine it as an essay piece that will try to prove antisemitism is right - the opposite will happen if it's well written like I said. And of course this is an encyclopedic subject to write about. Shalom11111 (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, well if we are going to include a causes section we at least need more sources. We have a single source for a two paragraph section. Preferably not links to white supremacist websites. Perhaps we could look to sociology publications?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Of curse white supremacist websites or anything of the kind is not even an option, are you outta your mind?!;) We need to use only sources by academics and scholars, and reliable sources that discus this phenomenon, not justify it, because it can't be. In order to understand this absurd problem, we must understand its roots. Here are some sources I've suggested above:

I'll probably do it myself next week if no one else does. Shalom11111 (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Rainbowofpeace (talk · contribs), yes, I meant "criticism of anti-Semitism" in the edit you just reverted. Why do you think this section should be omitted? A similar example of what this future section should look like can be found at an article I just worked on, take a look at Role of Jews in the rise and fall of Communism#Critical reception and conspiracy theories. Shalom11111 (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Criticism of antisemitism, racism or homophobia is called civil rights. That's that. It isn't criticism its fighting oppression. Who exactly would we be trying to convince with this "criticism"? Most people (who aren't in a hate group) already know antisemitism is wrong. I think your analysis could be put in peppered throughout the article with reliable sources.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014

This small section should be edited to include a link to Donald Green's wikipedia page. And it should note that Green no longer heads Yale's Institution for Social and Policy Studies. It should state something along the lines of, "Donald Green, who at the time headed Yale’s Institution for Social and Policy Studies, the body under..."

Thanks!

In June 2011, Yale voted to close this initiative. After carrying out a routine review, the faculty review committee said that the initiative had not met its research and teaching standards. Donald Green, who heads Yale’s Institution for Social and Policy Studies, the body under whose aegis the antisemitism initiative was run, said that it had not had many papers published in the relevant leading journals or attracted many students Bulldog1701 (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing out the needed update. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Synagogue attacks in Turkey

The article mentions these attacks, which happened in 2003, but fails to mention the Al Qaida, who were behind the attacks. In this version, it looks like these attacks were carried out by Turks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korhanerel (talk • contribs) 06:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Are anti-israelites considered anti-semitic?

I was considering the war crimes by the state of israel. Many people protesting against this agressive behaviour of the state of israel are being called antisemitic by the media. Where is the border between being against jews and being against agressive occupation by the state of israel? Or should we disregard any borders between these concepts, just like the israeli people are disregarding the borders of their neighbor state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.238.229 (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I would hope that people would be reserve such "anti" feelings for issues related to specific behaviours and the specific people who support them. Its wrong to just see the Israeli people as one in this way. I've known Israelis that have joined the table to support Arab-Israeli peace projects and not every Israeli will support the excesses or contributory factors related to the current conflict. Gregkaye (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Please don't be archive happy

This talk page has 33 pages of archived. The first archived page has dates from Jan 2003 so that's 33 archive pages in 11 years 6 months.

Wikipedia:Archive says: It is customary to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when that page becomes too large. Bulky talk pages may be hard to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers. Notices are placed at the beginning of the talk page to inform all editors of an archive.

Archived pages that I flicked to contained as little as four topics. Issues surrounding antisemitism are unlikely to change and many topics are unlikely to become obsolete.

Wikipedia:CLOSURE can be used in cases where topics are resolved.

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines provides much good information. for instance : When_to_condense_pages says: It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections. Gregkaye (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

If you are looking at archive lengths from 2004, you are 10 years too late to change the archive size. New archives are filled until they are 200kB long, which is a fair amount of text and right around where users with very poor internet connections start to have technical problems accessing the archives. What actionable change are you proposing to the archival settings? VQuakr (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks VQuakr for your correction. The thing that I found confusing was that this page, even with the addition of last comments, currently has a size of just 10.2KB and that total would have been lower when the last set of data was moved. The archive that is currently being filled contains just 27.2KB of information. The earliest recorded date within the archived material was, I think, in Feb 2014. The combined data total far less than recommended levels. By taking a look at Talk:Antisemitism/Archive_33&action=history we find that the premature archives seem to be being automatically made by User:Lowercase sigmabot III. The last archive was made on the 29 July 2014 of a discussion that was started on 19 March 2014 I personally don't have knowledge of bots and their function but this level of operation, to have made 5 archive actions when I would have thought none were needed, seems excessive. Gregkaye (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The behavior you are observing is completely normal and routine. VQuakr (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't see how that is possible but please explain. Gregkaye (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: Discussion continues at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#question related to settings in a talk page that control the actions of an archiving bot --Redrose64 (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye, I think it makes more sense to continue the discussion there, so please post follow-up questions there if you still have questions. VQuakr (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the settings that govern bot activities to more acceptable levels as related to guidelines of typical settings used by other pages. Settings are as follows 

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 33
|minthreadsleft = 10
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Antisemitism/Archive  %(counter)d
}}

Archival action can still be performed manually and I ask that levels of action are undertaken in respect of Wikipedia guidelines. Gregkaye (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hate for gentiles who side with jews

Antisemitism can also include hate for gentiles who side with jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.44.38 (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Definition of antisemitism should use recognised dictionary sources only

Antisemitism (also spelled anti-Semitism[1] or anti-semitism) is prejudice, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as a national, ethnic, religious or racial group.

Antisemitism (also spelled anti-Semitism[1] or anti-semitism) is hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.

The amended text is from the dictionary definition referred to at [1] The original text does not appear in either citation, and the citation at [2] is not a dictionary or neutral linguistic source.


Demonwebb (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antisemitism
  2. ^ http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/education-outreach/Brief-History-on-Anti-Semitism-A.pdf
Why do you think that the source for the definition must be attributed to a dictionary? VQuakr (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Identity

A personal view of prejudice:

If, on a personal basis, I was treated negatively there is no doubt that I would call any such negative treatment into question. There is no justification for abuse, discrimination and/or prejudice. In a situation in which such treatment were applied to me I would, amongst other things, have every right to state, in the clearest possible terms, how any perceived abuse, discrimination and prejudice was being applied to me.

However, and again on a personal basis, one thing that I would not want to do is to unnecessarily bring the name of a Grandfather or any other of my ancestors into the discussion. This would tend to be my stance even if the situation hadn't been made complicated by family dispute. The use of an ancestor's name would tend to confuse matters and, in my personal case I am able, to take the analogy further.
I am familiar with the changing of names with Kusakabe having been the Japanese surname of my paternal Grandfather. He lived in China with his English wife and, following the end of WWII, the parts of the family that moved to the United Kingdom assumed the name Kaye. Ironically, in a bid to avoid possible prejudice, the UK side of the family changed from a Japanese name to a name that was commonly assumed by Jews.

I am proud of my family background and yet, if I were to personally receive negative treatment, I would not describe the treatment as anti-Kusakabe. I would be even less likely to do so if I had otherwise developed a number of other terms by which I could refer to myself. A de-capitalisation of my Grandfather's name would further be unthinkable.

Despite a difference in the periods of time involved, this has pretty much been the story of "anti-Semitism" al-be-it with different progression. The term "anti-Semitic prejudice" was originally used in a more generalised reference to the Semitic peoples. Anti-Semitism has since been applied almost exclusively to Jews. This is despite the availability of more specific reference points such as Israeli, Jew, Judaism and Zionism. Even when one of these references might be accurately used, anti-Semitic terminologies are regularly evoked. There are now calls for the hyphen to be removed despite its regular use in parallel situations and the removal of capitalisation despite the use of Semitic as a demonym.

Away from a context such as this discussion, no-one would ever use the terms such as "antiisraeli", "antijewish", "antijudaism" or "antizionism". Such a change would be unjustified. "Semite", as used as a stand alone word, is defined as a demonym. The simple reason for this is that it makes reference to a group of people. "Semite", as used in anti-Semitism, remains a demonym. The only difference is that it is taken to refer exclusively to a subsection of the Semitic people. Nothing, linguistically, has changed. A demonym is still being used. A use of antisemitism is linguistic and social nonsense. Gregkaye (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

[citation needed]. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye. You are spoiling a perfectly sensible argument for the use of the hyphen, with a frankly absurd and confused ideological agenda, which does nothing to create clarity on this talk page. In fact you are mirroring the strange illogical arguments of those who argued against the hyphen for similar, albeit reverse, ideological reasons. The argument for using the hyphen is simply that it's the most common usage. That's all that's required per WP:NAME and that's all that matters. Even consistency with other anti-x terms is irrelevant. If "antisemitism" were the most common spelling, that would be the one we should use. It wouldn't matter one jot if every other anti-x word is spelled with a hyphen. It also doesn't matter that someone once used the phrase "anti-Semitic agenda", because that's not how it was first established in discourse. We don't determine meanings by finding the first ever usage of a combination of letters and then giving copyright on it. That's ludicrous. Words means what they are used to mean in discourse. That's a basic fact of linguistics.
What is most ridiculous about this endlessly repeated "debate" is the absurd idea that it is somehow "unfair" to other Semites that they are "excluded" from the term anti-semitism. Think about just how silly it would be if Argentinians and Colombians constantly complained that they were "excluded" from being subject to anti-Americanism, as though they would want to associated with it. What this is really about is a resentment of the special position that anti-semitism has had in Western culture, and a feeling from Arabic peoples that they are not accorded the same respect because "anti-Arabism" is a term almost no-one ever uses. It's about being excluded from discourse. Fair enough, perhaps, though one can make a good case that the reality is that there is little or no specifically anti-Arab sentiment. The Western bias is again Islamic identity, irrespective of ethnicity. But obsessing about the word anti-semitism is missing the point entirely. It happens to be a word that means "anti-jewish". That's what it is always used to mean, and that's what continues to mean. There is no exclusion of other semites, because there is no such thing as a general opposition to "semites". People who use it don't care about the etymology, because etymology is irrelevant. Words just mean what they mean. It doesn't matter that the word "hysteria" originally meant "womb condition" or that "homophobia" literally translates as "fear of sameness". We know what it means and that's all that matters. Paul B (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
p.s. There are numerous anti-x words that don't take a hyphen: Antinomianism, Antinatalism, Antispasmodic Antidepressant and of course the famous Antidisestablishmentarianism. Paul B (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Those words don't have relevance to a correct use of demonyms. Gregkaye (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no such thing as correct use in your sense. Correct use is established use. Nothing else. And your point is spurious anyway. Where is this rule to be found? In usage. Nowhere else. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Really? Questions that might be asked are why so few dictionaries even reference antisemitism and why, after all this time, its still underlined in red in the edit. Gregkaye (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

On 16 August 2014 User:VQuakr placed this discussion in a collapsible box beneath the title WP:NOR. WP:NOR states: (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)
I don't think that your stated position of "weak support" could get any weaker. WP:NOR "does not apply" although WP:GAMING might.
The application of WP:FORUM, although disputable here, seems to fit a presentation of "antisemitism" pretty well. Gregkaye (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the content above. I wasn't aware of WP:SOAPBOX issues at the time and had forgotten the info in the page header. Gregkaye (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

biased and misnomer

this article is heavily biased in several regards.

also, 'semite' is a misnomer, since jews don't have a monopoly on semitism.

in fact many arabs, if not most, living in the levant/gaza/aramea regions can trace their ancestry to semitic peoples.

semites are shemites... if you don't believe me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shemites

Semitic peoples and their languages, in ancient historic times (between the 30th and 20th centuries BC), covered a broad area which encompassed what are today the modern states and regions of Iraq, Syria, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, the Sinai Peninsula and Malta, as well as parts of southern Turkey.

76.64.45.152 (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The article discusses this in the second paragraph already, and in more detail here: Antisemitism#Etymology. Best regards SK (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
No Sören, that section, which has no content of etymology, describes nothing more than a historic use of the misnomer. Gregkaye (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
No Gregkaye, it discusses what it means and always has meant. Paul B (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes Paul B what it describes is the historic and consistent use of the misnomer. It certainly has no content of etymology and you seem to agree. Gregkaye (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
This reply makes no sense. It is current usage. Paul B (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
From the beginning: Lead speaks of "Bias and Misnomer"; reply states that this was discussed in second paragraph and "Antisemitism#Etymology; I correct to say that the mentioned texts actually present the historic use of the misnomer; You add that "it discusses what it means and always has meant" (this statement in no way contradicted what I had said); I replied and agreed with your view in that the text "discusses what it (the misnomer) means". There was no disagreement.

^ 

Now I am not so sure about the "and always has meant" bit. The second sentence of Antisemitism#Etymology reads: As Alex Bein writes "The compound anti-Semitism appears to have been used first by Steinschneider, who challenged Renan on account of his 'anti-Semitic prejudices' [i.e., his derogation of the "Semites" as a race]". The citation to Bein's work with page number was in the text and I thought it fair to add the quote to clarify what had actually been said. The section on etymology has long quoted Steinschneider who used the phrase antisemitische Vorureile (anti-Semitic prejudices) to characterise the French philosopher Ernest Renan's false ideas about how "Semitic races" were inferior to "Aryan races". At that time the issue was about the Semitic races and not just the Jews. Gregkaye (talk) 07:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The reply said the point was discussed in the second paragraph, which it was (and is). So why this pathological need ot contradict what is not in dispute, I don't know. Yes, it's well known that the compound "anti-semitic" was used with reference to Renan, but that was in the context of a phrase, not a proper noun designed to name a concept. We don't define words by when the first combination of letters were used. We wouldn't define, say "modernism" on the basis of the first time anyone ever combined the word modern with the suffix "ism". The term anti-semitism was coined as a proper noun or ideology, to refer to anti-Judaism, and that has been its meaning ever since. As it happens I have written about Renan, who is a complex and problematic thinker, and it's fair to say that he did have a notion of a racio-cultural identity that was in a general sense Semitic and not just Jewish. But that's irrelevant. The tern anti-Semitism is defined by its usage, and it was never used as a proper noun to refer to the general Aryan/Semite opposition envisaged by Renan. Paul B (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Paul B, Can I remind you that anti-Semitism is a topic worded so as to present the promotion of fairness and equality. This is the last place that weasel words, such as your insinuation of "pathological need" are acceptable.
"(to) contradict"? Please go back to the walk-through provided above: The first reply had unfairly and inaccurately stated "The article discusses this.." even though the stated topic of "Bias and misnomer" was not addressed. Given that the section on Antisemitism#Etymology does not touch on content in the lead, my response[2] fairly refutated the claim. Still in relation to the discussion topic I stated that the Etymology section: "describes nothing more than a historic use of the misnomer" to which you unfairly began with a contradictory "No" despite a following content that in no way contradicted points made. You stated "it (the section titled 'Etymology') discusses what it means and always has meant". The lead's content presented "misnomer" so, to get back on track, I rephrased your statement to present "it describes is the historic and consistent use of the misnomer." IF, as stated, the term "anti-Semitism/antisemitism" is a misnomer then it has always been a misnomer and this includes all stages of its historic use. My reply made clear sense. A "current usage" of a word has no relevance to whether or not it is in fact a misnomer. Soren's point had no relevance to the stated subject and yet you still cling to related issues. The lead presented: "'semite' is a misnomer, since jews don't have a monopoly on semitism." I had raised a similar issue of monopolisation above and these comments are fair on the basis that no individual group of Semite people has ownership of the term.
At the point of the leads third reply I had mistakenly referred to: "consistent use of the misnomer". This mistake, I think, is understandable in the context of the poor citation and chronology of the article at the time[3]. I fairly corrected the error. The lead makes claim of misnomer and the content of Antisemitism#Etymology supports this claim. Gregkaye (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2014

Under the "Causes" section, why does it list anti-Semitic canards and say that it is a myth that Jews put Jesus to death, when that is in fact what happened? 24.247.138.108 (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Because people like you believe the anti-Semitic canard, and perpetuate it; Wikipedia has a duty to the truth, not to lies, no matter how old the lies are. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
In any case it is wrong to say "Jews" without qualification. According to Christian tradition, which also talks about demon possession and such like, Jesus also had large numbers of followers and supporters and they weren't Chinese. Jesus also came into Jerusalem on a donkey as a clear declaration of being the messiah. He also would have known that the people expected a messiah that was going to get rid of the Romans. This, in my non-Jewish opinion, wasn't the action of a peace maker. It served to raise hopes without explanation otherwise. Jesus came to Jerusalem to be killed and he provoked a response. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2014

Anti-Semitism is not exclusive to the Jews alone. There are many other semitic ethnic groups and you all know that. MaxellRay09 (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: try reading the second paragraph of this article. or Semitic_people#Ethnicity_and_race. Or maybe the response you got when you made this request in August Cannolis (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Who is a Semite

Anti-Semitism isn't accepted as anti-Jewish. The Jewish population makes up a small percentage of Semites. Arabs are Semites. One could argue that Israel is antisemitic regarding it's treatment of Palestinians or Americans are anti-Semitic towards its treatment of Arabs or Muslims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people Islam like Judaism is a Semitic religion, from Semitic land, by Semitic people, in a Semitic language. So technically a Palestinian Muslim is Semitic by origin, language, and religion. Just as a Palestinian Catholic is Semitic by origin, language, and religion. If we are going to talk about anti-Semitism we should encompass the population as a whole, especially since Wikipedia is meant to be educational - let's stop the ignorance here and the hijacking of identities. Let's be objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.217.232.241 (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yawn. Read the Antisemitism#Usage; regardless of what "Semite" may or may not mean, "antisemitism" refers solely to Jews. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
it's still a major misnomer... unappropriated. also, it doesn't match the opening statement of the article. they disagree with each other... if this were an essay, i'd give it is zero. 76.64.45.152 (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Commonly used, incorrect and ignorant usage of terms is all too common today, and this is an example. Compare Homophobia. It is considered to mean a hatred of homosexual people. Homo means "same" and phobia means "fear". So homophobia means fear of people who are the same as you. 86.28.165.76 (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually homophobia means fear of those with the same fears as you... Sepsis II (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
To answer the very valid question posed above I would suggest a look at the Wikipedia description of Semitic people. In Biblical terms the Semites were the descendent (sons) of Shem, one of Noah's three sons. The Bible writers basically used the Semite title to describe one of the three population bases for the world. Ironically, a use of to apply exclusively to a single people is prejudice. The only parallel example to this that I can think of is when people from the the United States call themselves "American" ... but these "Americans" would rarely deny the equally American nature of other people born to equally American nations that range from Canada, through Mexico and right down to Chile and Argentina. That would be stupid. Gregkaye (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Your analogy proves the very point that there is no issue. Antiamericanism is not directed at Argentinians. Words mean what they are used to mean. See etymological fallacy. Paul B (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course there is an issue. There are 55 countries in the Americas with, in this case, the citizens of the United States contributing to an impressive ~third of the total population. Your mention of Antiamericanism must be viewed within the historical context of an active promotion of Americanism in the US. The song God Bless America even became an anthem. Noone would be more happy than me if a song God bless the Semites gained similar notoriety.
People from the US often call themselves "American". People from Israel and members of the Jewish diaspora typically call themselves Jews. Denying the right to the name "America" to two thirds of the population of the Americas would be stupid. Denying acknowledgement of Semite peoples of their Semitic identities is crazier still. Gregkaye (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
You just dig deeper into confusion. No-one is denying the right of Argentinians et al to use the word American. No-one is denying the "right" of Arabs et al to be called Semites. It's just that Antiamerican is a term that refers to negative views of the USA, not Canadians or Mexicans, and antisemite is a term that refers to Jews. Did you even bother to read etymological fallacy? Paul B (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2014
Paul B please read: WP:No personal attacks. A clear question asking "Who is a Semite" was raised above and I gave a clear answer. I then presented a POV related to the perceived effects of the use of terminology. There is, however, no confusion. The article admits, "the term was in fact coined in Germany in 1860 as a scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred")". At any time a linguistically accurate term could have been applied but the scientific sounding term was kept in currency. Issues that I think relate to this, intentionally or not, are monopolisation, and Spin. I have no dispute with the concept of etymological fallacy which isn't at issue. The term has always been used with linguistic inaccuracy. Anyone who believes in fairness, and equality will naturally have an aversion to prejudice. There is no question about that. I just personally think that increased clarity would be gained if an accurate term was used. (talk) 08:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye please read: WP:No personal attacks. You will find that criticising an editor is not a "personal attack". Also, you might read no. 9. None of your responses here are even relevant to the point at issue. Anti-semitic means anti-Jewish, in the same way that anti-American means anti-USA or Francophobic means anti-French (not anti Franks or Franconians), and Anglophobic means anti-English, not anti-Angles or people from Angeln. It is wholly misleading to present this as some sort of "issue" when it is not. Who is a Semite is a 'wholly different issue. What on earth have "Monopolisation" and "spin" got to do with anything? The word just means what it always meant and was intended to mean. Paul B (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You said, "You just dig deeper into confusion". I hadn't dug into confusion, I certainly hadn't dug deeper, I definitely hadn't just done one single thing. There was no justification for the attack. Gregkaye (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a non-reply. You were digging further into confusion, for reasons I already gave. Paul B (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


I agree very much. Being a semite is not exclusive for the jews. Therefore, Antisemitism is against for the entire semitic race.

So much love for jewish friends. Those jew lovers out there want to remove arabs, palestinians and other semites from the semitic race! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxellRay09 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

ANTI-SEMITISM ALSO INCLUDES HATRED TOWARDS ARABS AND OTHER SEMITIC ETHNIC GROUPS!

ANTI-SEMITISM ALSO INCLUDES HATRED TOWARDS ARABS AND OTHER SEMITIC ETHNIC GROUPS!

ANTI-SEMITISM is "NOT" EXCLUSIVE to the JEWS alone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxellRay09 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

How about "antisemitism"? Is that different? --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney (from WP's own DICTIONARY Wiktionary).
Sensible terminologies include: Anti-Jewish, Anti-Jewish sentiment, Anti-Jewish racism, Persecution of Jews, Anti-Judaism and Anti-Zionism.
Can we please make consider making direct use of the English language. Failing that can we please use the Dictionary: Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, Oxford.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
How many million times do you have to be told. We don't invent "sensible" terminologies. We use words that have become part of the language. That's just how language works. Words have meaning because of established usage. It's as simple as that. Usage evolves, for sure, but we can't just choose it. Also, there is no point in this case, since is there is no such thing as opposition to Jews and Arabs combined. Paul B (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Gregkaye I have no idea what your point is. Are you discussing the hyphen? Which is of course discussed in the article. With or without the hyphen it is exclusive to Jews. Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Dougweller, No not the hyphen and yes the word is in exclusive use for the Jews. So is the word "Jews". Why not use terms like Anti-Jewish sentiment when possible. My simple suggestion is, where possible, editors seriously consider the use of terminologies that are not misnomers in preference for terms that give clearer representation of their subject.
  • Paul B, I will be happy to end my criticism of anti-Semitism with an end of "Criticism stifled by accusations of antisemitism" and similar. I simply can't see that linguistic reference to multiple identities is healthy. There are people that I care about on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict (Armenians included). I apologise but if there is an issue that I think may help bring clarity and may help resolve the balagan I have no option but to continue. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see "Criticism stifled by accusations of anti-Jewish sentiment" as an improvement, and antisemitism is firmly embedded in the English language. Not our role to start promoting synonyms. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Dougweller, fair point and text amended above. It might also be nice to think people would also stop promoting Anti-Semitism and antisemitism. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Citations

See: Wikipedia:Citing sources. The Antisemitism article seems to be generally well written although, as noted above, with perceived bias. However, one major failing is the formatting and maintenance of several citations.

Here is a list, with comments, of early citations:

anti-Semitism – Definition... (comment: citation that, prior to edit, had misrepresented content as: Antisemitism)
Jerome A. Chanes... (comment: no online content, no quotation)
Rattansi, Ali. Racism: ...(comment: no online access to text, no quotation)
Rubenstein, Richard L.; Roth, John K. Approaches ...(comment: excellent)
Johnston, William M. ...(comment: excellent)
Lewis, Bernard. "Semites...(comment: on my check "page not found")
"Anti-Semitism", Encyclopædia Britannica, 2006. (comment: no online access to text, no quotation)
Johnson, Paul. A History...(comment: no online access to text, no quotation)
Lewis, Bernard. "The ...(comment: links to "Fatal error: Call to a member function get")
Report on Global Anti-Semitism" ...(comment: excellent)
Bein, Alex. The Jewish...(comment: excellent)
Falk, Avner (2008)...(comment: excellent)
Poliakov, Leon The History of Anti-Semitism...(comment: no online access to text, no quotation)
Marr, Wilhelm. Sieg des...(comment: links to: "The item you have requested had an error: Item cannot be found.")
Matas, David. Aftershock:...(comment: The author was expressing POV to an extent that would not be permitted on Wikipedia. I could see no clear connection to justify a page citation. However the author cites a source which might be checked and used.)
Lewis, Bernard (1999). Semites and Anti-Semites...(comment: no online access to text, no quotation)
Antisemitism. The Power of Myth...(comment: links to: "We’re sorry. The page you are looking no longer exists")
Bauer, Yehuda. "Problems of Contemporary Antisemitism...(comment: links to: "Page Not Found")
Almog, Shmuel. "What's in a Hyphen?"...(comment: excellent)
Prager, Dennis; Telushkin, Joseph. Why the Jews?...(comment: excellent)
Carroll, James (2002). Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews...(comment: excellent)
...
There are, in total, 270 citation references in the article and a number of them individually contain multiple citations. Can I suggest that interested parties validate citations listed and take appropriate action to any deficiencies. The subject of anti-Semitism/antisemitism is one of the more widely discussed topics within Western culture. There should be means to gain robust citations for relevant issues. Gregkaye (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason for you to expect that sources should be available from your desk. You might need to go to a library. I linked two 404 sources to archived versions; feel free to try to do them same should you encounter dead links. VQuakr (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I have made a number of edits of article content because page content remained unsubstantiated by associated citations. I've been doing my bit of fixing but, based on my experiences so far, I do not trust page content. There are many pages in Wikipedia with impeccable and verifiable citation that we hope give honest representation of their subject. My suggestion is that this page becomes one of them. All editors efforts towards these ends are respected. edited: Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Antisemitism definition here is exclusive to the Jews.

Antisemitism definition here is exclusive to the Jews. Semites also include Palestinians and other Arabic ethnic groups.

Antisemitism should not only be exclusive to the jews but to the entire semitic race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxellRay09 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Antisemitism does not mean "opposition to Semites." See Antisemitism#Usage and Etymological fallacy. VQuakr (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed and long settled. Fleenier (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I've thus changed antisemitism to a disambiguation page. -- Kendrick7talk 04:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted that change. In discussing which form is better, various editors have pointed to the nuances and implications of the two forms and the etymological errors of the term. But there is mass agreement that whatever form is used, the same definition applies in normal use and that dictionaries concur on it. Our article Anti-Semitism begins "Anti-Semitism (also spelled antisemitism or anti-semitism) is prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as a national, ethnic, religious or racial group." To say in this disambiguation that "Anti-Semitism, (is) the opposition or hatred of Semitic peoples, such as Semitic Jews, Palestinians, etc." is at odds with that and unhelpful to the reader. NebY (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Kendrick7, both spellings refer to the same subject. No disambiguation page is necessary or desirable. VQuakr (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
The history of Talk:Anti-Semitism shows objections, as the one expressed by MaxellRay09, as having been raised time and time again. Curiosity leads me to wonder whether similar objections may have been raised beyond the information centred community of Wikipedia. If so then those objections should be rightly documented. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Antisemites have always questioned the reality and existence of antisemitism. There is nothing surprising in that, but it does not need documenting. RolandR (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this discussion is appropriate here, but you know as well as I do that one common response of antisemites is the claim "I can't be antisemitic because Jews aren't Semites/Arabs are Semites too, so the term antisemitism is meaningless". The point is that, whatever the etymology, the word "antisemitism" now means "racism directed against Jews", and attempting to disguise or belittle it by questioning the scope of the term suggests a questionable attitude to the phenomenon. I note that the editor who opened this section and asked the question above was subsequently indefinitely blocked for "antisemitic trolling". RolandR (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a horrible amount of anti-Jewish hatred amongst members and communities in the arab World. What are the causes? One clear factor is the Jew+ cursing qualities of a flawed Islamic religion (but with further POV I would hesitate to say that other religions fared much better). People on the topic of Islam can also present dishonest content.[4],[5],Talk:Muslim#Honesty andTalk:Allah#.... I think that other catalysts for prejudice include a natural tendency towards tribalism and dislike of difference (its a human trait that we all need to fight, again POV) AND perceptions of issues such as Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and the perceived validity of the Israel and the apartheid analogy (an issue that does not even get a mention on the Anti-Semitism page). There are some serious issues related to the Arab Israeli conflict but I honestly don't think that the use of Anti-Semitic/Antisemitic terminologies helps. Word games beget word games. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I've also met Jews, Arabs, Armenians, Samaritans and Druze etc. that are really cool. (Got to build on the positives - POV) Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Honestly

Chronology:

  • Editor2020 changes "League of Anti-Semites" to "League of Antisemites" claiming: "as it occurs in sources"[6]
  • I undid revision changes claiming: "as it occurs in majority of sources, Web, Books and Scholar"[7]
  • VQuakr undid revision claiming: "add source, correct spelling to match source. It is intellectually dishonest to project a false sense of unanimity in the spelling."[8]

Sources:

Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Look, I don't care which way it is spelled, and don't understand why different spellings would be controversial, but wikipedia ought to spell it consistently. I used "antisemic", following usage for this organization by the Jewish Virtual Library and antisemitism.org. I don't care. Pick one and we'll go with it.Editor2020, Talk 18:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@Gregkaye: as you note above, sources use both spellings. Wikipedia reflects the sources, so attempting to impose one spelling throughout the article would fail at that. Neither the move discussion nor any other consensus discussion has supported replacing the spelling throughout the article body with a preferred hyphenated or unhyphenated spelling. VQuakr (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@Editor2020:I don't think we even need to agree a consistent usage for peace to break out. We could just accept that both forms are proper, much as we do for varieties of English - after all, we have tons of sources for each usage - and simply not go round changing the spelling. @Gregkaye: I agree with VQuakr. We've not had a WP:MOS discussion about article text and I hope we don't - the folks over there are fierce and even more tenacious than us (if you doubt me, just try arguing there about which UK measurements should be shown in metric units, or what gigabyte means and how it should be abbreviated). We know that quotations and references will have to use the original form of the quote or ref, so we'll never be fully consistent anyway. While we talk about nuances, respect, minimising or the morality of different spellings, antisemitic readers must be laughing their socks off when anyone who uses the "wrong" spelling is sternly corrected or better yet, goes to edit-war over it. I noticed Greg spoke of his desire for lasting peace in the Middle East. Me, I don't think arguing about hyphens and capitals on Wikipedia brings peace any closer; all I'm seeing is people having a quite unnecessary argument with each other. And yes, that goes for me too. NebY (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
NebY, I really don't see either use of either form as proper. A use of Anti-Semitic terminology only for Jews was inappropriate in the generation of Wilhelm Marr and it is inappropriate now.
A little while ago I made an Antisemitism → Anti-Semitism move request which had the clear support of the content of Wikipedia guidelines and policy: [9] and which would also bring commonality with major dictionaries and encyclopaedias. The main tangible argument presented in the move review is based on Wiktionary. While I hate to think of anti-Semites laughing at the ensuing argument I would share their scorn at the basis upon which it has been fought. Gregkaye ✍♪ 01:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
There is not a single other case of Anti-X where X does not, itself, exist. Since there's no such thing as Semitism, Anti-Semitism is silly. Antisemitism is the correct spelling. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Lisa, I naturally agree with a lot of that but it doesn't change the fact that, when the prefix Anti is used in an Antixxx format, the same rules apply. Prefix[10] Your argument indicates antisemitism to be similarly silly. Nothing has changed except punctuation. The words Semite and Semitic are in common use. Dictionaries are most commonly used for correct spellings. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
No. Antisemitism is correct because it's a direct translation of the original German term. Was the originator wrong in his coinage? Sure. So what? That's how language works. Dictionaries follow usage and not the other way around. That's why the use of "literally" to mean "figuratively" was added to dictionaries. Not because it makes any sense at all, but because that's how it's used. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The "German translation" argument doesn't hold water; German has a way of compounding words that English lacks. We don't have an article on the German Shepherddog, either. The dictionary argument is quite correct, though; English dictionaries (unlike German dictionaries) are descriptive, not prescriptive. Also, Anti-Semitic terminology only for Jews was inappropriate in the generation of Wilhelm Marr and it is inappropriate now is hooey; it's appropriate now in English because it's been in use for over a century with this meaning. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Lisa says "Since there's no such thing as Semitism, Anti-Semitism is silly. Antisemitism is the correct spelling." What Lisa says is utterly ridiculous and irrational. The correct spelling is the one that is commonly used and established. That's all that "correct" spelling means. Yes, both are used, but the hyphenated one is more common. The fact that there is no such thing as "semitism" is irrelevant, since both spellings include this allegedly non-existent thing. Removing the hyphen does not magically make "semitism" go way. Look! There it is: "antisemitism"! So you then change to yet another spurious argument, that it's wrong because it's a "direct translation" of German. No matter that this utterly contradicts your previous argument. So, for over a century, writers have been mistranslating the German! How absurd. The hyphen exists in English because that's the usual way such compound terms are signified in English. None of this was ever a problem until some people tried to promote the hyphenless spelling on ideological grounds. That, IMO, was an utterly misguided and disastrous idea, since it introduced ideology into spelling which had never existed before, leading to the fatuous claim made by one editor here that the hyphenated form is itself "antisemitic". WP:COMMONNAME exists for the very good reason that without it we have precisely these kind of accusations, that one spelling is "insulting", or another is the "true" spelling. Do you really want to go back to the time that, for example, the Momolu Duwalu Bukele was entitled Mɔmɔlu Duwalu Bukɛlɛ because that's the "real" spelling? Paul B (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 15 September 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: support, including as in discussion at the 2 links below. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism → Antisemitism

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Strong Support. Standard usage these days is to spell it without the hyphen. See virtually all journals on the subject and virtually all organizations dealing with the subject. Anti-Semitism should forward to Antisemitism, but that's all. Wikipedia has many articles beginning with "Anti", and some use a hyphen, while others do not. There is no such thing as "Semitism", and the term "Anti-Semitism" is often used as an argument that the concept should apply to other nations which speak a Semitic tongue. While it's true that the word Antisemitism contains "semitism" as well, this is an artifact of an idiosyncratic coinage by a self-identified antisemite, in much the same way that the word Homophobia contains the term "phobia", meaning a mentally disordered fear. Etymology isn't relevant. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This is currently at the Move Review page. I don't think this needs to be opened now since that could potentially split discussion.--76.65.42.142 (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

20th century section incomplete

It attempts to identify European, German, and Austrian anti-Semitism solely with the Nazis. In my reading, anti-Semitism had been deeply embedded in the Christian culture of Europe for centuries. In the early 20th century, there were newspapers in Austria dedicated to anti=semitism. Politicians ran on anti-Semitic platforms. To asks an early 20th-century German about his attitudes towards Jews was not to ask him whether he was anti-Semitic, but what kind of anti-Semite he was. Bdubay (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

Move review requested: See Wikipedia:Move review#Anti-Semitism, pertaining to Anti-Semitism#Requested move. IZAK (talk) 08:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. While there are 6 or 7 supporters and 3 opposers, regardless of the numbers the arguments of the supporters are also stronger. Evidence in support has included common name and dictionary usage, and comparison with similar articles. Whereas the oppose arguments focus on the alternative spelling also being used (but we know both forms are used and that argument does not address which is the commoner), and that the original form of the word was unhyphenated (but that is only true of the German word not the English one, and so is not pertinent for the English wikipedia). DrKay (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Antisemitism → Anti-Semitism – All dictionaries call it anti-Semitism as demonstrated at: Cambridge: anti-Semitism, thefreedictionary.com: anti-Semitism, Merriam-Webster: anti-Semitism,Oxford: anti-Semitism, reference.com: anti-Semitism.
The term should be linguistically treated in the same way and with the same rules as a long list of terms including: Anti-Americanism, Anti-authoritarianism, Anti-capitalism, Anti-Catholicism, Anti-clericalism, Anti-communism, Anti-consumerism, Anti-intellectualism, Anti-fascism, Anti-imperialism, Anti-Mormonism, Anti-racism, Anti-Revisionism, Anti-Sovietism, etc. and with the same rules as the English language generally.
The fact that anti-Semitism/antisemitism is a misnomer or the fact that the term takes reference from a relatively large group (Semites) and applies it to a relatively small group of people (Jews) is not a justification for giving the term different linguistic treatment to the rest of the English language.
A number of related terms and titles have also been generated on Wikipedia including: Anti-Judaism, Anti-Zionism, (which were both extracted from the long list above) Criticism of the Israeli government, Persecution of Jews and Religious anti-Zionism. Curiously, when I listen to the popular Israeli radio station, Galgalatz, the only related term that I hear is "anti-Israeli", a term which optionally might be used here. Scholars and others continue to have options to make references with terms including those mentioned. A continued use of the misnomer: "anti-Semitism" has always been a matter of choice. I don't know how an escape from the conventions of the English language has also been an option. Gregkaye (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

as suspected. Gregkaye (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
So what? WP:COMMONNAME suffices; the rest of your arguments are just cluttering up the discussion. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no yammering, clutter (other than spiked replies) or other problem here. Understandings of the nature and the use of terms are of clear importance in regard to their presentation. Relevant issues have been presented with logical progression. So Wikipedia has been very out of step with other presenters of published material. Please present content with respect. Please don't derail. Gregkaye (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Also irrelevant. WP:COMMONNAME suffices; that's all that matters. I'm agreeing with you and suggesting you've said enough on this issue. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I've never understood the reasoning behind the change to antisemitism, though it's fair to point that it was discussed in detail at Talk:Antisemitism/Archive_23#Requested_move, and got a 16/4 majority in favour of the move, but that was back in 2006. It was raised several times since (see e.g. Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 28). The main argument was that the unhypenated form is more current and is used by scholars. A supplementary argument was that the hyphen implies that anti-semitism is opposition to the ideology of "semitism" rather than Semites, whereas the absence of the hyphen avoids that suggestion. I find this a rather weird argument, since no-one ever thought there ever was any such ideology as "semitism". Also, looking back at the discussion, the principal advocate User:Arvedui seems to contradict him/herself, initially aguing that hyphen is wrong because it implies that "Antisemitism is NOT an antonym or opposition to "Semitism", which does not actually exist". He then says "Antisemitism however has nothing whatsoever to do with being against Semites, except insofar as some Semites happen to be Jews." Well, yes, but you can't make that argument if you claim is that the hyphen implies that it's about the non-existent "semitism" ideology.
    The currency-in-usage argument has more force, but it needs to be supported. I can't see much evidence that it ever really was. The supposed rules of the English language are irrelevant. Either it's the most widely used current spelling or it isn't.
    Another point that needs to made is that any change to this article has knock-on effect for other articles that use "antisemitism" in the title. Wikipedia needs to be consistent. Paul B (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - the rule is to use the most common spelling for the title and it seems that it is the one with the hyphen (both by scholars or in general). That's strange and is a mistake given as mentionned per definition an "anti-semite" is not opposed to "semites" and "anti-Semitism" is just no-sense given there is nothing such as "Semitism". Langages are sometimes strange but that would be WP:OR to use favour the spelling "antisemitism". Let's wait for the correction of this mistake. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator. The use of Semitism is, intentionally or not, a form of identity theft. Israelis, Jews and Zionists all have strong individual identities as does Judaism. Its one thing to assume a designation that does not solely belong to you. Its another thing to then lessen that name in the process. Gregkaye (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
What? Your justification is incoherent and completely unbased in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. VQuakr (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
VQuakr, although put briefly, everything stated is clearly intelligible. The issue of identity is relevant here with further discussion at Talk:Antisemitism#Identity.
Gregkaye's arguments are utterly incoherent and nonsensical. Jews did not invent the term antisemitism. People who didn't like Jews invented it. The assertion that the use of Semitism is "a form of identity theft" is therefore ludicrous. How can you "steal" something if it isn't you that's taken it? Paul B (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Paul B Sorry for the late reply. If one person takes an object, another person moves the object and others then takes and uses the same object, its still theft. Maybe I needed to have clarified to my initial statement. The use of Semitism, no matter by whom it is done and whether by intention. or not, (is) a form of identity theft. You introduced the word "Steal" in isolation and in quotation marks which was misrepresentation. I said "The use of..." The issue, as far as I am concerned, is not "stealing" but possession. The French writer Ernest Renan used Semite, the Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider used antisemitische Vorurteile (anti-Semitic prejudices), the German journalist Wilhelm Marr is widely credited with coining Antisemitismus, German Wikipedia currently uses de:Judenfeindlichkeit ~Judeophobia. "To thine own self be true" Polonius from Hamlet Act 1 Scene 3, “It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.” ― W.C. Fields" Gregkaye (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Come to think about it I also think that "incoherent" is a little harsh. Any reader can make their own judgement on what I wrote. Gregkaye (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support - The guideline for article names identifies five key characteristics: recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency. The two proposed spellings share identical recognizability and precision. The unhyphenated spelling is more natural and slightly more concise (as noted in the nomination, dictionaries recognize both alternates as acceptable). However, as noted in the nom the hyphenated spelling is much more consistent with other similarly-titles articles. In contrast with many of the !voters here, I do not think WP:COMMONNAME applies - both spellings readily identify the subject so both meet the requirements of that section. VQuakr (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
The unhyphenated "spelling" is not more natural. Semite is a demonym no matter the size of the group of people referenced. The use of good English has relevance in an English encyclopaedia. Using your link, WP:CRITERIA we read: "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." In addition to the issue of hyphenation we can note that demonyms are capitalised. They always are and a similar standard of English should also be used here. As actually noted in the nomination, "All dictionaries call it anti-Semitism...:" [15][16][17][18][19]. WP:COMMONNAME, i.e. that: "Wikipedia ... prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject", applies! Gregkaye (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME is about recognizability not alternate spellings (which, by your own dictionary sources, this clearly is). As such it does not apply here. Both alternate spellings are readily recognizable. Note the examples in the section you linked (ie "Lady Gaga (not: Stefani Germanotta)"). Your contention that one spelling is "good English" and the other incorrect is unsubstantiated, as confirmed by the very sources you linked. Your personal views about cultural identities are completely irrelevant. VQuakr (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME is about commonly recognizable names. Across the internet as a whole anti-Semitism is the spelling that has currency. It has a far higher rate of usage than antisemitism which clearly has an effect on recognisability. It also appears in a regularly used and recognisable hyphenated format that has consistent usage when the prefix anti is followed by people related words such as Semite. Anti-Semitism has high recognisability and, with Wikipedia preferring the most frequently used version, WP:COMMONNAME does apply. Good English is indicated in that when a prefix such as anti is followed by a demonym like American, British or Israeli, the word is hyphenated. At least this is the trend when used by a competent publisher like the Jerusalem Post. It is the format consistently used in all similar Wikipedia articles and, as such, Consistency in WP:CRITERIA also applies. Gregkaye (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
"...content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:
1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise."
Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda.
Anti-Semitism is the established spelling and should be used in the title. The advocacy of other uses can be presented neutrally in article content.
[20] Gregkaye (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Propaganda, now? Good lord. VQuakr (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The list of good quality sources using the unhyphenated form is lengthy.
And yet, Re: The New Republic:
([21][22][23][24][25]: "did not match").  Re: The Guardian:
WP:COMMONNAME applies.  WP:SOAPBOX applies.  Anti-Semitism is the term with far greater currency!  Gregkaye (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
We do not have to feel that we are using an unusual form of the term. The unhyphenated form is perfectly recognizable. The more applicable policy here is simply WP:CONSENSUS. WP:COMMONNAME says "Use commonly recognizable names", which this certainly is. The examples given at WP:COMMONNAME all show radically divergent forms. This is not that sort of case, except by a liberal stretch of the imagination. Merely hyphenation is in question. This is not the difference between "Bill Clinton" and "William Jefferson Clinton". Ditto for every other example provided at WP:COMMONNAME. (There are 20 examples provided. None rely on as hair-splittingly minor distinctions as in this issue.) Bus stop (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:COMMONNAME: Wikipedia ... prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject
WP:SOAPBOX: Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise.
WP:CRITERIA: Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.  (Selection of Categories related to Antisemitism and Category:Antisemitism:  Anti-Asian sentiment, Anti-national sentiment, Discrimination, Orientalism, Prejudices‎, Racism)
Gregkaye (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC) with later additions.
  • Oppose as unnecessary. Both forms are very commonly used, and there is no confusion between the two. Between "antisemitism" and "anti-semitism" it's a distinction without a difference, certainly not enough of a distinction to be worth this much energy. In particular, by my reading, WP:COMMONNAME is a bit of a reach in this case, as it only barely grazes once against alternative spellings of the same word by saying that redirections are sufficient, without dictating which spelling should "win" the article. I can't get much worked up about very-common-usage-A-redirects-to-very-common-usage-B versus very-common-usage-B-redirects-to-very-common-usage-A. Might as well leave things as they are. Fleenier (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment If so then the previous move from anti-Semitism to antisemitism was also unnecessary while also being in contravention with all of the quoted guidelines. It moved from a more readable and recognisable term to version clearly out of synch with the rest of Wikipedia.
A lot of this discussion has focussed on WP:COMMONNAME which, despite a two:one ratio in favour of anti-Semitism, has been called into dispute.
The less disputable issue is WP:CRITERIA: in relation to Consistency. A listing relevant terminologies in Wikipedia is as follows: Anti-Arabism, Anti-Armenianism, Anti-Australian sentiment, Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia, Anti-Bihari sentiment, Anti-British sentiment, Anti-Canadianism, Anti-Catalanism, Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Chilean sentiment, Anti-Christian sentiment, Anti-Europeanism, Anti-Filipino sentiment, Anti-German sentiment, Antihaitianismo, Anti-Hinduism, Anti-Igbo sentiment, Anti-India sentiment, Anti-Iranian sentiment, Anti-Italianism, Anti-Japanese sentiment, Anti-Korean sentiment, Anti-Malay sentiment, Anti-Mexican sentiment, Anti Middle Eastern sentiment, Anti-Pakistan sentiment, Anti-Pashtun sentiment, Anti-Polish sentiment, Anti-Quebec sentiment, Anti-Qing sentiment, Anti-Romanian discrimination, Anti-Scottish sentiment, Anti-Serb sentiment, Antisemitism, Anti-Slavic sentiment, Antiziganism, Anti-Zionism, Anti-Western sentiment. Items on the list were not cherry picked but displays content as it came to hand. In fact, if the Consistency criteria were considered in isolation then the current subject would be anti-Jewish sentiment or something along these lines. Such terminology feature internal use of the COMMON NAME concerned. It would provide a basis for impartial analysis more directly related to the subject. As far as consistency is concerned in the current context the overwhelming use of the hyphenated and capitalised format should not be ignored. I personally do not think that any group should be set apart with special treatment. Any apparent disassociation of one form of prejudice from other forms of prejudice is, I believe, detrimental. Issues surrounding prejudice should be as transparent as is practically possible and, whenever there are issues discovered, they should be addressed. Gregkaye (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye—Is one term more "readable" or "recognizable" than the other? You say "It moved from a more readable and recognisable term to…" I realize this is not a forum for general discussion but I'm curious about this. In what way is one term more "readable" or "recognizable" than the other? Can you explain this in your own words? Bus stop (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Readable: Simply look at the two words and squint. The capital S, (the launch point into the word Semitic) remains clearer for longer in poorer reading conditions in comparison to its lower case counterpart. Recognisable: It fits in with the regular pattern of grammar used when placing prefixes in front of words such as America, Darwin or Semite as when generating forms such as Anti-American, Neo-Darwinism and Philo-Semitism. Its the familiar way that it's done. Gregkaye (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
You find "antisemitism" unrecognizable? Bus stop (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The capital S... remains clearer for longer in poorer reading conditions in comparison to its lower case counterpart. So Greg, you must be in favor of converting all of Wikipedia to all caps, then? Do you understand how inane this new line of reasoning is? VQuakr (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's what happened. I made a statement regarding the readability of "anti-Semitism", I was asked to qualify my claim in my "own words" (hmm, "own words"[26]) and I gave a straight forward reply. Gregkaye (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
If so then the previous move from anti-Semitism to antisemitism was also unnecessary while also being in contravention with all of the quoted guidelines. File under "two wrongs don't make a right."
It moved from a more readable and recognisable term to version clearly out of synch with the rest of Wikipedia. Opinion and opinion.
A lot of this discussion has focussed on WP:COMMONNAME which, despite a two:one ratio in favour of anti-Semitism, has been called into dispute. A name used a third of the time is a common name. I am far from alone in noting that WP:COMMONNAME does not help you as much as you think it does. Note that the guideline is named WP:COMMONNAME, not WP:MOSTCOMMONNAME.
The less disputable issue is WP:CRITERIA in relation to Consistency. It is not up to Wikipedia to bring order to the English language, but to reflect its actual usage. At this point you must realize that there isn't sufficient consensus to go forward with the move you propose.
Fleenier (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing "wrong" in getting things right.
It's "up to Wikipedia" to be maintain "consistentcy": Anti-Arabism, Anti-Armenianism, Anti-Australian sentiment, Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia, Anti-Bihari sentiment, Anti-British sentiment, Anti-Canadianism, Anti-Catalanism, Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Chilean sentiment, Anti-Christian sentiment, Anti-Europeanism, Anti-Filipino sentiment, Anti-German sentiment, Antihaitianismo, Anti-Hinduism, Anti-Igbo sentiment, Anti-India sentiment, Anti-Iranian sentiment, Anti-Italianism, Anti-Japanese sentiment, Anti-Korean sentiment, Anti-Malay sentiment, Anti-Mexican sentiment, Anti Middle Eastern sentiment, Anti-Pakistan sentiment, Anti-Pashtun sentiment, Anti-Polish sentiment, Anti-Quebec sentiment, Anti-Qing sentiment, Anti-Romanian discrimination, Anti-Scottish sentiment, Anti-Serb sentiment, Antisemitism, Anti-Slavic sentiment, Antiziganism, Anti-Zionism, Anti-Western sentiment - Philo-Semitism.
WP:COMMONNAME: "with Wikipedia preferring the most frequently used version," (as my representation of: "Wikipedia ... prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject")
Gregkaye (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Quote marks suggest quotes. You aren't quoting but you are using quotation marks. Bus stop (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Quotation amended above. Gregkaye (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Wrong quote. VQuakr (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Greg, how is it possible that you still do not understand that guideline, given that your misinterpretation of it has been repeatedly pointed out? At some point, WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT comes into play. VQuakr (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
VQuakr, I have always been in full agreement with the topic of WP:COMMONNAME. In fact, following your first comment on the subject I responded with a clarification of the topic as relating to "commonly recognizable names". This response is still up there and you are still at liberty to reply. My point was and still is that the text states: "Wikipedia ... prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject". It does not state that: "Wikipedia ... prefers to use a name that is less frequently used to refer to the subject" which would make no sense. This point has not been refuted. Do you understand? Gregkaye (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The reply you linked above shows what you want WP:COMMONNAME to say but in no way addresses its actual content or the replies I linked in my previous post. As such, it did not merit a response - there was no point to refute. Are you laboring under the unfortunate impression that whoever writes last is correct? To repeat a final time, that policy tells us to, given two alternates, select an article title that is more recognizable ie "Guinea pig (not: Cavia porcellus)." In this context, the two alternate spellings being discussed have completely identical recognizability. You can continue to disagree, but that speaks only to your competence and not to any actual policy content. VQuakr (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The current discussion relates to the choice of title between anti-Semitism (more commonly used) vs antisemitism (less commonly used). Please, enough of the red herring references to: Lady Gaga (more commonly used) and Stefani Germanotta (less commonly used) or Guinea pig (more commonly used) and Cavia porcellus (less commonly used). I could have easily quoted the John F. Kennedy (more commonly used) and Jack Kennedy (less commonly used) entry. They are all irrelevant. The current case describes two spellings: one more commonly used and the other less commonly used, one more in line with the style of presentation of similar Wikipedia titles and one less in line with the style of similar Wikipedia titles. The guidelines are clear. Gregkaye (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
At this point you are simply repeating yourself. There is no consensus for your proposed move, and repeating your position over and over is unlikely to persuade anyone who wasn't persuaded by its first iteration. Fleenier (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Come on, please! Look at the context of the above discussion. The use of Weasel words by way of comment and distraction have been employed with increased regularity.
The “you must be in favor of converting all of Wikipedia to all caps, then?”  by: Vquakr is both absurd and insulting.
Then there was the “as much as you think” by Fleenier. Why quote what I think, which is laughably unsubstantiated, and not what I said? This came in connection to an irrelevant mention of WP:MOSTCOMMONNAME which apparently ignored the use of: “... most commonly used” in the referenced text.
“IDONTUNDERSTANDIT” was then presented, again by VQuakr, despite no reference being made to any actual misunderstanding on my part. The same author then mentioned “Guinea pig” despite the fact that a response made to similar comment remains unanswered.
On top of this there was also the misrepresentation both of lead and dictionary content in: “as noted in the nomination, dictionaries recognize both alternates as acceptable”. None of the major dictionaries even makes mention of “Antisemitism”: Cambridge, Merriam-Webster,Oxford.
At the beginning of the discussion I made the request “Please don't derail” and, as mentioned, we read of “all caps”, “MOSTCOMMONNAME”, “DONTUNDERSTAND”, “Guinea pig(s)” and mind reading. Through it all there has not been ANY valid justification offered for the use of a title “antisemitism”. Do non-supporting editors really want to contravene Wikipedia policy for an argument that amounts to, “I want”? Gregkaye (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Hatting discussion. No consensus, no recent progress toward consensus. Fleenier (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The rhetorical repetition of previously stated points to an extent of Epanalepsis is inappropriate at any stage of a text and especially in a non reply[27] to previous content. The truth is that Wikipedia has WP:Policies and guidelines and that will not change. See: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and Wikipedia:IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. We all work with and within the same rules. Gregkaye (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS: "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. See also Wikipedia:I just don't like it.
  • Support. The hyphenated version has roughly four times more returns on Google books. Emphascore (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Firstly, the term "antisemitism" is clear and in common use, not least within this article; there is no need to change. Secondly, the term as originally created was unhyphenated. It is a specific term with a meaning that is not simply the sum of its parts, as opposed to the various "anti-xxx sentiment" expressions mentioned above; in this, it is more akin to "antipodean" or "antipathy". NebY (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
NebY, Anti-Semitism redirecting to Antisemitism is a description of prejudice against a group of people.
The article when originally created contained the hyphenated version of the term 12 times with Anti-Semitic beliefs mentioned twice and Anti-Semites mentioned once. The unhyphenated version of the term was used a single time. I am not sure what has happened with regard to the title. entered 01:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC) and edited by Gregkaye (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I've hatted the discussion, which is nearing thirty thousand words without consensus and without any recent progress toward consensus. Feel free to continue the discussion if you'd like, but please do so within the hat. Fleenier (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

And it was "hatted" in just such a way that this was the text that remained outside the "hat".[28] "Good lord" doesn't even fit.
Gregkaye (talk) 10:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC).
You have not to state there is or there is no consensus. I removed this 'hat' so that a closing admin can analyse and check the situation. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Anyone can see there is no consensus here. Anyone following the discussion can see there is no progress toward consensus here: we're pretty much exactly where we were a week ago. Essentially all we are doing now is waiting for a closing admin to wander by and note what we already know: no consensus, no progress toward consensus. My hatting was simply an attempt to speed that along. It is not at all unusual on WP to hat discussions that have gone slack.Fleenier (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move mishandled

I walk into this a few days after the closing of the above discussion, of which I was not aware. My initial reaction upon discovering this sudden change was Oppose. As I begin this discussion, I am not sure if I support or oppose, but I note numerous problems with the decision, and by the time I finish it I call it a disastrously poor decision.

Gregkaye declared "All dictionaries call it anti-Semitism as demonstrated at" and then offered five (5) external links. There are more than five English dictionaries. Therefore this statement is unproven.

Gregkaye declared "All dictionaries call it anti-Semitism as demonstrated at ... thefreedictionary.com: anti-Semitism ..." but he failed to note thefreedictionary.com: antiSemitism, so the statement is untrue. All further comments to the effect that "all dictionaries call it anti-Semitism" are mere repetitions of the same unsupported and untrue declaration.

Gregkaye declared "The term should be linguistically treated in the same way and with the same rules as a long list of terms including ..." This is a normative statement offered without reference to any Wikipedia policy. It neglects the fact that there might be a reason for treating Antisemitism differently from the items in his list. It omits the shorter list of existing Wikipedia Anti...ism articles, which belie the theory that all Anti...ism articles should be treated with the same hyphenation strategy.

Gregkaye declared "The fact that anti-Semitism/antisemitism is a misnomer or the fact that the term takes reference from a relatively large group (Semites) and applies it to a relatively small group of people (Jews) is not a justification for giving the term different linguistic treatment to the rest of the English language." That is opinion, not fact, and not supported by any identified Wikipedia policy.

Gregkaye falsely stated that three leading Israeli newspapers use the terms "Anti-Semitism" and "anti-Semitic" (implicitly, that they do not also use "Antisemitism" and "Antisemitic"). Gregkaye is correct for Haaretz. He is also correct for The Jerusalem Post, but only by dumb luck, since he did not format his Google search correctly: there should be no space between the "site:" parameter and the site. He is incorrect for Yedioth Ahronoth, which uses both the hyphenated and unhyphenated terms. Here are the three searches formatted correctly, without the bombast and without the spurious space after the "site" colon: Haaretz Jerusalem Post Yedioth Aharonoth, which shows that Ynetnews makes significant use of the unhyphenated terms.

Paul B noted: "any change to this article has knock-on effect for other articles that use 'antisemitism' in the title. Wikipedia needs to be consistent." Right. This change was made without considering that Category:Antisemitism, which is now Category:Anti-Semitism, includes 16 subcategories, of which 11 include the word antisemitism or antisemitic and zero (0) include hyphenated forms of these words. The same category includes 118 pages, of which three (3), Anti-Semitism, Template:Anti-Semitism, and Template:Anti-Semitism topics, were moved for the occasion; there remain 12 pages that include the word antisemitism or antisemitic in their titles and only one (1), Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004 that includes a hyphenated form it its title. And the category states even now, "Wikimedia Commons has media related to Antisemitism." The Wikimedia Commons category contains nine (9) subcategories that include the word antisemitism or antisemitic and zero (0) have hyphenated forms of these words. For all the talk about Wikipedia being consistent, did anyone consider that Wikipedia needs to be consistent with Wikimedia Commons? Turning to the templates, Template:Anti-Semitism was minimally edited and continues to display Antisemitic canards, Antisemitic publications, Antisemitism on the Web, and Swedish Committee Against Antisemitism (SCAA). Template:Anti-Semitism topics was minimally edited and continues to display New antisemitism; Antisemitism and; Religious antisemitism; Antisemitic laws, policies and government actions; Antisemitic websites; and Organizations working against antisemitism.

Pluto2012 wrote, "The rule is to use the most common spelling for the title ..." Where is that rule? WP:COMMONNAME does not say this.

Gregkaye wrote "The use of Semitism is, intentionally or not, a form of identity theft." I agree with Paul B, who characterized the argument as ludicrous, and everything Gregkaye wrote to justify it just dug the hole deeper.

Gregkaye wrote "Semite is a demonym no matter the size of the group of people referenced." This is irrelevant, because this is discussion is not about the Wikipedia article Semite, it is about whether this Wikipedia article should be Antisemitism or Anti-Semitism, and because the word Antisemitism does not derive from the English word Semite but from the German word antisemitisch and has nothing to do with actual Semites.

VQuakr wrote "WP:COMMONNAME is about recognizability not alternate spellings...." Correct. Gregkaye disputes this, but fails to support his argument with any extant Wikipedia policy in WP:COMMONNAME or elsewhere. He calls for consistency, but the consistency argument actually points toward the unhyphenated spelling when we consider the Wikipedia Commons and the many existing Wikipedia articles that include the unhyphenated word in their titles. All references to WP:COMMONNAME and declarations that it "does apply" must be ignored until someone shows where WP:COMMONNAME says to prefer one spelling over another.

Gregkaye wrote "Across the internet as a whole anti-Semitism is the spelling that has currency." "Having currency" is an odd expression, but whatever it means, both anti-Semitism and Antisemitism have currency, and no Wikipedia policy has been mentioned saying that article titles are based on "having currency".

Gregkaye wrote, "It has a far higher rate of usage than antisemitism which clearly has an effect on recognisability." No evidence has been provided that there is a recognisability problem with Antisemitism.

Gregkaye declared "Anti-Semitism is the established spelling and should be used in the title." Who established this spelling? In fact both spellings are "established" and appear widely in the the media.

Gregkaye provided a list of Wikipedia articles that have have Anti- in the title. This proves nothing. There are also Antidisestablishmentarianism, Antifeminism, Antihumanism, Antimilitarism, Antinomianism, Antipositivism, Antireductionism, Antitheism, Antiziganism, Antihaitianismo, and Anti Middle Eastern sentiment. There is no Wikipedia rule that all anti...ism articles must be hyphenated, and the demonym argument fails because antisemitism derives as a translation from a foreign word and is not analyzable as anti+Semite or anti+Semitism, because that's not what it means.

Gregkaye wrote "The capital S, (the launch point into the word Semitic) remains clearer for longer in poorer reading conditions in comparison to its lower case counterpart." No evidence is offered to support this claim, and even if true, no Wikipedia policy has been offered saying that Wikipedia article titles should be based on considerations of their clarity in poorer reading conditions.

Fleenier wrote, "At this point you must realize that there isn't sufficient consensus to go forward with the move you propose." Quite right! basically we have Gregkaye repeating assertion after unsupported assertion and declaration after unsupported declaration that policies apply, and others who support or oppose the proposal.

Gregkaye repeatedly wrote that WP:COMMONNAME prefers the most common spelling when in fact WP:COMMONNAME does not say this, as pointed out by VQuakr and Fleenier.

(Red Slash, Emphascore, Bus stop, NebY: Hello.)

And then, Deus ex machina, DrKay declared from on high and without support, "the arguments of the supporters are also stronger. Evidence in support has included common name and dictionary usage, and comparison with similar articles. Whereas the oppose arguments focus on the alternative spelling also being used (but we know both forms are used and that argument does not address which is the commoner), and that the original form of the word was unhyphenated (but that is only true of the German word not the English one, and so is not pertinent for the English wikipedia)."

  • The dictionary usage argument as offered was 20% wrong, as one of the five offered dictionaries uses both terms.
  • The dictionary usage claim was about "all dictionaries" but there are way more than five English dictionaries on Earth.
  • There is no reason to consider Antisemitism as "similar" to other articles because antisemitism derives as a translation from a foreign word and is not analyzable as anti+Semite or anti+Semitism, in contrast to other anti...ism articles.
  • A significant number of other Wikipedia articles, at least ten, have unhyphenated anti...ism words in their titles.
  • Category:Anti-semitism includes numerous subcategories and articles with unhyphenated antisemitism and antisemitic.
  • Two templates are now messed up and internally inconsistent.
  • This article's current title is now inconsistent with widespread usage at Wikimedia Commons.

In computer programming, making a small change in one part of a system sometimes has unforeseen repercussions in remote parts of the system, and when these repercussions are brought to light, sometimes the best thing is to admit that the change was not fully thought through and needs to be backed out. This is exactly the case here. This change needs to be backed out forthwith. Then we can have a new discussion on the topic of whether this change would be a good idea in light of the numerous articles and subcategories with the word antisemitism and antisemitic in their titles, problems with two templates, and consistency with Wikimedia Commons. If a consensus emerges that the article should be moved, again, to Anti-Semitism, a plan should be made for real consistency across Wikipedia and also Wikimedia Commons, instead of the ersatz consistency and major inconsistencies that have been achieved. — Anomalocaris (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I too would have Opposed this move had I seen the discussion, and I agree with Anomalocaris' post above. I became aware of this through a knock-on rename discussion at 3D Test of Antisemitism, which is one of very many articles now proposed for renaming.In that discussion, a majority of participants currently op[poses the proposedrenaming. There is certainly no consensus for renaming further articles, and I suggest that thediscussion on this one did not produce a clear consensus either.
In the discussion at 3D Test of Antisemitism, I oppose renaming on the grounds that the unhyphenated term is far more prevalent among activists and academics, and that virtually all of the bodies and journals which actually deal with, study or combatantisemitism reject the hyphen. I cite the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, the Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism, the Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism, the Journal for the Study of Antisemitism, the Berlin International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, the Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism, the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism, the Yale Program for the Study of Antisemitism, and the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism, and there are many more. In fact, I was unable to find a single such body or journal which uses the hyphenated form. I also note that, in the long list of articles originally proposed for renaming, all those about bodies or journals with the word in their name actually use the unhyphenated form, and have therefore been removed from the list. The articles remaining all use the word in Wikipedia's voice. RolandR (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Requested move mishandled? I could not agree more. [29]. This thread also continues a common theme of placing edits out of sequence. If you have relevant things to say that respects Wikipedia policies and guidelines feel free to say them. Gregkaye (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, I can't see anything but bad faith in the comments regarding my !vote. The rule states : "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." I said most commonly spelled name had to be used (anti-Semite) even if found "antisemite" better and I stated we had to wait for scholars to use the 2nd form more than the 1st form. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
@Pluto2012: that is not an accusation of bad faith. The policy you quote goes on to explain that as a result, we use the article title Guinea pig (not: Cavia porcellus) along with various other examples in which the less common name is clearly less recognizable. In contrast, the hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions are equally recognizable and natural. As such, Anomalocaris is just observing that your conclusion does not follow from the policy you quote - still well within the realm of good faith. VQuakr (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I strongly encourage this move to be reverted. This serves no purpose other than the legitimize the actions of the creators of the term "anti-Semitism" - it confuses the issue, as seen on this very talk page from top to bottom, which is filled with questions about Semites and who all is included in the group despised by "anti-Semites". This page and its talk page are evidence enough that this move was foolhardy, if not biased. Geofferic T•C✡ 01:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I also strongly encourage this move to be reverted. It clearly was not initiated in order to conform to other article titles, because there are many article titles that don't use the hyphen, as pointed out above. It seems more agenda-driven than anything else. If you note the section on the bottom of this page, you can see what that agenda is: to obscure the real issue of antisemitism by claiming that anti-Semitism means bias against any Semites. Changing the spelling this way across Wikipedia is a political act. An agenda-driven act. Gregkaye succeeded in changing the name of this article quickly while people didn't notice. Then he gave a great example of BOOMERANG by trying to expand that success to the rest of Wikipedia. I submit that the correct and non-political, non-agenda-driven thing to do is revert the move of this page. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
What does the crap on the bottom of the page have to do with anything? Fools have been falling into, or buying into, the etymological fallacy regardless of whether the hyphen is in the word or not. I'd hoped a little a few years ago when the hyphen was removed that perhaps it would lower the idiot quotient in that regard, but that does not seem to have occurred. There's a huge lack of assumption of good faith going on here; the proposer certainly should have shut up before he obscured the simplicity of the argument with pages and pages of unreadable rhetoric, but these accusations of bias and of, well, antisemitism (or anti-semitism) are quite uncalled for and muddy the discussion just as badly as the excess verbiage of the proposer. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if editors could consider editing tactics they condone during discussion. In this paragraph though I'll make a few belated comments regarding the first move decision. The decision was made on the basis that: “Evidence in support has included common name”, the anti-S.. format is the more commonly used form within scholarship and a variety of other spheres of the sharing of information; “dictionary usage” it appears in all the online dictionaries and exclusively in the major online dictionaries - VQuakr even claimed “as noted in the nomination, dictionaries recognize both alternates as acceptable”. I said “All dictionaries call it anti-Semitism”. Show me a dictionary, a regular dictionary, not something produced by a specialist organization and not just an isolated entry, that doesn't. In all cases that I have found, both on-line and in print, entries are universally introduced as Anti-Semitism. The last support was “comparison with similar articles”. That case was clear cut.

As far as the mishandling of discussions is concerned I still regard the use of weazel words, false and unsubstantiated accusation or insinuations and attempts at disruptive editing to be high on a list of problems. Then there are issues related to the misuse of procedure. A move review was conducted with apparently no consideration for the guidelines regarding What this process is not or the clearly given Instructions. I don't mind a fair debate yet but this was not to be. At every stage I answered questions as they were asked. Within the context I also had the right to ask questions yet the same courtesies were not returned. A decision was further taken to place the link from this page to the miswritten move review with this link being placed above the original move request discussion. This in itself was fine but when I attempted to add a content to point to the pages What this process is not and Instructions contents, these links were removed.

Please consider the type of tactics that you are willing to support and condone in debate. One of the key influences that personally got me on this current path of debate had been previous experience of the kind of issues mentioned here. History has since repeated itself

Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This has been indeed, a very unpleasant debate. I think you are the one principally responsible for that because you have made it clear that your spelling preference is motivated by ideology, not by Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. IMO the traditional spelling should be preferred precisely because we don't want ideology to intrude. Otherwise we'd be having debates about changing articles referring to "women" to "wimmin". The absurd comments by Lisa and Geofferic are the product of your own ideological motivations. Overwhelmingly, the spelling used in sources is indeed "Anti-Semitism", but "Antisemitism" is undoubtedly also used. Ultimately this does not matter very much. Paul B (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Consistency

Given that the move of title to "antisemitism" has taken place (and within the context that I clearly don't approve with the general use of the baseline terminology) I propose that the unhyphenated and non-capitalised version be used on a consistent basis throughout the encyclopaedia in all cases except quotations. Decisions like this have nothing to do with intellectually honesty. If it was then (in the context of a majority of uses in such spheres as news and scholarship being of anti-Semite based terminologies) the issue of intellectual honesty would have been pretty much abandoned with recent article edits.

The issue has always been and remains that of building an encyclopaedia. Britannica and several other encyclopaedias make consistent use of anti-Semite based terminologies. As a decision has been taken here to use the non-capitalised version Wikipedia is justified in pursuing a similar level of consistency.

I also think that if may be valid to present a neutrally worded explanation for the encyclopaedia's use of terminology in this regard. Its POV but I think that this is the kind of thing that other encyclopaedia's might do in similar situations. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not broke; don't fix it. Step away from the horse. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The context being a failure of repair of direct association since the time of William Marr. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia describes. Wikipedia does not prescribe. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, Major dictionaries describe Anti-Semitism. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Simon of Trent's Canonization

This article currently states: "In 1965 Pope Paul VI issued a papal decree disbanding the cult of Simon of Trent, the shrine erected to him was dismantled,[153] and Simon was decanonized.[154]" But other pages say he was never officially canonized. Which is true? Could this be reworded such that it makes more sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.238.190 (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm having some trouble with relying on a 2007 newspaper editorial by a hitherto unknown "historian" to provide the facts behind a 1470s murder to begin with, having myself written about the case based on an early 20th century source on a related article wherein the facts were already murky. -- Kendrick7talk 03:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

protester picture in Germany section

What is the evidence that the picture is of an "Antisemitic demonstration in Berlin?" It appears to be either a protest against Israel (which, if you look at from a Palestinian perspective, is a colonial power), a certain action take by the Israeli government (again, depending on the act, and especially from the perspective against whom such action is directed, can be seen as a case of Israeli state terrorism) or simply a pro-Palestine rally. None of these qualify as antisemitic unless "antisemitism" is meant to automatically vilify, de-legitimize and dismiss all criticism/critics of Israel and its actions). Even if any of the protesters are believed to be antisemitic, perhaps because of some marker (tattoos, shirt, hand sign, etc), it doesn't mean the rally itself is antisemitic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.153.148 (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

He does appear to be antisemitic (his tattoo reads "88", a white power/neo-nazi thing, and the smaller text states that Palestinians are praiseworthy because they are the last group to oppose Zionism) - but it's true that it's not obvious from a thumbnail version of the picture. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Certainly the individual is a Jew-hater. However, the context of this picture isn't clear. This is a counter-demonstration to a "Solidarität mit Israel" rally; I wouldn't label it as an "antisemitic demonstration" when it clearly is an anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian demonstration with at least one Jew-hater. (And the "89" t-shirt next to the "88" tattoo guy is odd, but it has nothing to do with the topic, as far as I can tell.) --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you guys think it's better to fix the caption, or to remove the image entirely? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
It's easy, come to think of it. I just changed the caption from "Antisemitic demonstration" to "Antisemitic demonstrator". --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is antisemitism defined as hatred against Jews

I believe that antisemitism should be defined as negative discrimination towards all Semitic people because that is literally what the word means anti (against) and Semitic. I do think that right after this that it should be noted that antisemitism is usually used to describe negative discrimination against Jews than it used to describe hatred against other Semitic ethnic/ethnoreligious groups. TURTLOS (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

TURTLOS The version of that question that I have asked is: Why is the word "antisemitism" used to describe anti-Jewish sentiment" when the common name for the Jewish people is "the Jewish people"? I encourage editors to use (add: think it would be worthwhile if editors considered using) terms like anti-Jewish sentiment where relevantly possible (add: practicable). The Jewish people are not the only Semites in existence and I view the continuation of the use of antisemitic terminologies exclusively for themselves as being a parallel of identity theft. GregKaye 20:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, bullshit. "Identity theft"? Jew haters invented the word "antisemitism" for their Jew hating (to make it more sophisticated than simply religious hatred), and it has never meant anything else other than extremely fringe uses. It's not "ours"; Jew haters took it for themselves, and we're quite willing to let them keep it; why would anyone else want it? --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
@Gregkaye: as has been discussed before, you are welcome to hold your own personal preferences regarding word usage, but please do not promote them on article talk pages. VQuakr (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if we should make/request an edit notice for both the article and the talk page directing people to where this has been reiterated ad infinitum. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
@Roscelese: good idea, but maybe a FAQ instead of edit notice? I will start a new section below. VQuakr (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
@TURTLOS: the first sentence of this article defines the word. How you think the term should be defined is irrelevant. VQuakr (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
@VQuakr: yeah i get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TURTLOS (talk • contribs)
Its nice to see that editors on this page (with its archive settings being now set at |minthreadsleft = 3) can reply quickly to talk page content as needed.
--jpgordon, I apologise, I should not have made reference to a this as being seen as a parallel. However, I believe that "semitisch" was the German word that was first perverted by the abhorrently prejudice jew haters that you mention. Semitism is an English word. In genuine cases of identity theft the problem is often related to acquisition and continued usage of misplaced information and, as I see it, the current situation is a parallel.
VQuakr , What has been previously discussed? There is no argument that use of the terms, anti-Semite, anti-Semite and anti-Semitism have been "appropriated" into the English language. This does not mean that direct references to the Jews and Jewish people (a highly accomplished people with a great many virtues) cannot be alternatively be used. On the issue of promotion I should only counsel to consider use of jew and jewish based terminologies where they can be sensibly and encyclopaedically used. Wikipedia editors have chosen to use antisemitic terminologies over anti-Semitic terminologies despite the prevalence of the use of the later within sources. I regard this as promotion.
Questions as raised by TURTLOS are common in place such as the archive. This surely says something. GregKaye 02:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
@Gregkaye: this talk page does not exist to educate you on how English works. Take your "identify theft" BS and prescriptive linguistics spam elsewhere. VQuakr (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
VQuakr Please do not be aggressive. I will withdraw a lot of what I said above in light of a raft of word searches across that I've done across scholar and Wikipedia to find that reference to anti-Semitic and other terminologies seem to be in proportion across sources.
I have to note though that talk pages exist to discuss content within and related to an article and uses or terminology present a relevant part of this. Prior to your last edit I had already struck content reference to "identify theft" above and the context of my statement remains which demonstrates that my indication was of a parallel. I do not think that there has been anything prescriptive in my content. None-the-less, I further edited back so as to say: I think it would be worthwhile if editors considered using) terms like anti-Jewish sentiment where relevantly practicable. Within the context of regular use there is clearly validity in an extent of the use of anti-Semitic and antisemitic based terminologies. However, I now see that Wikipedia content seems to use many phrases (al-be-it without hyphenation) in proportion to other sources. GregKaye 14:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not morphology but usage that shapes semantics, and yet if someone is dissatisfied by the apparent ambiguity of the word, I suggest "Judeophobia," which has some history of usage, especially in some areas outside the Anglophone world. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Under New Anti-Semitism, suggestion to change "creation" to "revival" of a Jewish homelad

As Jews were in exile, they returned and revived their homeland Israel. Creating a Jewish homeland suggests it is a new thing, which is false taking into consideration ancient Israel --146.90.105.128 (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

146.90.105.128 I would suggest that, if the Biblical accounts are to be believed, a more suitable wording would be re-establishment. Histories inform us that the sons or Israel first established the land of Israel in the land of Canaan and that they remained their for some time while suffering intermittent occupations; that this went on for a while until they got chucked out by the Romans; that from time to time they had a minimal level of presence in the Jordan valley- Mediterranean region and that they properly re established an opportunistically expansionist State of Israel in comparatively recent times. GregKaye 20:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
No need to rely solely on the biblical account. The existence of ancient Israel is wholly uncontroversial in archeology and history. Moreover, since then, there has always been some Jewish presence in that location, i.e. the Southern Levant, throughout these ages. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Add a FAQ or edit notice?

This page receives perennial questions about the definition of antisemitism and why it differs from the logical construction of anti + semite. In a section above, Roscelese suggested that we add an editnotice. I think with a little thought we could come up with a couple of additional questions and answers, and create a FAQ section at the top of the page. What do people think - FAQ, WP:EDITNOTICE or nothing new? VQuakr (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese: can you explain why you prefer an edit notice to a FAQ? Can you point to any recent article disruption that might have been prevented by an article-space edit notice? VQuakr (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not rejecting an FAQ, I just want to make sure that there's something people see when they go to edit either the article or the talk page. A substantial number of talk page sections in the archive are from people complaining that the article isn't about hatred of Semites or wanting to know why it isn't about hatred of Semites, and there's already a talkpage box directing people to previous discussion of the etymology so they're obviously not looking at it before posting. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I really think that's why we are proposing the FAQ in the first place. People need to know what this article is about. There are articles on discrimination against other Semites. See Anti-Arabism for example. The vast majority of sources state Antisemitism is about discrimination against Jews. We should state that in the FAQ.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Does discrimination against all Semitic peoples specifically even exist? I think most folks are too ignorant to know the definition of “Semite” and probably think that Persians are Arabs. "Wut?! Teh Arabz argue wut some gulf should be called? Duh... Persians R cats, not people; the gulf must therefore be called ‘da Cat Gulf’!!!!!!!!111" 213.109.230.96 (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad I'm not the only person who thinks that the use of the term "anti-Semitic" to mean "anti-Jewish" is completely nonsensical. I agree we should add an FAQ or edit notice. Biscuittin (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not about race because many/most Jews are not Semites, it's often not about religion either because many Jews are atheists, it may be about anti Zionism. Very confusing! Could be explained in the lede that antisemite is a neologism?

EMCRX definition

The 'Working Definition of Antisemitism' by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia was an UNOFFICIAL document. (See comment by Nurit on this link http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-eu-has-retired-its-working-definition-of-antisemitism--its-about-time-8986565.html).

The paragraph concerning this definition in the Wikipedia article is misleading because it only states in the last two sentences (after a long detailed synopsis) that the definition is now defunct and had never been regarded as official. It should clearly state at the start of the paragraph that the definition was never official and is no longer valid.Kombo the mzungu (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Collapsing reflist

This article has a really, really long list of citations. Would anyone oppose my putting it under a collapse? Is there a MOS reason not to? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The top of the article currently has
For total or partial opposition to Judaism and to Jews as a religious group, see Religious antisemitism.

There are plenty of different types of antisemitism, and they're all pretty well described under this heading here: Antisemitism#Forms. Do we really want this one up in the lead and not the others? It just seems like it's out of place, and would be more appropriate to have it in a Main Article/see also tag under Antisemitism#Religious_antisemitism or in the see also section, my opinion is that the article would work best with the former. --Padenton (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Picture in "Antisemitism in Germany" section

There is a picture of a man who obviously demonstrates for the Palestinian cause, but says, wears, or does nothing anti-Semitic in any form. The picture has the text "Antisemitic demonstrator in Berlin". Come on, people, be honest. This is absolutely unacceptable for an encyclopaedia. Change it immediately! I don't think there needs to be any discussion about this being unacceptable.

He has clearly visible Nazi tattoos on his arm. VQuakr (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
We talked about this in January (see the talk archive) He's a neo-nazi who's demonstrating for Palestine because it's an opportunity to stick it to Jews - although I did note in the previous discussion that that is in no way obvious from the thumbnail. I'd support replacing it for this reason - in the version readers see, if they don't click through, it's not that illuminating. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Rewriting caption to clarify.E.M.Gregory (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, this photo is the object of commentary at [30], which renders the text as "Das tapfere palästinensische Volk sollte man ehren da sie noch die einzigen sind auf dieser Welt die sich gegen den Zionisten wehren" (oddly, the photo appears to have capitalized "Ehren", but it seems used as a verb here ... but I'm no great expert in German). Anyway, the Google translation seems plausible enough: "The brave Palestinian people should be honored because they are still the only ones in the world who oppose the Zionists."
Also, so far as I can tell the Nazi aspect is sort of obscure - the "88" is a sort of American prison code for "HH" i.e. "Heil Hitler". That's probably a creepy Nazi eagle, but who can tell? - practically every country has some creepy eagle perched on its flag waiting for war to throw carrion its way. Wnt (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
"Practically every country"? o.O Bit overstating it, are we? Taking the nations' flags in alphabetical order, the first flag with a bird on it is Dominica - and that's a parrot. The next one is Papua New Guinea, and it has a Bird-of-paradise. lol Geofferic T•C✡ 06:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Example farming

The section on modern antisemitism is a mess, with sections on individual countries ranging from very good backgrounds, to odd events, to merely a link to the main article. Is there a better way to present this information, or is it fine as it is? '''tAD''' (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It also may be unbalanced. In many other parallel contents on discrimination such as Anti-Americanism and Anti-British sentiment there are large contents to describe things that the US and the British had done that may have provoked reactions. GregKaye 18:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we should be encouraging justifications for blood libel and the Holocaust to be added to Wikipedia, unless it's under a special heading indicating that they are justifications and not causes. Bigotry is not provoked; it is rationalized. Geofferic T•C✡ 06:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that there's a big problem. My feeling is that the article needs to be divided into two: History of anti-Semitism - which actually already exists, and follows a parallel structure to much of this article with duplicated content - and Anti-Semitism by country, which should survey country by country like the "modern" section. I should note for this structure that, despite the name of the former article, there should be no arbitrary cutoff between "historical" and "modern" anti-Semitism, despite the existence of a really obvious demarcation point. Rather, the idea is, the former article goes through and subdivides anti-Semitism by historical era, while the latter subdivides it by country. So the History of anti-Semitism article should have a little section in summary style (not out of line with the sizes of the others) explaining the modern situation worldwide, and the Anti-Semitism by country article should explain older events, at least in brief, for each country. Wnt (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Better source for the lead?

Does anyone have a better source, such as one linking to the actual UNGA Resolution 623, or other sources which confirm that "[a]ntisemitism is widely considered a form of racism"? The current source used as a citation is, in my opinion, not a reliable source. I searched for the resolution myself, but the only instance of it I could find appears on this site. For the time being, I'll leave the citation up, but I may replace it with a [citation needed] if I can't find a better one, and if nobody else has provided one. I've also added a [better source needed] template next to it in the hopes that someone could find a better source. Meanwhile, I've done some minor cleanup, which you can see here. Thanks. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Some sources I've found calling antisemitism racism. Please note I'm not claiming we can use all these. Some I have marked with reasons why I think they shouldn't be used. None the less I found them.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/canadareport2011.pdf
http://www.islamdenouncesantisemitism.com/antisemitism.htm (not sure if this is a good enough source)
http://www.ecaj.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2014_antisemitism_report.pdf
http://jewdas.org/keeping-antisemitism-simple/ (I highly doubt this is good enough but I'm okay with putting it on the talk page).
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/antisemitism.htm (might be too Christian of a site)
(I indented your post to thread it. I hope you don't mind, and you can revert it if you want.) Thanks for the sources. The first source distinguishes between racism and antisemitism; this doesn't necessarily contradict the claim that antisemitism is a form of racism, but it's important to note. Here are some quotes from that document, published by the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism, which I believe is relevant to this matter (bold added for emphasis to this and all future quotes):

Antisemitism is the oldest and most enduring form of hatred and has caused, "catastrophic suffering, not only for Jews, but for all those who get enveloped in that virus of antisemitism" as it has mutated over time. Yet, as discussed in the UK All-Party Report, the "high degree of integration and success" of the Jewish community means that Jewish people experience a different model of prejudice and racism than other communities. "Antisemitism is not always recognized for what [it] is, and Jews are not always recognized as victims of racism."

That one implies that Jewish people experience racism, but is this the same as stating that antisemitism is a form of racism? This is the only authoritative instance in the document that is spoken in the document's voice.
Here is another:

Not all antisemitic incidents are criminal. As explained by Detective Sergeant Monica Christian: "Antisemitism is racism, and racism under any guise is deplorable. Antisemitic, racist, and hateful comments are offensive to the vast majority of Canadians, but it must be said that this type of behaviour is not necessarily illegal."

This is more the opinion of this Ms. Christian, but it doesn't support the claim that antisemitism is a form of racism. It may be published in an authoritative source, but that source distinguishes it as commentary from another, and doesn't necessarily endorse it.
Here is one more:

Fo Niemi, executive director of the Center for Research-Action on Race Relations (CRARR), stated that these debates often have served as a platform for public expressions of racism, including towards the Jewish community.

Again, another opinion, but this doesn't really verify the claim in any sort of authoritative way. This quote implies that "public expressions of racism" can include said expressions of racism toward the Jewish community. This isn't saying that antisemitism is racism, though, only that Jews can face racism.
Those are the three main quotes I could see as relevant in the document. There are other statements (CTRL+F "racism"), but they don't really state or imply anything about antisemitism as a form of racism, and in fact many distinguish between the two.
The second source is, in my opinion, clearly an agenda-driven site intended to condemn antisemitism and separate it from Islam. Regardless of the source's meritorious aims, I wouldn't consider it neutral or reliable. The third source, published by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, is interesting, and it clearly claims that antisemitism is racism and argues that it is in multiple places. However, is this a neutral and reliable source? I am new, and I don't know enough about these matters to judge it myself, so I'd need more input from other editors. My concern with this source, as with the source currently being used in the article, is that the organization is clearly Jewish and wishes to endorse the best for its people. Good for them, and I have no problem with that, but from a Wikipedia standpoint this may also mean that they have an agenda of their own, or collectively holds views about antisemitism which are not widely or universally recognized by society, or even recognized by all Jews (after all, they are not an organization officially representing all Jews globally).
I wouldn't be surprised if antisemitism is a form of racism, and I have no formed opinion about this matter, but I am worried that the assertion of antisemitism being a form of racism might not be as widespread a view as is claimed in this article. We need to be careful when speaking in WikiVoice, since that is the voice which readers will take to be most authoritative on Wikipedia. Unless there is evidence from some major news sources or (preferably) the United Nations which claim that antisemitism is a form of racism, it's difficult for me to consider this claim to be properly sourced. If no authoritative source(s) are provided, I think it may be best to reword the sentence in question. For example, we could have the sentence be:

Some consider antisemitism to be a form of racism.

We could then cite the reliable sources we've gathered here and leave it at that: an assertion, in WikiVoice, that some consider antisemitism to be a form of racism. The sources would indicate that this view is held by some pretty notable bodies, which would lend credit to the claim. We wouldn't be POV, however, by asserting that antisemitism definitely and authoritatively is a form of racism despite a lack of verified global consensus, though.
As for the fourth source, I believe it is a blog, and clearly violates WP:RS. It's interesting, and I appreciate your providing it, but I don't think it qualifies. I may be wrong on that, though, in which case feel free to correct me. Likewise with the fifth source, which appears to be the blog of one man espousing his own views on Christian deism (or perhaps deistic Christianity). I'll continue to check for some sources over the next day or two, as well, and hope that others could find some in the meantime. As a side note regarding the source currently being used in the article, I've also found this, which appears to be the same resolution with the same text. That's great and all, but I still can't find it in the UN archives. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 05:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
As for finding anything about racism, anti-semitism or any other form of discrimination I seriously doubt that we will ever find anything that is completely free of bias. I strongly think the ones I didn't mark with notes work fine for now. If you research Jews, their primary identity comes from ethnic/cultural association rather than religion. Therefore by logic that would mean discrimination against them would be racism. Usually alone I would state that evidence is enough but along with the fact that we have now 3 sources that work (the one already provided and two more) I think we can safely keep it (at least for now). I will however continue searching out the U.N. declaration but I can also tell you that the U.N. has condemned Genocide and occasionally even milder violence against Jews as racism. I might also expand into non-English sources to seek out more information. I will continue to add more sources but for right now I think if we add those two new sources they should at least temporarily hold the argument. If you disagree I would love to hear your explanation. Thank you for helping on wikipedia :) -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Heres another source as well that mentions in passing but in my opinion pretty clearly what the resolution of the U.N. stated. https://books.google.com/books?id=xWusAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA279&lpg=PA279&dq=UN+Resolution+623+Jews&source=bl&ots=EoR2VFZ0o6&sig=PEZSkgZIdkTk6Qt4ahzdGyz2LMo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fQAyVfOrIMjRoATl-YGIDg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=UN%20Resolution%20623%20Jews&f=false -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Finally! I searched the information in the book link you provided, and I found the resolution. Apparently, the problem was that CTRL+F doesn't work on the document, so it didn't find any of the search terms. In any case, here is the official document for Resolution 623 of the United Nations General Assembly on December 9, 1998. Item 17 states (emphasis added):

17. Urges all Governments to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur with a view to enabling him to fulfil his mandate, including the examination of incidents of contemporary forms of racism and racial discrimination, inter alia, against blacks, Arabs and Muslims, xenophobia, Negrophobia, anti-Semitism and related intolerance;

For some reason, the UNGA specifies "racism" and "racial discrimination". This could simply be a legal tactic to ensure that all forms of racism and racial discrimination are covered, since some would argue that they are two different, albeit intimately related, forms of discrimination. It could also imply that the UNGA wanted to specify that discrimination against "blacks, Arabs and Muslims" and other forms of discrimination, such as "xenophobia, Negrophobia, anti-Semitism and related intolerance", are all forms of racial discrimination, which is distinct from racism. Moreover, the final specification of "related intolerance" means that one could argue that antisemitism is classified as intolerance, or (more likely, given the contect) racial intolerance. I feel like this is all unclear, however, and from a classification standpoint, any of these could apply. They all have differing meanings and degrees of intensity, according to some, but it could simply be that the UNGA uses these terms interchangeably.
In any case, the matter of whether to classify antisemitism as "racism" or "racial discrimination" or "[racial] intolerance" is pretty much negated by the other sources. If we use the other sources, then we'll need to define it as racism. Not what I'd classify it as, but that's what the sources say. If you don't mind, I'll be deleting the old link and replace it with the official UN document. I'll also add the other sources you've provided. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate your work on Wikipedia. Keep it up so we can continue to improve it.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Use mention error

"the term was popularized in Germany"

This article should not be about the term "Anti-Semitism", or similar terms, but that which is referred to by this term (or terms). As it is now, this article should be renamed to something like "Jew-hate". The article introduction could then read something like the following:

"Jew-hate (also known as Antisemitism, Anti-Semitism or anti-semitism) is prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews [...]"

As this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, one may not create an encyclopedic entry about the topic of hating Jews, and pretend that this topic can be described as hating Semites in general. As it stands now, this article's title is wrong. Or, depending on how one looks at it, the content of the article is wrong, given the title. --62.16.186.44 (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Troubled Etymology

I think many who come to this article are troubled by the fact that Arabs are also Semites. It is quite confusing as to why "antisemitism" is applied to Jews but not to Arabs. In fact, denying Arabs their Semitic ancestry in and of itself seems to be a form of racism. I think the article should explain why antisemitism is considered to apply to Jews but not to Arabs. From an etymological perspective, the expression "Arab antisemitism" seems to be an oxymoron, equivalent to self-loathing. I think it would be good for the article to clarify this and address the confusion that many feel when approaching the term "antisemitism". --Westwind273 (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The etymology of the word is discussed at length in the first section of the article after the lede. VQuakr (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
That section seems to say a lot of things, without saying anything at all. Just as "Washington Redskins" is offensive to Native Americans, using antisemitism only to means Jews is offensive to Arabs. All in all, this article seems to be written with a fairly strong anti-Arab bias. Quite ironic that the Wikipedia article on Antisemitism is itself anti-semitic. --Westwind273 (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The word "antisemitism" was invented by Jew-haters to refer specifically to the hatred of Jews. Arabs were not considered at all. It has never meant anything else except in very minor usage. Blame the Jew-hating creators of the term for not spreading their hatred more widely. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
By German Jew-haters. There is a long tradition of Jewdenhass in the Arab world.Scientus (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and? --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"Judeophobia"

This is spillover from Talk:Islam_and_antisemitism#Requested_move_25_May_2015. The word was coined by one person and does not appear in the Cambridge, Oxford, or Webster's dictionaries. --NeilN talk to me 06:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It was already quoted in the article.Scientus (talk) 08:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"...recognizing, correctly, the ethnocentric confusion caused by the term "anti-Semitism," which was entering the lexicon..." [31] Editorializing, much? --NeilN talk to me 14:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:POINT, kinda too? --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm especially taken with the very important bolding of the term. --NeilN talk to me 14:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO

I reverted the latest addition by User:Scientus because I checked the source. (I had my doubts that a 19th-century European Jew was concerned about "the ethnocentric confusion caused by the term 'anti-Semitism' ... since Arabs are also Semites.") I found that the wording added to the article by Scientus was copied, almost word for word, from the source, Reza Aslan's Beyond Fundamentalism: Confronting Religious Extremism in the Age of Globalization / How to Win a Cosmic War.

Scientus: "Pinsker termed this sentiment Judeophobia, recognizing the ethnocentric confusion caused by the term "anti-Semitism," which was entering the lexicon, since Arabs are also Semites."

Aslan: "Pinsker termed this persecution "Judeophobia," recognizing, correctly, the ethnocentric confusion caused by the word "anti-Semitism," since Arabs are also Semites."

(I would note that Scientus initially included the word "correctly" until he was told it constituted original research.)

This is outrageous. Scientus is edit-warring to insert material in the article, and it's WP:COPYVIO material at that! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you look at what you just reverted as a "minor" edit before you reverted it?Scientus (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
In what way does that answer the copyvio question? --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antisemitism/Archive_33&oldid=1142752600"