Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

"Inappropriate Use of Stop Template"

The warning at the start of the talk page doesn't address the issue, it simply dismisses it. It links to the etymology section but this is full of assumptions and citation-challenged statements so there really isn't a strong consensus. Perhaps there was a lengthy debate that is no longer on the talk page or a better-written etymology section that is no longer present, but right now it just appears that some editor felt that their way was the right way and they used the Stop template with "We know Arabs are Semites" as an occupatio tactic. The article and much of its Talk page appear to be taking the relatively well-defined ethnolinguistic term Semite, admitting it includes Arabs as well as Hebrews, and then completely ignoring it when defining anti-Semite as one who is prejudiced against followers of a particular religion. Even if all terminology is defined by usage, the etymology section does not give a clear and balanced perspective on what the common usage is, to say nothing of the fact that most practitioners of the Jewish faith since the existence of modern English have not been of predominantly ethnic Hebrew (Semitic) ancestry.
What am I missing? It seems that the use of the "Talk to the Hand" template only dismisses an important counterargument rather than confront it.72.186.157.71 (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally. The article also unquestioningly accepts that any opposition to the policies and actions of the state of Israel especially in relation to their treatment of the Palestinian people is by definition anti-semitic. Indeed the use of the title 'antisemitic' rather than the common dictionary usage 'anti-semitic' in the title betrays a non-NPOV approach that pervades the entire article. I am going to tag the article accordingly. --Gramscis cousin^Talk_Stalk 13:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The article certainly does not unquestioningly accept anything (other than mainstream scholarship that is) and regardless of your POV, consensus has been reached on this issue. I will be removing the tag accordingly.--Woland (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I won't be provoked into an edit war on this but its clear from the section below that the hyphenated is spelling is both disputed and widely regarded by editors as non-NPOV and there are any number of other issues that could be included to give a wider non-NPOV view of the subject for example the similarities between ant-semitic cartoons of Jews and equivalent ones of Arabs. So I stand by my tagging. --Gramscis cousin^Talk_Stalk 15:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

article also unquestioningly accepts that any opposition to the policies and actions of the state of Israel especially in relation to their treatment of the Palestinian people is by definition anti-semitic. Where does it say that? It does include that criticism of Israel cannot be regarded as antisemitism so long as it is "similar to that leveled against any other country", which strikes me as rather the opposite of your claim. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say that? It doesn't say it anywhere. He made it up. I recommending ignoring the trolls, they usually lose interest before long. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not a 'troll' I made a good faith edit. I accept that the second part of my point as picked up by jpgordon was incorrect but I stand by the fact that the hyphenation is under dispute and is a NPOV issue whatever the resolution. Also my suggestion regarding the widening of the discussion remains valid even if you don't agree. The attitude of editors on this subject does not seem to me to be in the spirit of Wikilove and as a result I may indeed lose interest in this page. --Gramscis cousin^Talk_Stalk 09:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The article lacks credibility simply by narrowing the term's scope to only apply to people of Jewish descent (which differs from people of ancient Hebrew descent). Semitism is defined by the mainstream Merriam-Webster Dictionary as “1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic”. Surprisingly, this same dictionary does not use the previously mentioned ethnic groups in its definition of anti-semitism.. it also narrows the term down to only apply to people of the Jewish faith. Nonetheless, the term Semitic applies to the Semites and their descendants (racial , and does not include any religious associations). Honestly, it's rather farfetched to have converts to Judaism from the past several hundred years use this term to describe any discrimination they might have experienced as a religious group, since they are clearly not descendants of Semites - e.g. recent Russian converts. In this case, the term anti-semitic would apply better to the discrimination experienced by somebody of a different faith, but of Semitic origins, e.g. a Christian Arab.

Also, the article also wrongfully fuses the concepts of Jews and Zionists, making it seem that anti-semitism is synonymous with anti-Zionism. It marginalizes Arabs of Semitic origins, and fails to properly apply the term anti-semitism to this prominent group. The only examples given of anti-semitism are examples of atrocities experienced by Jews, and not by other semitic people of different faiths. This clearly shows strong bias in favor of the Jewish Lobby. As a reader, I would like to ask of the editors to give this article a much needed overhaul, and include the discrimination experienced by other semitic groups in the article, such as many modern day Palestinians. This will give readers a more balanced understanding of this topic. Minusthebs (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC) — Minusthebs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Australia

I removed the following, which is not clearly written and unsourced. I am putting it here in case people think it can be improved to the point where it can be put in the article:

Majority of white Australians belong to a christian organisation. Jewish people in there make many Australians convert to judaism before marrige, which normally angers grandparents, parents, siblings and close friends. Jewish people are also seen as selfish and stubborn. There has been many high profile documented cases on anti-semeticism.

Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh please! What in the world is the point of removing it and then pasting it here on the talk page?! I challenge you to improve it to the point where it is acceptable! It is a bit of racism: "Jewish people are also seen as selfish and stubborn" & accusing virtually all ("white") Australians of being antisemitic. Dump it. It does not deserve a place here. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Christian" anti-Semitism and Christian Zionism

Chrishibbard7 (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC) does the only mention of Christianity under this article have to list the splinter sects of Christianity who encourage anti-Semitism? What about some mention of the modern Christian Church's support for Israel, who recognize Christ and his 12 Apostles were all kosher Jews? What about Christian Zionists? A more balanced view here would be appreciated.

--It is an article on antisemitism. Many, many Christian groups are antisemitic. If there's a page on pro-semitic Christian groups, that's great, but this is not that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.211.178 (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hyphen

Isn't the hyphenated form 'Anti-Semitism' much more common than 'Antisemitism' in books and articles on the subject? I propose we change the title to 'Anti-Semitism' to reflect general usage. Any thoughts? Colin4C (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I have 4 dictionaries at hand, the OED, the Oxford American, the American Heritage Dictionary, and Wiktionary. All four use the spelling

anti-Semitism

and none show the word conjoined as

antisemitism

Also, all four capitalize the S in Semitism.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone object to correcting the spellling?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Correcting? You mean altering the spelling? Please look into the talk page archives to see why this is spelled the way it is. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)\

With 27 archives, can you be more specific? Thank you. As far as I can tell, anti-Semitism is incorrectly spelled throughout Wikipedia.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This article has been this way for a long time and, since it is likely that all users had dictionaries, it seems likely that there was a reason that the current spelling was chosen. There is nothing wrong with discussing, but it might be better to wait before actually making a change to the article name. It would be better to give a week or so for comments. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Good advice, Malcolm. Thanks.

In researching this, I've looked at a number of on-line dictionaries, such as yourdictionary.com, freedictionary.com, websters.com, and so on. Here is a sample from http://www.onelook.com/

1. anti-Semitism : Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition [home, info]
2. anti-Semitism : Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition [home, info]
3. anti-semitism : Cambridge International Dictionary of English [home, info]
4. Anti-semitism : Wiktionary [home, info]
5. anti-Semitism : The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language [home, info]
6. anti-Semitism : Infoplease Dictionary [home, info]
7. anti-Semitism : Dictionary.com [home, info]
8. anti-Semitism : Online Etymology Dictionary [home, info]
9. anti-Semitism : UltraLingua English Dictionary [home, info]
10. anti-semitism : Cambridge Dictionary of American English [home, info]
11. Anti-Semitism : Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia [home, info]
12. anti-semitism : Rhymezone [home, info]
13. anti-Semitism : Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition [home, info]
14. anti-Semitism : The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy [home, info]
15. Anti-Semitism : Encarta® Online Encyclopedia, North American Edition [home, info]
16. Anti-Semitism : 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica [home, info]
17. anti-semitism : Free Dictionary [home, info]
18. anti-semitism : WordNet 1.7 Vocabulary Helper [home, info]
19. anti-Semitism : LookWAYup Translating Dictionary/Thesaurus [home, info]
20. anti-Semitism : Dictionary/thesaurus [home, info]

The Cambridge redirects antisemitism (as does Wiktionary), but the only reference I've turned up so far without the hyphen is the Stammtisch Beau Fleuve Glossary which doesn't seem to be a serious reference at all.

My conclusion is that anti-Semitism is incorrectly spelled throughout Wikipedia and that the opening paragraph of the article listing anti-Semitism as an alternate spelling is incorrect.

Other viewpoints? Other thoughts? Other references?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Both terms are pretty common: "anti-Semitism" alone gets 3.36 million ghits, "antisemitism" alone gets 1.89 million ghits. The two together get .6 million ghits. Scholars of antisemitism prefer "antisemitism"; see this, this, this (end of 48 and start of 49), this (footnote 14). The article was moved as a result of a discussion here. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Jay. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, if Shmuel Almog in your first ref is correct, and there is no genetic link between Jews ("What unites them is a tradition, culture, history , destiny maybe, but not genetics."), how is it that there are a number of illnesses that seemingly have a specific "Jewish" component or gene? Breast and ovarian cancer, Tay-Sachs and others? [1]  ? Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There may be some genetic characteristics to be found, but Judaism is a religion and any non-Jew (no matter what that person's genetic heritage) who so chooses can become a Jew through conversion -- after which that person will be just as Jewish as a Jew who claims to be directly descended from King David [2]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What about so-called "secular" Jews? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This thread has become sidetracked. I'll pick up below. Thank you. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Stalin's Purge

Just to say that Stalin's Great Purge was not anti-Semitic. It has been estimated for 1939 (immediately after the purge finished) that though 2% of the population of Russia was Jewish, the Jews numbered 7.5% of middle-class professionals and 13% of the student body. Many of the personnel of the security services (the NKVD) were Jewish, as were Stalin's comrades Kaganovich and Ilya Ehrenburg. Half a million Jews fought in the Russian army against Hitler and 123 became "Heroes of the Soviet Union". In World War Two German anti-Semitism was mentioned in the Soviet media in terms of great dissaproval. Colin4C (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Arabs

I recently read from a news article information that the most common semetic language is Arab, so isn't antsemitism technically anti-Arab, not Anti-Jewish?205.235.57.1 (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No. "Antisemitism" is a pseudoscientific word for hatred of Jews. It has nothing to do with Semitic languages or with Arabs (except inasmuch as it has become ever-increasingly popular among the latter over the last century). Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

...although it must be acknowledged that "antisemitism" DOES sometimes mean discrimination against Arabs. For example, when former world chess champion Bobby Fischer was asked whether or not he was antisemetic, he replied: "No. I have nothing against Arabs." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite. This is an encylopaedia, not a style guide. It should not say what words mean.93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hyphen (continued from above)

I realize I missed the earlier discussion and survey, but there's some problems here to talk out. I detest how the term 'neologism' is carelessly tossed around in Wikipedia circles (usually to stifle debate), but this term comes perilously close.

• Much of the debate in the original decision depends on circular reasoning: The Wikipedia article says the reason is scholarly, so we must keep it the way it is. In the spelling survey, it appears many people gave their reasoning as 'scholarly' without having read the actual (non-scholarly) reference.

• Jayjg points out the non-hyphenated version gets about half the hits of the hyphenated version, not an insignificant amount, but with Wikipedia showing at the top of the non-hyphenated Google list, one has to ask how many web sites has Wikipedia influenced with its variant spelling? (Google itself asks: Did you mean: anti semitism?)

• Scholarly arguments are diverse and deserve to be read on their own. I'll comment on a couple of points that trouble me.

• The use of anti-Semetic in German is called into question to influence use in English.
• English scholars in every dictionary and thesaurus I can put my hands on plus a couple of encyclopedias (24 references so far, 21 listed above). Not one lists the non-hyphenated version even as a variant. Every computer spell-checker I've tested rejects the non-hyphenated version (MS Word, OpenOffice/NeoOffice, Lotus Symphony, GnuOffice AbiWord, Nisus, TextEdit). That's over 30 English references siding against Wikipedia.

In opposing the hyphen, some of what purports to be scholarly isn't. For example, the sole reference quoted in the Wikipedia article isn't scholarly at all. (Yes, I actually bother to read these things.) It's a PDF that quotes Abraham Foxman, National Director and chairman of the Anti-Defamation League. I'm not sure if the site the PDF comes from is scholarly, although it says its mission is "engaging students of diverse backgrounds in an examination of racism, prejudice, and antisemitism in order to promote the development of a more humane and informed citizenry".

Another document comes from the "Newsletter of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism", which leaves me uncertain whether it should be considered scholarly or not, but certainly others are unquestionably scholarly.

• Some critics of the hyphen express opposition to German agitator Wilhelm Marr who (a) coined the word and (b) hyphenated it.

• Yehuda Bauer, who is a scholar, identifies antisemite as a German spelling, acknowledging that the hyphenated form is English. However, he writes that using the hyphen "gives the antisemites a victory right off the mark." Two other references Jayjg provided express similar views as well as discuss further distinctions (or lack thereof).

• Yehuda Bauer also weighed in on the Wikipedia survey, saying the hyphenated version "causes a lot of confusion", presumably to English speakers. The argument is anti-Semetic is, well, anti-semantic.

It seems to me the debate over the hyphen is philosophical rather than encyclopedic. Wikipedia is in a position– or I should say in opposition– to virtually every English reference work we can point to.

As Jayjg and others point out, there are Jewish activists, philosophers, and scholars who oppose spelling with the hyphen. In this regard, Wikipedia is breaking new ground in daring to standardize on a variant spelling– except English references don't acknowledge such a variant spelling.

I don't have a political viewpoint on this; my main concern is the accuracy and etymology of the English language. Languages change and other reference works may come around. However, I'd feel a lot more comfortable if Wikipedia was on the trailing edge rather than the leading edge for these reasons:

The present 'antisemetic' (non-hyphenated) spelling is

• non-English
• non-NPOV
• neologistic (damn, I detest that word)
• inconsistent with all other ENGLISH references
• unencyclopedic
• gives critics yet another reason to complain Wikipedia is inaccurate and biased

solution

However,

there is a possible solution that is so simple– so Solomon-like– that it is almost certain to be rejected. It would offer the benefit of providing an encyclopedic article in English and give philosophers and Jewish scholars an opportunity to lay out a case why 'antisemitism' without a hyphen would be preferable and should be used.

That solution would be to have two articles, anti-Semitism for English scholars and antisemitism for philosophical scholars. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I think it is even easier. All Wikipedia articles should observe proper English rules of spelling and grammar. There is no other argument. In this particular circumstance, the current spelling reflects a POV, which is against policy. The title should be changed and the article may, if needed, explain some of this POV that seems so cherished that it has turned proper spelling on its ear! --^StormRider 05:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There is obviously nothing improper about the spelling "antisemitism". English words are spelled the way people agree that they're spelled. The current version is the result of a long-term consensus which I support. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, what is difficult about your comment is that it is not correct. Spelling is not a reflection of desires of a group of people. Were this actually true then Ebonics would have been accepted as a way of spelling and speaking English. Also, if all was needed was a group of people to say proper spelling for "two" is "too", then second graders would be setting new highs on spelling tests. The masses, and second grade students, are directed by dictionaries. In this instance, proper spelling is anti-Semitism.

I have to admit that I am not familiar with the political and social reasons, if there are any, for using a specific spelling. If there are any then the article may need to clearly define those issues for readers because the common reader, or editor such as myself, is generally ignorant of them.

The question for me is should spelling follow the parameters found in English dictionaries or the whims of individuals? I will always vote to write proper English and use the dictionary. What is the argument to ignore dictionaries? --^StormRider 18:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The argument for ignoring dictionaries is the same as for all the other dumb-ass terms invented by special interest groups advancing a cause. They're looking for something trademark-able. Other examples are "Religion of Peace", "neocon", "War on Terror", "Global Warming", etc, terms that makes absolutely no sense at all. The "antisemitism" movement is a special interest, self-righteous Jewish defense cult with its own trademark. When you see the word in action, you know that a PR flack for the Jewish defense cult is close by. Is there any other reason to use a term originated a hundred years ago by an obscure German writer? The rest of use clear and specific terms like "Jew hatred" to make the message unambiguous, that we're talking about specific evil attitudes, not angling for political-correct elbow room in an academic debate. DD 16 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.131.164 (talk)

The tone of your edit is not helpful and will be off-putting for many editors. If what you say is true and and a specific group is pushing this spelling, then the article should highlight that specific topic. I have edited the article so that the correct spelling is identified, but the second step needs to be taken and state why the current spelling is being used. --^StormRider 23:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I did go back through the archives and found these two relevant discussions:

1. [Scholarly usage]
2. [Confusion]

I have to say that I don't buy into the logic that anti-Semitism gets confused with being anti-Semitic i.e. Arabs are Semitic and thus can claim they cannot practice anti-Semitism. Nor do I buy into the scholarly usage is limited to antisemitism. More properly said, there might be a specific subset of scholars that use antisemitism, but that does not make it correct spelling. However, I do realize that there are Jews that prefer the spelling antisemitism. I still think the best thing to do is use correct spelling in the title and then explain the preferencee of some for the alternative spelling of antisemitism. --^StormRider 23:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Storm on all counts. The goal is to de-politicize and correct the article's spelling, not make it a platform for prejudicial venting.

The article needs to be named to the correct English spelling. It may be worth having a subtopic discussing the alternative spelling(s), but the article must be brought into line with genuine English spelling.--UnicornTapestry (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What those desiring a change have still failed to do is support the notion that their preferred spelling is somehow more "proper", "correct" or "genuine". The spelling of English words is a matter of consensus. This is what gives us "color" in the US and "colour" in the UK. The spelling of "antisemitism" in this article was arrived at by consensus. I still support the consensus version. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I appreciate your opinion, it remains no more than an opinion...even when a select group of people share the same opinion. The problem for you and your group is that an opinion on spelling means nothing when compared with a dictionary. Children agree that two is spelled too, but that does not make it right (also because little Johnny says it is only spelled to, but he is an annoying little twit and we all ignore him). Proper, correct, spellings are identified by dictionaries. Political agendas, POVs, etc. are held by individuals fighting for a cause. Although I have seen nothing in the archives about a vote (so where was consensus achieved or obtained, please provide a link) and I have seen that the Sassoon group wants to spell it antisemitism, that is a cause that Wikipedia cannot observe because it is POV. Steven, this just seems like a small group of people without input from the community have got Wikipedia beating their drum for them and that is inappropriate regardless of worthy the cause. --^StormRider 20:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR frowns on 'original research', which is designed to prevent Wikipedia being used as a platform for new opinions. This is a clear violation where Wikipedia stands alone against two dozen dictionaries and encyclopediae. Antisemitism (without the hyphen) is a non-English spelling.

User:Jayjg was kind enough to provide a link to the debate (found in the Hyphen section above), but when I reviewed the discussion and vote, user after user attested 'scholarly' as their reason to go with the varient spelling, when it was clear they hadn't read the source material. User:Malcolm Schosha comments (without judgment) that most users must have had dictionaries available, but again, it's obvious that not one of those votes cracked open a dictionary. (Frankly, I feel it's irresponsible to vote without doing the homework.)

I don't have sufficient privileges to reverse this, but it needs to be done and done now. As was pointed out above, there's some evidence that Wikipedia is influencing web sites that depend upon Wikipedial. It troubles me that this exposes Wikipedia to ongoing charges of bias and incorrectness.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Folks, the "solution" is to drop this trivial matter, and return to th real work of Wikipedia, that is researching a great encyclopedia. I personally prefer ani-Semitism ... but I fully understand the issue here. We may disagree over the spelling of the word, but all good-faith editors agree that anti-Semitism is Jew hatred. I have witnessed enough silly arguments that "since others speak semitic languages, therefore anti-Semitism must mean hatred of them too" which is both bad logic and wrong. If the spelling "antisemitism" spares us just one more of those silly arguments, I can easily put up with it. I have already wasted more time on this issue thn it deserves. I am going to, hey, guess what, read a book on something substantial, like Medieval History, the 1990s Asian economic crisis, or even antisemitism ... anything that may help me add some real content to an article. Something of substance. People are arguing over a hyphen? Honestly, the only thing sillier is thinking that most readers of Wikipedia will care about this rather than how clear, thorough, and informative are our articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Did I hear a collective dropping of jaws that encyclopedic spelling is trivial and silly?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you just heard the collective dropping of jaws that you believe that continuing to argue over a hyphen is more important than researching and writing NPOV, V and NOR compliant content. Of course, I understand that arguing over a hyphen is easier.... Slrubenstein | Talk 18:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

To misunderstand the issues here it to misunderstand literary, scholarly, and encyclopedic content. A failure to comprehend words, language, etymology, and spelling are crucial to rigorous thought is to lose the battle of reason.

Further, you've invalidated your own argument by siding against WP:NPOV and for WP:OR.

To say spelling is trivial and silly boggles the mind.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, think what you want, UnicornTapestry, but the article is titled "Antisemitism" and until such time as that changes, that is, by definition, the correct spelling of the term as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Please don't infer otherwise in the article. — Hiddekel (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Hiddekel, but just because you find it on Wikipedia does not make it correct; G-d forbid. I cannot count the number of times I have seen silliness on Wikipedia. Its very nature ensures that we have all seen, see, and will continue to see the ignorance and stupidity of mankind on its pages.

This might all be handled as all disagreements of this nature are handled on Wikipedia; do you have a reference that shows antisemitism as a correct spelling? If so please provide it. If not, please do not further the error. Here are a few dictionary references, all of which support anti-Semitism[3], [4], [5] Here is a reference that demonstrates that 20 separate dictionaries prove the most correct spelling is anti-Semitism. Here is same source giving eight dictionaries that use antisemitism. What is fact is that anti-Semitism is the most common, approved spelling of the term. It is also obvious that the alternative spelling of antisemitism is seen. However, what is not explained is where this spelling came from, why it is important, and what it means. The article title is pushing a POV by not using the more common spelling, which is highly irregular. I am surprised that this is even an issue and why anyone is arguing for using the current spelling of the title. How is this not obvious? --^StormRider 19:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I don't mind keeping the current spelling, but the article must state that it is an alternative spelling that is used for a specific purpose by a specific group. Does this make sense? --^StormRider 19:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't speak German. We don't speak Swedish. We speak English. According to the archives, the entire rationale for renaming the article from anti-Semitism to the incorrect antisemitism was based upon false information. Those involved did not do their homework.

Based upon the OED and other top dictionaries (shown a couple of sections above), anti-Semitism is the correct spelling and the main article should be titled anti-Semitism. The word processing dictionaries on the computers you are now using show the correct spelling as anti-Semitism. That is the scholarly and intellectually rigorous spelling.

If you investigate the eight non-hyphenated links Storm, you'll discover most of the links are actually redirects to the correct spelling, two are wiki links, two others give Wikipedia as their source, and one isn't a dictionary/encyclopedia at all. In other words, none of the antisemitism links can be defended.

To insist antisemitism is the correct spelling is to assume an extreme neologist non-English non-neutral POV and fly in the face of real dictionaries and encyclopedias. Every hour this exists is to propagate the error across the aether. All it should take is an administrator to do the right thing.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this link gives antisemitism as an alternative spelling to anti-Semitism. But I agree with Slrubenstein, this is a really silly thing to be arguing about and pedantic. Have fun.

P.S. For whatever its worth: My spell checker has anti-Semitism underlined as a misspelling of Antisemitism right now. --Woland (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What spell checker would that be? --UnicornTapestry (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to add to the list of things you've gotten wrong, Unicorn. The spell checker in Firefox (which I'm currently using to edit this page) says that "antisemitism" is just fine, but "anti-semitism" is wrong (yep, there's that little red underscore again), simply because there's no such word as "semitism". --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that too, Steven, showing how likely it is an open source project got its incorrect information from Wikipedia. As mentioned above, other references are pointing to Wikipedia as their source. However, I notice that proponents of the incorrect spelling ignore venerable dictionaries agree anti-Semitism is correct and antisemitism is incorrect.

As much as we know people wish otherwise, Wikipedia should not be a public forum for private agendas.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how arguing over spelling has anything to do with "private agendas." This is just a silly pedantic argument and I already showed you that Antisemitism is listed as an alternate spelling of anti-Semitism. Since you're all up-in-arms over this I suggest you set up a RfC or some junk. Ciao.--Woland (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Woland, why are we using the "minority" or least used spelling form? What is achieved by using it? Should we not use the most prevalent spelling? I am just anal enough to want things done properly. Although I realize there are some people who want to spell the word without a hyphen, I also realize that the majority of the world's references (see the vast majority of dictionaries, go ahead and just pick one) use the spelling with a hyphen. What amazaes me is that this has gone on for so long; did not any of the initial people just look at a bloody dictionary for a referennce? Why didn't they? What was being ahieved by no looking at the major references for spelling? --^StormRider 20:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I don't really care what spelling is used and I think that you should simply setup an RfC if you're concerned about a wider consensus as it would put an end to this relatively quickly. Ciao.--Woland (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey! We have a discussion about the meaning of "exclusively" below. I'm not suggesting you guys drop everything and deal with it, but more input would be appreciated. BTW, I think the name of the article should be what the majority sources call it. An alternative spelling could be mentioned " also antisemitism' .Die4Dixie (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

J, I brought back the references for the more correct spelling of anti-Semitism. I still am unclear as to why you would delete something that is so obviously referenced. Why does anyone fight for this spelling that is so poorly supported by dictionaries? This is not the difference between English and American spelling, it is simply not used by scholars, it is not adequately supported by dictionaries, and yet there exists a group of editors, some that I respect greatly, and they are fighting for a misspelling. Just explain why? --^StormRider 20:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Search results aren't references; and synthesizing them to make an assertion is original research. Find a good scholarly discussion on the spellings and we can use that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be correct if the search was not from dictionaries (I suppose we could attempt to find a link to each reference and use that, but it seems redundant and silly). A primary text is a valid reference if there is no confusion about the interpretation of the information. Are you saying that there is confusion when you read twenty different dictionaries that all spell anti-Semitism..anti-Semitism? You are confusing a blind search (the number of times the word "X" is used in English) with a search of dictionaries. I view them as radically different because we are talking about spelling. Am I missing something? This whole issue for me is about accurate spelling versus inaccurate spelling. --^StormRider 22:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well, then drop it, since neither spelling is inaccurate. One might arguably be preferred. As far as synthesis for original sources is concerned -- who says that particular pair of searches, and the results from them, is in any way definitive? (Certainly you say it. But that's where the WP:OR stuff enters in.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, jpgordon, you were right above. We DO have a definitive spelling and, if I read the archives correctoy, it was changed to the WRONG spelling, according to OED, Websters, AHED, and every other English dictionary.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Some perspective

• When I learned English I learned that "aaa bbb" and "aaa-bbb" are substantially different spellings, but "aaa-bbb" and "aaabbb" are essentially interchangeable. If one of them was in a dictionary, it was OK to use the other. I realise that this rule is a bit too simplistic (it certainly doesn't help in a Scrabble tournament!), but I want to argue that the dispute is about a minor detail of spelling.
• In this case the standard dictionary spelling is "aaa-Bbb", not "aaa-bbb", so there is an additional capitalisation issue complicating the question.
• I believe the general historical trend for each word is from "aaa-bbb" to "aaabbb" (apart from special cases, such as when "aaa" ends, and "bbb" starts, with a vowel, or when "aaa" and "bbb" are too long). E.g. many people see a need to put "anti-" in front of "bbb" to form a new word such as anti-Wikipedia. The new word "anti-bbb" gradually finds its way into dictionaries. If the word is widely used, it feels more natural to get rid of the hyphen, and eventually the dictionary spelling reflects this. This process may vary with speaker communities. E.g. the standard spelling within Wikipedia will be "antiwikipedia" a long time before this is reflected in general usage and dictionaries (if that ever happens).
• The word "anti-Semitic" does not even occur in the first edition of the OED. In its supplement it does, and the first source given is from 1881, roughly contemporary with the time when work on the letter A started. It seems plausible that dictionaries and in particular spell-checkers are currently slowing down a natural move from "anti-Semitism" to "antisemitism". As part of the language community we are always allowed to be a little bit ahead of the dictionaries, though. But we don't have to be. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. Wikipedia is not a trend setter and never should be. It reports on what experts and reliable references state; it does not draw conclusions or direct readers what to think. I view this as bedrock to NPOV. Every legitimate dictionary directs the correct spelling to be anti-Semiticism. Anti-Catholicism, anti-Mormonism, etc. all follow the same parameters of spelling because it is correct. If a subgroup chooses to spell differently, such as Ebonics, no one stops them, but a subgroup does not direct the society and tell them how society is now going to spell correctly. Wikipedia is being placed in the position of directing society to spell a word without being given the context from where the spelling comes. If the article would report to readers why this spelling is important to a subgroup, then it may be acceptable. However, currently Wikiepdia is presenting to the world that antisemitism is the preferred spelling when it is not. I am an anal fellow and when things are out of line it is annoying. Spell anti-Semiticism properly and in the article report that group X prefers the spelling antisemiticism for the following reasons...and then do so.

What is so amazing to me is that the current misspelling was done consciously by editors for ignorant reasons. Where is one reference that supports the statement it is "scholarly". It is not scholarly spelling, it is not supported by reputable dictionaries; there is nothing that supports this spelling except the preference of a subgroup. It is like saying me and my blokes want to call black white and white black and getting Wikipedia to accept it. It is irregular and causes a degree of disquiet that Wikipedia is being abused knowingly. --^StormRider 09:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If we as WP editors decided that it makes sense (e.g. because it makes articles easier to understand), then we could of course use "black" to refer to white and "white" to refer to black. The reason we will never do it is that it makes no sense at all. What we cannot even theoretically do because it is against policies is swap the articles black and white. Much more clearly than your funny example, spelling is just a matter of house style, not of policies such as verifiability or NPOV.

Language does change, mostly because not everybody is unhappy without rules they can slavishly follow to feel more secure, but also because even those who try to do so often fail. I think what happened to the word "e-mail"/"email" is very illustrative in this context. The ultimate decision about how to spell words belongs to us, the users of the language. Dictionaries can help us to make up our minds, but the information they contain ultimately comes from us and can be changed by us. [6]

I am not saying we should spell "antisemitic". Probably not. I am saying it's not a big deal at all. A house style rule favouring idiots' apostrophes would be a big deal, but not this. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No absolutely incorrect. Wikipedia does not set standards for society, scholars, dictionaries, or anything else. We do not, in any case, every dictate what is correct or what is true. We only report on what is supported by references i.e. reliable experts. It does not matter if you had five or 105 editors that want to spell incorrectly, saying so does not make it correct, proper, acceptable, or right. This is fundamental to the being of Wikipedia and its future.

If you are saying this really does not matter then I would ask why did anyone ever choose the wrong spelling? What is behind this action? What has got my goat on this is that editors consciously chose an incorrect spelling without explaining what is behind it. Spell it correctly and move on? If it is not important, just change it and see how fast someone reverts. Currently we can't even keep the words "more commonly" in the lead. --^StormRider 20:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You need not agree with what I wrote, but I think you misread it: "The ultimate decision about how to spell words belongs to us, the users of the language." I did not say it belongs to "us, the editors of Wikipedia", and that would have been absurd. Rather, like the rest of the language community we have the right to ignore dictionaries if we know what we are doing, or just when we fell like it. I believe even some reputable newspapers and book publishers do that in their house styles. I suspect you did not read the web page from OUP that I linked above very carefully; it explains that dictionaries track actual language use. If everybody only ever spelled as the dictionaries prescribe, we would still be spelling "e-mail".

I am not sure if you do not understand the reporting/using distinction, or if you just don't like it and therefore argue against making it:

• To write the following in an article, we would need a reliable source per WP:RS: It is correct to spell the word referring to hatred of Jews "antisemitism".
• Even though "antisemitism" may well be either an eccentric spelling or an overly progressive one, using the spelling in Wikipedia does not violate WP:RS or WP:CRYSTAL but is a matter of our editorial discretion (and of course in the scope of WP:MOS).

Orthography is a lot less fundamental than sourcing or NPOV issues, and while I may be capable of participating in an edit war on such a trivial matter, I think it's better not do so. BTW, the spelling "antisemitism" has the advantage of making the etymological fallacy explained in the last sentence of the first paragraph slightly less suggestive. For me that's enough to simply not care about the spelling we use here. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"If you can control the vocabulary of a populace, you control a people's ability to think."

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly (and I am not sure), then any such manipulation happened when the term "anti-semitism" was coined and this particular word was chosen rather than one that would have been a closer fit etymologically. I don't think controlling the spelling of a word is particularly effective at controlling people's thought; and even if it was, bringing orthography a bit more in line with established semantics isn't manipulation. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading all the above I think we should adopt the standard formulation, i.e. "Anti-Semitism". As per "Unicorn Tapestry" - changing the vocabulary for political reasons smacks of George Orwell's Newspeak in 1984. Anybody who thinks that changing the language for political reasons is trivial should read Orwell's book. The Wikipedia is not here to create the new language of Wikispeak (and/or Wiki-speak) but should use the standard formulations. That would be Doubleplusgood...IMHO... Colin4C (talk) 11:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Changing? Changing? Did somebody here change something? Standard formulation? You have some kind of a source that says "anti-Semitism" is standard? Last time I looked, it was Unicorn who was arguing for a change. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the current spelling was adopted well over a year ago. Those seeking to make a change should be making their case here before changing it, though it appears that consensus is decidedly against them. Tarc (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know Tarc and the others, but I know Jpgordon. If there is this much resistance to obtain the simple acknowledgment of what is correct spelling (as in look at a bloody dictionary!), I don't think I need to spend any more time on this article. I don't buy the idea that it is not a significant issue; each time we accept the incorrect as sufficient the more willing we are to lowering standards. Accepting a one degree change today will lead you 30 degrees off base in just a short time (ask someone who sails) and never arriving at the desired destination. I am reminded of the old phrase, "garbage in, garbage out" when I think of the number of editors that are supporting this standard. Get a few people to accept garbage and soon you have whole populace demanding to be fed garbage. Eugène Ionesco's play Rhinocéros would be worth reading about now. How does it make sense to be shown the correct spelling and then close your eyes, stick your head in the sand, and proclaim you are correct? Welcome friends to the world of the absurd. Enjoy your ride. --^StormRider 18:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've said numerous times: The best way to resolve this and to establish consensus is to simply set up a request for comment. That way you can gather wider consensus from the community at large (particularly from those that don't have a dog in this race). Stop complaining and take action. --Woland (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, this was apparently already decided by consensus a year or two ago (I was not involved at the time, for the record). So yes, "consensus can change", but judging by how this conversation has flowed, it is safe to say that consensus has not changed one bit here. The other problem here is this Storm Rider insisting that his version is "correct" and that the alternate is "wrong". No wiggle room, and ifs, or, buts, just a stark black and white. That sort of attitude is hardly compatible with collaborative editing. Tarc (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The past is prologue

<undent> For the record, the original debate that established consensus is located here. --Woland (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Woland. The problem was that the consensus was based upon false information and lack of homework. Someone said the wrong spelling was scholarly without checking and everyone else took them at their word.

Steven, don't misunderstand me: I seek a correction to undo an error that was promulgated upon us. I ask that we don't change the English word, anti-Semitism, that we don't substitute a non-standard, non-English spelling.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You keep repeating an argument that I don't understand. A simple Google book search for "antisemitism" and "spelling" shows that whether to spell the word with or without a hyphen is discussed in numerous scholarly books. Not all of them can be read online, and that seems to include some which are critical of the non-hyphenated spelling. But there is, for example, the following from Moshe Y. Herczl, Christianity and the Holocaust of Hungarian Jewry: "The spelling [...] as a single word is preferable [...]. This spelling eliminates the possibility of interpreting [...]." Or here from Nancy Anne Harrowitz, Tainted Greatness: Antisemitism and Cultural Heroes: "I have adopted the newer spelling of 'antisemitism' [...]. The newer form, initiated by the historian James Parks, reflects that antisemitism does not comprise prejudice against all Semites, as the older spelling implies [...]." If this doesn't invaluate your argument, could you please formulate it a bit more clearly? --Hans Adler (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, Hans, and thank you. Considering Google's book search (and previous articles), references carry either an agenda or refer to German spellings. The phrase 'newer form' (above) is literally the definition of neologism. (I apologize for dropping the N-bomb here.) Note that Anne Harrowitz clearly implies it's non-standard.

In comparison, it's possible to construe the errant spellers with sociologists who wrote journal articles using the term Amerika, loading it with implications (and imprecations). Yes, the works may be scholarly. No, that's not how America is spelled.

(Beyond the book search, I caution using Google as a tool, because the incorrect spelling within Wikipedia has tainted the web; readers will find several entries that refer back to Wikipedia itself.)

Wikipedia cannot ignore actual dictionaries of the English language, which is what we should champion. Once the OED recognizes this errant non-hyphenated form, then Wikipedia should too, but not before then.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, a quick google scholar search (which has not been "tainted" by results that link back to wikipedia) gives 22,100 hits for antisemitism and 20,300 for anti-Semitism. This gives results that date back to at least 1940 with citations that range to the present day, so I certainly wouldn't call this a neologism at all.

At the same time a quick JSTOR search gives 3668 for antisemitism and 15725 for anti-Semitism. I apologize if the JSTOR links don't work for other people. --Woland (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Question: what is the main advantage of Wikipedia over Encyclopedia Brittanica or OED? Answer: Wikipedia can be updated immediately, whereas years pass between editions of OED and Brittanica. If a wikipedia editor creates a neologism, I would object to our using it. But when a word gets over 20,000 google hits, and appears in scholarly sources, it is no longer a neologism, it is simply that OED is out of date. OED cannot help but be out of date, they do not have the financial resources to issue a new edition daily. We on the other hand do not have to be out of date.

Now, there are three salient fact:

• the spelling antisemitism has been used in reliable sources.
• it was adopted here by consensus
• UnicornTapestry has been pushing his/her point of view for 20 days and has failed (by quite a long shot) to change consensus.

There is simply no point in further discussion. Unicorn, if you cannot convince people through discussion in twenty days, you loose. Nothing personal, I have had lots of my own proposals shot down. The difference is I do not waste people's time for twenty days when it happens. Is your need for attention really greater than your willingness to edit, productively and through consensus, other articles? This is not a rhetorical question.

I invite you to drop the matter now, with dignity, and prove to us that you are willing to work with others, and put the encyclopedia above your own personal views, no matter how convinced you are that you are right, in the spirit of wikilove and respect for your fellow editors. If you cannot drop it, I invite everyone else to WP:DNFTT. It must be clear to any rational person that after 20 days there is nothing at all to be gained by further discussion except for wasting time and server-space. This page is meant to discuss improvements to the article. UnicornTapestry raised an issue in good faith but it is now abundantly clear that the consensus is to keep the spelling as is. Any further discussion would no longer serve to help improve the article, it could only be disruptive to the project. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis

I think that it is proper to state in the lead that the reference stating that anti-semitism deals only with anti-Jewish attitudes comes from Bernard Lewis. If this is contrary to policy, I would welcome correction.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

All of the dictionary definitions support the definition provided. It appears that the definition is much broader than that proposed by one individual. Thus, I don't think it should be attributed to him. --^StormRider 21:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

[[7]] is a minority viewpoint to be certain, but still notable. That was just the first one that I found. Revert it for now, and I will do some research to make the article more inclusive. Perhaps a small section and some qualifiers. This one source would seem to contradict the rather controversial Lewis, to whom the cite is credited. Perhaps substituting one of the other sources would avoid the problem and removing the polemic Lewis.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's sufficiently a minority viewpoint that it would undue weight to include it in the introduction; it can be mentioned later on in the etymology/history section. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful. As a minority view, it doesn't belong in the lede, but is there a problem with directly attributing to Lewis there? It would seem that there are other reliable sources that directly contradict his personal statement, so for us to accept and promote it as fact without attributing it as his his views might run afoul of WP:NPOV, no?Die4Dixie (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, since his view is by far the dominant view. His is a well-expressed example of the concurrence of scholarly and other opinion about the meaning of the word. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and revert it then. It did seem a little forceful not to be attributed and was almost a direct quote of the man. Also , the above reference is from James Zogby, who seems on the surface to be as notable as Bernard Lewis and he is widely printed in reliable sources from the Middle East. Also Joseph Massad seems to be a notable expert on the subject , too. I am looking for his academic papers that address the issue now.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess my problem is with the word "exclusively" when this is not true.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

How about "exclusively correctly"? Words have meaning; certainly some have attempted to extend the meaning of the term, for various reasons, but the original meaning and the general usage of the term is as described. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be original research. Directly attributing the comment would negate the need of employing original research. Bernard Lewis, the person to whom it is attributed in the foot note, has not qualified it in this way. The statement he made contradicts the demonstrated use of the word in other ways. I personally think that his statement has a negative truth value. I don't want to say that in the article. I just want to attribute the statement and allow intelligent readers to decide. On one hand we have the forceful, restrictive pontifications of Bernard Lewis, and on the other hand we have James Zogby saying something else.Die4Dixie (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The view expressed in [6] is not a minority view, it is a fringe view. No one questions that Arabs have often been victims of racism; that is different from Antisemitism, though. European hatred of Arabs has much to do with the way Arabs limited Christin European expansion and threatened Christian Europe's borders from without. Antisemitism emerged as hatred of Christian Europe's internal enemy. Antisemitism has more in common with hatred of Gypsies than hatred of Arabs. This is not a question of which is worse; it is a question of the different forms of hatred and how and why they emerge. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Rubenstein, I would say that James Zogby, who wrote the piece, and presented the same information at Temple University, teaches it in his classes and founded the Arab American Institute. I think that your labeling of 'fringe' to this rather important and well respected member of the academic world, as well as his influence in policy making to marginalize him is maybe a little over the top. Minority view is acceptable. It is notable. The view has been published in peer reviewed academic journals. He has even published a book on the topic ( out of print, but I'm looking in our interlibrary loan).Die4Dixie (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's still a fringe usage, regardless of Zogby's stature -- and Zogby's own article makes it clear he's using it in a completely non-standard way to further his political and social goal (the struggle against anti-Arab sentiments). --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry , but I didn't see that in his article. Could you point that out there, or is that just your supposition?Die4Dixie (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, that article doesn't make it clear that he understands the non-standard nature of his usage. I'll see if I can find one of his that does. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Are you referring to Bernard Lewis or Zogsby? Exclusive means exclusive (sorry to be redundant), but we see now, that its use is not exclusive, thus I want it attributed.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Zogby is creating a viewpoint that's just not supported elsewhere. Although he is a well-educated, intelligent man, his attempt to state that antisemitism includes both anti-Arab and anti-Jewish attitudes is just not supported by the vast scholarship on the topic. We cannot give undue weight to his beliefs. If it becomes more common, and has broad support in the media and in personal attitudes then it's time to discuss it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Massad is another who has used it in this context. When Bernard Lewis says "exclusively", he is inaccurate. That should be directly attributed to him. Exclusive means nowhere, never, ever, ever anytime is it eve, ever used to mean something else. This is demonstrably false. My greatest argument is the one for direct attribution for a controversial and false statement.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed "exclusively" to "traditionally". If this cause anyone such extreme discomfort as to necessitate a revert, then I won't have a problem if the do and come back and discuss this.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's both traditional and exclusive. Please revert yourself, until you get some consensus here. I think most of the editors engaged in discussion here prefer "exclusive," including myself. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Exclusive it is not. As we have demonstrated here. We have reliable thrird party sources reporting a different use. A notably different use. Revert if you like. Exclusive it is not.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if you would take another look at the lede. It seems that its use has not been "exclusively" limited to describe hostility towards Jews. This rather restrictive idea is almost a direct quote from Bernard Lewis. Exclusively would mean that it has never been used to refer to any thing else. Could the lede maybe be made a little less restrictive?Die4Dixie (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, "exclusively" is a bit much. "Almost exclusively" would be more accurate, though "exclusively" is correct if one is referring to correct usage; anyone, of course, can use a word incorrectly, but that doesn't change its meaning. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This term has now been used in academic circles and in peer reviewed literature, notably by the scholars whom I mentioned on the talkpage. This use has been used in the reliable media when reporting on this usage. I might compare it to the 'n' word. At one time its use was very restricted, while now it has a much wider meaning to include those who are marginalized or disenfranchised [[8]] (see #3). When it was first used like this, was it incorrect? I don't really know. I do know that if Wikipedia were to say that the word "exclusively" is a pejorative term to describe "members of the dark skinned races" ( as dictionaries once defined the word), Wikipedia would be wrong. I think that this is a direct parallel, and the article in this case is wrong and inaccurate. To promote the view that it is "exclusively" reserved for anti-Jewish thoughts , words or deeds is pushing a WP:NPOV violation view, IMHO. Dunno if this might change your opinion on the lede any, but there is no harm in discussing it.Die4Dixie (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The term has been inaccurately used, yes, generally to make political points. "Antisemitism" means one thing and one thing only, regardless of how it has been misused. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Words do mean different things as languages evolve. The word "cunning" doesn't mean the same thing that it did in the King James Version of the Bible. Sociologists have changed what the meaning of "minority" is to mean the member of a non dominate group, even if they are a numerical majority. Afro-centric scholars have redefined "racism" in terms of power to exclude African-Americans from the definition. These are all examples of words being redefined, and they all are of encyclopedic interest. The scholars that have written about the new anti-Semitism are far more knowledgeable about the subject than I am. On one hand I have an editor/ admin whom I respect saying one thing, and on the other I have notable experts in the field saying another. Which is a humble editor to believe? One that says that exclusive is restrictive, but accurate enough for the project, or experts in their fields who have reliably reported another use in academic/ peer reviewed papers and even a book dedicated to the subject? What to do when one expert says," Never, ever , ever, X!" , and another equally notable expert not only affirms X, but uses X? My interpretation of the policy is that the new use of anti-Semitism reaches the threshold of notable, although a minority view. When the majority view says that the minority view doesn't exist( as we have seen it does indeed do) we need to a tribute directly to those who make the statement that the minority view doesn't exist, lest it appear that it is WIkipedia that errs in saying that the view/ usage doesn't. Then we incorporate the material in a balanced way as not to give it undue weight, but allowing enough space to cover the minority view.Die4Dixie (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Shrug. It's not Wikipedia's job to extend neologism, or to promote the political re-definition of well-known words. Anyway, this discussion is suited for the article talk page, not here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. You know this isn't adversarial on my part, I hope.Die4Dixie (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Words to change meaning over time, I think that's pretty clear to everyone. I get the impression that Zogby is trying to co-opt the meaning to broaden it to include other semitic peoples like Arabs. That's obvious. But only time will tell if that can happen. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to fall out where jpgordon is on this. It is almost exclusively used to mean one thing. I realize that there are individuals who reject this exclusivity because it only addresses the Jews and given that Semitic, by definition, includes a number of other peoples, the word has its limitations. It seemed when I last read the article this was covered, but my memory may be bad. Anti-Semitism is primarily used to identify actions, behavior, etc. directed at the Jewish people. (One does not gain any clarity by spelling it antisemitism except for having bad spelling.) Having said that it is obviously of value to include the position of those who seek to have a broader definition of anti-Semitism to include all Semitic peoples. --^StormRider 22:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you've nailed it there, Storm Rider. I'm willing to assume good faith, but only to a degree dictated by common sense. And people being this vehement about changing the spelling of a word strikes me as being interested in more than academic accuracy... Academic advocacy is more like it. I'm sorry, but unless there's a reliable source that at least attempts to prove the argument that the term is more commonly and/or correctly spelled "anti-Semitism", then not only am I for leaving things the way they are, but also remove the assertion currently in the article that this is the more "common" spelling of the term, and go back to the "alternatively" wording. And no, Google searches don't count as a reliable source (and does count as original research. — Hiddekel (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz?

62% of Germans are "sick of all the harping on about German crimes against the Jews".[9] Of course, you can interpret this a more leient way and say that this is a poorly worded response that is more critical of the so-called 'Holocaust Industry' and not anti-semitic. But still... it seems notable. 129.120.86.253 (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably belongs in the Holocaust article rather than here. --Richard (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Horrible. Personally speaking, I would never get sick of hearing about the Holocaust. I really like the section title by the way - it flips the whole forgiveness concept around. Stevertigo 21:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Jewish anarchists and antisemitism

Anarchism is a relatively minor movement in world history, Jewish anarchism even more so. To have a section on Jewish anarchism at all, let alone one that's almost as large as the section on antisemitism in the ancient world, reflects the interests of wikipedia's editors, not the relative importance of these topics. The section is also uncited, generalizing from one author. It should be deleted.72.95.235.181 (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actualy, would someone check the source? Lazare is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. Apparently he was a notable Dreyfussard and critic of antisemitism as well. Perhaps this article does not need a section on "anti-semitism and anarchists" esepcially when the section is really just about one individual. But based on our own article about him, he represented a notable position in the debate among those Jews who saw a Jewish state as the response to antisemitism, versus those Jews who saw civil-rights struggles and assimilation in their own societies as the response to antisemitism. This was a big debate among Jews prior to the Holocaust, and belongs in some article (maybe not here) - but can someone do more research on his position and politics and how they may have changed during the course of his life? The section here seems at best to be a real distortion. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, no one took up this discussion, but someone added a chunk of Lazare to the article. So let me summarize the reasons I reverted, although they are implicit, above: I am not sure a "self-hating Jew" is an antisemite; Jews criticize themselves all the time actually, it is not the same thing. More importantly, Lazare was a Dreyfusard and a lifelong critic of antisemitism, so it seems that the quote is being taken out of context, which is a violation of V and NOR - the context of a quote is essential to accurately representing a point of view. Lazare was also in a debate with Herzl, at first he supported Zionism, which was the initiative of Liberal Jews in reaction to the Dreyfus case; then he was opposed to Zionism which,k if Lazare was an anarchist, is almost predictable. All of this should be covered - in the article on Lazare. Even if he were an antisemite, and no one has come close to convincing me that he was, I do not see how he is notable enough for inclusion in this article. He may be notable enough to have an articl eo f his own which can put whatever many things he said in the context of his biography and the social history of the times. But why here? We have a notability threshold, I do not see how it has been met. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

19th century antisemitism

There should be more discussion of anti-semitism in the 19th and early 20th Centuries to give context to the rise of Nazism. Anti-semitism in Wilhelmine Germany was regularly used as a way of distracting the population from criticism of the government. It is only becuase there was a "respectable" history of anti-semitism that Hitlerism was able to a grip. 93.97.194.138 (talk) 06:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Antisemite is also an epithet

I added this to the lede, because the concept has the dimension of being a label, which needs description:

The terms "antisemitism," along its individual referent "antisemite," are controversial political terms when used to label particular concepts —and particularly individuals —as being 'against the Jewish people.'

If anyone wants to remove it entirely, I will take the issue all the way to arbitration. But if anyone thinks its place in the lede is a little too high, or its language can be tweaked a bit, I can work with you. -Stevertigo 17:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What Stevertigo wrote is not an explanation of his edit, it is a threat. You want to come here threatening editors in good standing who edit in good faith? And do you think you can bluff and bully your way into violating wikipedia policies? I and others explained to you with great clarity that original research BS will not be tolerated at Wikipedia. Zero tolerance means that when your edit violates policy people will revert it. Are you surprised? Then you have a shockingly lack of capacity to learn from experience. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, I'm going to agree with slrubenstein. It almost sounds like if you don't get your way, you're going to threaten us with ArbCom. Since they don't usually get involved with content disputes, and you are threatening good faith editors, it's not going to go far. If you think your statement belongs, then source it. Otherwise, it's original research pure and simple, and definitely should be reverted. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Threatening people is rarely a good way to start a discussion... I think the comment is appropriate for the article, if backed up with a suitable source (without one, it's original research). Perhaps not important enough to go in the lede, though. --Tango (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, what is the source for the material you inserted? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I will ignore SLR's red herring attack, claiming I was making "a threat." Even Helen Keller could understand from the text that no substantial "threat" was implied.

From List of anti-ethnic and anti-national terms:

"The use of all of these terms is controversial, as they tend to be used prominently in local rhetorical appeals to fallacy —namely the natural confusion between politically-directed opposition and ethnically-directed hostility, often deliberately disregarding this distinction for propaganda purposes."

It could use some editing, not so much for its substance, but for its linkages. The article has another mention of a point made by a distinguished and noted "antisemite":

The linguist and activist Noam Chomsky noted that perhaps the original Western use of the term, from which all similar term originate, was by the Israelite King Ahab, in calling the prophet Elijah as "thou troubler of Israel."

The quote is handled in another article, from another Chomsky quote:

The charges are interesting. Those who know the Bible know their origins. The charges trace back to King Ahab, who was the epitome of evil in the Bible. King Ahab condemned the Prophet Elijah as a hater of Israel. The flatterers at King Ahab's court agreed."

"Troubler of Israel" in today's language would probably be "anti-Israel." Not as sexy as Ahab's language, but the translation is apparent. It is of course arguable that "anti-Israeli" does not directly indicate "antisemite", but, on the other hand there are examples where the usage is at least "controversial" if not a rabid epithetical (several herenice example here, youve used Google before, I'm sure..). In any case, "antisemite" is in the list of anti-ethnic and anti-national terms, which clearly qualifies all such terms as "tend[ing] to be used in local rhetorical appeals to fallacy" (linkages mine). Its accurate, albeit written in some abstruse form of the English language that would be better expressed if we had a word like "epithet." I like it. -Stevertigo 22:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"If anyone wants to remove it entirely, I will take the issue all the way to arbitration." is an explicit threat, there's no need for an implied one. --Tango (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"I am now going to kill you" is a threat. What I said was not. I have had issues with certain people using the ninja editing model to push their own POV, and if that model continues, I'm going to fall back on the dispute resolution process. Normal editors shouldn't be terrified.

But, that said, thank you Tango for not addressing the actual substance of the dispute. -Stevertigo 00:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, do you have any reliable sources for the sentence you tried to insert? The ones you've brought so far are either Wikipedia articles, or not relevant to the sentence itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(Cutting in): In the text above I quoted Chomsky. I guess you could call that a source, or if you like, the work he produces (books, articles, talks, interviews) is valid enough. For me anyway. Do you disagree? The Chomsky article (yes, I know its poor form to cite Wikipedia articles) says "According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index," which is a publication of some sort, "in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living "scholar" [quotations mine] during the 1980–92 period, and was the eighth most-cited source" overall, as of the writing, I'm assuming. I also quoted another Wikipedia article, anti-ethnic terms, which made the essential point that the concept, although quite real, nevertheless carries with it epithetic connotations. If you like.. you too Steven.. you can call me "Hitler" as in "you're [just like] Hitler!" (just once, though, thanks). It might certainly be taken as an insult, at least among 99.999 percent of the population. Calling someone an "antisemite" is (arguably) just a weasel term for calling someone "Hitler." -Stevertigo 05:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, all of this discussion of Ahab and Elijah has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, it is all a dodge and typical of your strategy of spewing BS when asked to provide a source, because you cannot comply with the simplest requiirements of V or NOR. Moreover, you suggestion that "anti-Semite" tends to be prominently used in appeals to fallacy is a vile insult to Jews, You are saying that anti-Semites are actually just speaking the truth, and to call them anti-Semites is a slu. You have things completely backwards: it is the anti-Semite who is the racist and the offender, not the person who identifies someon as an anti-Semite. Why would you defend victimizers and attack victims unless you are an anti-Semite yourself? Slrubenstein | Talk 04:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

SLR slandered: "Moreover, you suggestion that "anti-Semite" tends to be prominently used in appeals to fallacy is a vile insult to Jews, You are saying that anti-Semites are actually just speaking the truth, and to call them anti-Semites is a slu."

One, I did not suggest giving any weight as to how often the term is used as an anti-human insult. In fact in my first comment, if placement in the lede is an indication of undue weight, I conceded that moving the epithet statement somewhere else in the lede was not unreasonable. Two, you suggest that asserting a (or any) "tend[ency]" for the term's usage as an epithet was "a vile insult to teh[mine] Jews," as if your original research on the matter is a useable basis for article "truth", and that you could speak for all Jews everywhere. As if. Three, you claim that "[I am] saying that anti-Semites are actually just speaking the truth." I am not, and for the record (listen carefully), they are not [speaking "the truth"] [quotations mine]. After careful consideration, I suspect they are all at least idiots. But note that Bombing four hundred kids makes even normal people angry though, even if the reasons were justified. But thats in the past. Four, calling "them" antisemites is not a slur, and I never said it was. Calling "us" antisemites, however just makes one look like like an epithet-wielding idiot. -Stevertigo 05:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying you'll take disciplinary action against someone if they don't do what you want is a threat. You are, of course, entitled to take such action, but it rarely serves any purpose to say that you intend to until polite discussion has already failed. I have already addressed the substance of the dispute - the comment is fine, as long as it is well sourced. --Tango (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked, Arbcom was part of the "dispute resolution" process. I'm not sure, let me check: WP:DR... It is! I may be a little slow or something, and that's why I'm not quite connecting how 'taking this all the way up to Arbitration' is somehow a threat. It's like saying "I'm gonna call the cops" is a threat; only a knife-wielding bloody-fingered postal worker could take that as a actual threat. And, where, by the way, did you "address the substance of the dispute?" Don't see it. -Stevertigo 05:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"If you don't do X, I'll do Y" (where Y is something likely to harm the person you're talking to) is a threat, it doesn't matter what X and Y are. Taking someone to ArbCom is likely to harm them (if the case if successful - it would probably be rejected as a content dispute). --Tango (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo's argument is either simply silly, or offensive. In response to my point that to say that calling someone an anti-Semite is a slur is equivalent to saying that anti-Semites are right, he has two responses: first, that he does not believe Hitlar was right. Huh? Who brought up Hitler? Yes, Hitler was an anti-Semite, but most anti-Semites are not Hitler. We are talking about antisemitism here, not Hitler. Please do not change the subject. The question is not whether Hitler was right or wrong but whether antisemites are right or wrong. Please stick to the topic. Second, Stevertigo says that it was reasonable for people to get angry at Israel's bombing of Gaza. Uh, okay, people can protest war, people can protest Israel government policy. But so what? We are not talking about the war in Gaza or people who are do not support Israel's actions. I am sure that some people who opposed Israel's actions are anti-Semites, but clearly not all people who oppose Israeli policy are anti-Semites ... again, this just muddies the waters, we are talking about anti-Semitism, we are talking about antisemites. Let's stick to the subject please. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Calling somebody anti-Semitic when either they aren't, or it's irrelevant to the point being made, is using it as a slur. Plenty of things that have negative connotations are used when they aren't strictly true, as a slur ("bastard", "gay", etc.). The fact that people use them as a slur doesn't say anything about whether it's good or bad to actually be one, just that it is percieved to be bad. --Tango (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Tango, we all understand what it meanss to say someone is using a word as a slur. The point is that this does not belong in the article. Now, Stevertigo made some claims, above, that just make no sense and seem unhelpful to this discussion. Is it time just to close this discussion and move on? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If the term is regularly used as a slur, why shouldn't it say so in the article? --Tango (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The term is not regularly used as a slur. Kike and Dirty Jew are regularly used as slurs, including casual insinuations that Jews control the world. Those are slurs. And that is what this article is about. The article on "Socialism" does not say in the introduction that "socialist" is used as a slur, and the article on "United Kingdon" or "Brittan" does not say that "Brit" is used as a slur. Some words are only slurs, like kike or mic or wop. Other words are not slurs, that people may use them as slurs says something about the person, not the word. No notable source (and remember, Wikipedia only includes significant views from notable sources, period - if it is not a significant view from a notable source, it does not go into an article) I know of says "being called an antisemite is a serious problem, although I did see a documentary on one of the main five channels in Engliand on how anti-semitism is a serious problem in Brittain. It is in the US and many other parts of the world. That makes anti-semitism notable, and that is why we have and article on it. Get it? Anti-semitism is a notable problem, there are notable sources expressing significant views on anti-semitism, so therefore we have an article on it. Anti-semitism is a serious problem. Identifying someone as an antisemite when they are antisemitic is not a slur, it is simply using the word properly. I see no point in belaboring this. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already said that it needs a reliable source if it's going to be included, so what exactly are you disagreeing with? --Tango (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Slrubenstein. Anti-Semitism is not a slur, it is a descriptive of a racist activity, which is matter of interpretation. When I see anti-Semitism, I call it right then and there. It's not a slur, it is purely descriptive. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

SLR: "Identifying someone as an antisemite when they are antisemitic is not a slur, it is simply using the word properly." I agree. But that does not address the possibility (common or not) that the term may be used as a slur, political jab, an epithet, or even a stigmanym. As someone who personally has been called "an antisemite" (in fact that's kinda what helped get the Arbcom started, wasn't it?), I can attest to its usage as an epithet, a slur, and an oxymoronic joke. You've done it yourself SLR, or at least insinuated such. What is it called when the term (rare or not) is used as an attack? A סליחה? I don't agree. And the "descriptive" argument isn't barring either. "Negro" likewise was once "a descriptive" too, but agreeably certain usage is regarded as epithetical. It depends on how its used, and as Orangemarlin stated, "[the term's application] is a matter of interpretation." Treat the fact that there has been some epithetical usage of the term, maybe less than a percent, and that covers it. A couple of you people seem to be under the illusion that the term is never —has never —been used in that way, or that the people who use such terms are always quite careful and scientific with how its used. For the most part, I agree. But then there are the occasional exceptions.. "Chomsky has responded to the charges of antisemitism made against him many times: "If you identify the country, the people, the culture with the rulers, accept the totalitarian doctrine, then yeah, it's anti-Semitic to criticize the Israeli policy, and anti-American to criticize the American policy, and it was anti-Soviet when the dissidents criticized Russian policy. You have to accept deeply totalitarian assumptions not to laugh at this." Granted, there may have been some curbing of this behavior in recent years, and that's wonderful. Show me the memos. Regardless, i'ts still somewhat epithetical —moreso I suppose if taken seriously. -Stevertigo 07:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, which sources did you wish to cite in the article, and in what way? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfairly or falsely applying a label with connotations that are widely held by society to be negative, such as "antisemite", does not make that label a "slur" or an "epithet". The definition of the term is what determines that. If it were a slur, it would be a slur whether the label was appropriately, given its definition, applied or not (ie calling a Jew a "kike" versus calling a non-Jew a "kike"; the term in both cases remains an ethnic slur). It makes the act of doing so an act of defamation, but it has no bearing on what the label is itself. The nature of a term does not change based on the perceived fairness, or intent, of its application. — Hiddekel (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"Ultimately rooted in, and based upon"

I fact tagged the below statements (in quotes):

"[Antisemitism] is ultimately rooted in, and based upon..."

This sounds definitive - is this always true? And is this absolutely verified, exempting all other reasons? Seems that a rather broad concept like ethnic conflict cannot be universally summed up this way. The sentence needs serious correction.

"...an historical religio-cultural aversion to their core ancestral religious beliefs and way of life."

Does that explain all of antisemitism? Is is possible that certain other dimensions are relevant? Again, too broad a topic to be stated so definitively. "May" "typically" and "often" are good qualifying words to use to express the fact that there are limits to these generalizations. While religio-cultural is nice, its a bit too fancy. "Religious, ethnic, cultural, and political" is good scope. The usage of "aversion" is problematic, and "for various religious... political reasons" is better. "Aversions" of course relegates anything labeled "antisemitism" as belonging to the irrational realm, which, even if largely true, is a kind of editorializing through implication. Certainly I can think of rational reasons why people would be upset by Toledoth and other anti-Christian diatribes, for example. -Stevertigo 00:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The article itself goes into great detail on all of this with plenty of citations. The introduction is meant to introduce the article as a whole, which this one does. For details and citations, you just have to read on. That requires reading articles, something you seem to prefer not to do. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In cases such as this I find it often is useful consult a "dictionary", which is a large book (or online equivalent) that contains the definitions of many words. I have done so and added a couple of citations that summarize my findings. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Tell me more about this marvelous "dictionary", of which you speak so highly. Can anyone partake of its bountiful contents, or is it restricted to a select few? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What difference does it make? Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In fact, I think there are on-line dictionaries people can consult for that stuff. Dictionaries are sometimes good guides to etymology (OED) and tell us the correct spelling. But for an understanding of a concept and encyclopedia article, well-researched and drawing on "books" and "academic journal articles" is much better than a dictionary! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Slrubenstein, I was being humorous... Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Jayjg, my commented was directed at Boris! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My issue was not with the substance. It is certainly true that religious and ethnic "aversion" exists. But stating this concept using absolute terms carries with it certain problems that would be obvious even to anyone who bothers to read just the lede, which tends to come before the rest of the article. It doesn't matter if the article on Dr. Random Scholar says "he is a noted and reputed scholar, and, by the way, a huge fan of the Ohio State girl's volleyball team" ..in the middle of the article. Definitive concepts (like the above) need to be not only stated at the top, but stated in non-absolutist language. Period. -Stevertigo 21:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that I have made a change in the title of the redlinked article so that nobody is particularly inclined to think that such a redlink cries out for a change to blue. Risker (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason you created a link to a non-existent article? What policy says that concepts should be explained in "non-absolutist" language? Are you proposing we should use weasel words? I do not understand your position, nor your explanation for your position. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you actually understood it, SLR, you probably wouldn't be arguing with me. Just guessing, but there might be a few more types of expressions other than "absolute" and "weasel." Give me some more choices; I'll get back to you. As for the link, see WP:RED. -Stevertigo 00:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Tigo, cut your bullshit about WP:RED I know what a red link means, I want to know why you used it. Providing the WP:RED link is just one of your dodges. in fact our guideline states tht an editor ought to create an article before creating a link, so you violate the very guideline to which you link. Also, it says that redlinks should only be for articles that would be notable and Steve Rubenstein does not rise to that standard so WP:RED does nothing to answer my question. Or maybe you are afraid to answer honestly. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the nonexistent "Steven Rubenstein" article being used as an example? And I'm pretty sure WP:RED applies to article pages. Regardless, if you're going to flamebate, please stay on topic. Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks; try talking about the actual subject rather than commenting on another editor's "bullshit", as it is very unlikely that such terms will provoke thoughtful responses.  Aaron  ►  07:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitism in Popular Culture

Sound like a section that might be needed? This is entirely OR, but I myself have witnessed a surge in the word "Jew" being thrown about, but sort of as a joke rather than something meant to actually offend. Sarcasm regarding (and by this I mean we could write about the sarcasm, not be sarcastic about) the Jews doing WTC would be a good example.  Aaron  ►  07:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

While we're on that thought, consider also a mention of a verb form of "Jew" meaning "to cheat", "to be excessively frugal", or "to haggle". Frotz (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent reverts

The reverts with an edit summary "Antichristianity is not antisemitism" have a true edit summary, of course it isn't. But to justify the text that a term is used EXCLUSIVELY in a particular way is difficult when WP:RS sources show examples of a different use. I don't think this example should be in the intro but I people just reverting without any thought or discussion is too close to WP:OWN and unacceptable. I also think a much stronger statement that "most" such as "almost exclusively" is warranted. But you cannot just revert to your preferred text without discussion. --BozMo talk 22:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted because I thought Skywriter was saying this was antisemetic, but having looked at it again I see that it was the actaul people who were attacked by the television station who said it. My sincere apologies to Skywriter.--Patton^t/c 22:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now can we agree to get "However, in February 2009, Christian clergymen in Galilee accused an Israeli televison station of antisemitism for making fun of the Christian belief in Mary, the Mother of God.[4] [5]" out of the intro which is undue weight and move it to the usage and etymology section? Skywriter, agree? --BozMo talk 22:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, although I do not agree that "exclusively" should stay in lede because this is a view disputed outside of the realm of Bernard Lewis, Paul Johnson, and Phyllis Chesler, 3 of the article's major cites. This wiki article seems close-minded to the view that Arabs are also concerned about antisemitism directed toward themselves as the TV anecdote demonstrates.Skywriter (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that if exclusively is used it has to be qualified e.g. "almost exclusively". --BozMo talk 23:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Almost exclusively" is akin to "almost unique" in that it is imprecise phrasing. In this instance, "most often" seems to do the job. Would you agree?

The reverts emphasized the phrasing that it was Christians who objected to the TV skit and that is error in the original emphasis which ought to have stressed the Arab component that made the claim to antisemitism. The Haaretz and Juan Cole articles described antisemitism directed toward the religion of Arabs, in this instance the Christian religion of Arabs.Skywriter (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The material is original research, and these politically motivated attempts at word-games based on one allegation don't belong in the article, much less in the lede. Alleged anti-Christianism is not antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, would you explain what you believe is original research? I believe you continue to be ::::confused on the central point. The introduction of the links to the Haaretz and Juan Cole ::::articles does not turn on anti-Christianism. It turns on the Arab claim that they are Semites ::::too, and that their religion was attacked in a manner they considered antisemitic because they ::::are Arabs and therefore Semites. Now, I understand that some of the scholars quoted in this ::::article contend that the word antisemitism applies only to Jews, and perhaps to the Jewish state ::::of Israel, notwithstanding the 20 percent of the population of that state that is not Jewish. ::::Subject-matter experts who contend otherwise are not represented in this article, and that is a ::::problem of balance. Based only on existing sources, it is easy to see how one could believe that ::::a different viewpoint does not exist, and yet it does despite its not being represented in the ::::article as currently written.Skywriter (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My revert of the addition is simply because someone added material presented as an example of antisemitism, which it clearly was not. Frotz (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell they did not, and therefore perhaps you might have read things a little more carefully? They added material clearly described as an example of usage of the word antisemitism. They gave sources and the revert should have been better explained. This usage is only relevant to the article content whilst the article claims only a particular "exclusive" usage of the word exists, the contemporary element of that claim seems anyway to be OR since de facto the sources are historic. As for where the line on original research is, there is a certain point when example is sufficiently clear to mean referring to it is not OR. Of course I accept Jayjg's point completely that such usage is (a) incorrect and (b) politically motivated HOWEVER that does not mean that the usage referred to does not exist. I think perhaps the way forward is to word the article saying that correct usage only refers to Jews rather than denying the existence of other usage with whatever motivation. This article though has too many WP:OWN issues. Could editors please engage and try to understand changes made by people like Skywriter and not revert on spurious grounds. --BozMo talk 08:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems then that we're describing a malapropism or an ill-used alternate meaning in the fashion of Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass. Frotz (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Or a wilful misuse (in the old days the Soviets used to refer to "unemployment" as a "Human Rights Violation" by the USA as a similar distraction on which superpower had the better human rights record). Personally I am not at all keen to describe it at all since none of the instances (and there are a couple of Arab politicians who have used it similarly) seem to me to add much to the article. But I guess we cannot insist on such strong wording in the text to justify these things being relevant. If we said "correct" or mainly the issue would vanish and the instances would be irrelevant. Personally though I am more interested in seeing that there is proper and courteous discussion than what the outcome is. --BozMo talk 10:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, willful misuse too. It's similar to the old Soviet usage of "unemployment" but adds a "me too" twist. Would it be right to call it a tu quoque fallacy in reverse? Frotz (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(indent reset) So the issue here is that someone was offended by an Israeli's TV show's critical-of-Christianity skit, called the act "antisemitic", and now some editors here want to modify the "exclusive" aspect of the "...used exclusively to refer to hostility toward Jews since its initial usage" line? Seeing how the overwhelming usage and connotation of the word "antisemitic" in the present day is specifically meaning the targeting of Jews, a lone/infrequent instance to the contrary isn't exactly enough to warrant such an edit, IMO. WP:UNDUE and all that, trying to elevate a minority POV into the mainstream. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the funny thing about the word "exclusive" is that it means "100%". "99.999%" is NOT exclusive. Exclusively is (as far as this mathematician is concerned anyway) a momentally poor choice of word, and is an open invitation to anyone to provide any counter-example. --BozMo talk 15:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If Juan Cole's next blog entry calls a carrot a blueberry, we don't edit the lead of carrot to read "usually orange or white or blue". This or any other counter-example would be an extreme minority POV, dwarfed by reality and common sense in how the term is used in everyday language. Again, WP:UNDUE; "...and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all". Tarc (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We have a similar debate going on at the Fascism article. Historians identify some people - most notable Mussolini - as Fascists, and there is a complete account of what a fascist is. Most people - not Fascists! - believe Fascism is a bad thing, and the word gets used as an epithet. If someone calls Chomsky a Fascist, should the article on Chomsky expand the definition of Fascist to include Chomsky's views? Most editors would say "no." To use Fascist as an epithet is to misues it, and Wikipedia is not about documenting all popular useages of a word but shour write articles treating trhe thing or concept the word stands for. Similarly, Antismitism is Jew hatred. I can use the word "Anti-semite" in other contexts to mean other things, but that should not change the article. Ditto with the article on "Nazi." Lots of American's call Obama a socialist - I should would hate to see a rewrite of the Socialism article that has a section on "Obama styled socialism" or that tries to redefine "socialism" to include Obama's policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Time to tag this article for obliterating contrary viewpoints?

Looks very much like two editors here insist on obliterating a viewpoint with which they disagree. That suggests a pretty big disagreement and that this article should be tagged. This article ignores scholarship showing that antisemitism concerned Arabs as well as Jews in the colonial era when Aryan racial theory prevailed. A simple example is here. [10] See this chapter, for example. [11]

In addition to which, the Israeli Arabs named in the Haaretz article said the show was antisemitic. And now we have two editors here at Wikipedia disallowing their self-perception?

Further, Juan Cole, professor of religion and history at the University of Michigan, has stated that Arabs are semites and affected by antisemitism. He is a subject matter expert, and his view has been obliterated several times today from this article. This is a very big deal. Juan Cole is widely respected for his expertise.

This is a big disagreement, and an entire opposing viewpoint has been repeatedly erased from this story. Does anyone object to tagging this article as fraught with disagreement? Or do you see a way to resolve this without tagging the article for erasing contrary viewpoints?Skywriter (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that tagging the article at this point is a bit provocative. Lets try some more dialogue first and keep assuming good faith please. --BozMo talk 10:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no cause for tagging this article in any way, and may I add that your argument might be taken more seriously if you didn't resort to "subject matter experts" who are themselves the subject of accusations of antisemitism. Mr. Cole can think what he wants, but antisemitism refers to an antipathy towards Jews, not "Semites", and his disagreement demonstrates that whatever matters he might be a "subject matter expert" in, etymology is not one of them. — Hiddekel (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Did Juan Cole state it in a peer-reviewed journal article? When Watson claimed that some people are racially inferior, we did not add that to the race article despite his being a discoverer of DNA - he can believe what he wants but the statement and he is a significant person, but what he said was not in a notable source ... it was in effect his personal opinion and not the result of scientific research. So we rejected what he said, because it was not considered notable research by his peers. That si why I ask, did Juan Cole express a personal opinion or the result of research published in a peer-reviewed journal? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Watson appears in the article Race and Intelligence.

The standard for references is that citations must be the result of research published in a peer-reviewed journal? Please show how that standard is adhered to in this or any Wikipedia article, and where in WP policies that standard is called for?

What is the logic that supports the reasoning that Juan Cole's blog is OK to quote to support the singular view propounded in this article but is excluded when he diverts from that view? fn 172

John Ware is cited in this article yet has been accused of being "A notorious pro-Israeli Islamophobe", "desperate to discredit Muslims", "a track record for displaying unfairness and twisting the truth".[12] Some have been "accused" of beating their wives, some falsely. Should everyone "accused" be excluded from Wikipedia articles, and if so, please show where that is current WP policy?

What is the logic that supports the reasoning that Haaretz is OK to cite in support of the single-minded view in this article but is excluded when an article in that same Israeli newspaper diverts from that view? (What makes an anti-Semite? Dina Porat, Haaretz, January 27, 2007) (Galilee Christians, clergy protest Ch. 10 sketch on Mary)

Eleven claims in this article have been listed as needing citations, and they are not dated. Is there a reason to continue these unsupported claims?Skywriter (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg wrote-- "03:09, February 23, 2009 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) (139,523 bytes) (per sources, and Talk. Please read what the sources say, avoid [[WP:NOR)" Jayjg, please explain the context of your revert based on what you say is the relevance of WP:NOR. Thanks.Skywriter (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought I asked a straightfrward question: did Cole write this in a peer-reviewed journal? If he did not, then I do not see how his credentials as a scholar are relevant. Being a scholar is relevant only to one's scholarship. Do we really take WIlliam Carlos William's poetry to have bearing on medicine? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

On both threads there is a serious failure to differentiate between meaning and usage. We do not write statements like "the word carrot is exclusively used to describe orange root vegetables of type " exactly because the existence of white carrots, however rare, bears on such an extraordinary claim. The statement "antisemitism refers only to..." would be fine by me and true definition. However the inclusion and extraordinary defense of such a strange exclusive usage claim when we should be talking definitions is a sign that sadly an important article has WP:OWN issues and a long way to go. It also will breed argument after argument (I have seen a few over the years on this article) as editors come and reasonably point out counter examples. But hey there are plenty of things I care about a whole lot more on Wikipedia than this topic or article so I will go back to my corner and sadly watch the next WP:OWN uncourteous crushing of a good faith editor (like Skywriter) by people who generally have the intelligence to think and grapple with the issues but for reasons beyond me fail to in this case.--BozMo talk 20:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC) --BozMo talk 20:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)--BozMo talk 20:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur with BozMo's comments. The following applies to the WP:NPOV censoring of the link to the article in Haaretz-- A priest at St. Francis, Anglican Church in Newcastle Upon Tyne said of the incident in the Haaretz article that described the disparaging of myths of other peoples' religions--"Israelis who will willingly and deliberately attack other faiths but who cry anti-semitism if someone criticizes even their most obvious faults, are as guilty of denying the Holocaust as any right-wing Latin mass bishop, because they are ignoring the lessons that everybody should have learnt from this most terrible of atrocities."Skywriter (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The counter-examples simply do not carry any weight or legitimacy, though. Antisemitism#Etymology and usage is linked up there for a reason, y'know. If there were a legitimate and wide-spread expansion of what it means to be "antisemitic", then sure, it would no longer be exclusive to Jews. But at things are now, that's overwhelmingly what the term is used for. One blogger making a dumb comment doesn't change that. Tarc (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a good and potentially valid argument (if you are right about the nature of the counterexamples). However why then not say in the text "overwhelmingly what the term is used for" or similar? Exclusive is a precise term which gives undue weight and emphasis on small minorities from its nature, since it categorically includes them. So a claim to exclusive is an invitation to undue weight counter examples. --BozMo talk 20:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not think we should rely on blogs in general; if a blogger is notable because they are a scholar, then their notable claims should come from scholarly sourdces like peer-reviewed journal articles. User:Skywriter, thank you for pointing out the fishy source - especially fishy because the citation was in the middle of the sentence, not at the end. In fact, Cole's blog was claiming:

Al-Sharq al-Awsat reports that the Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar Seminary in Cairo, perhaps the foremost Sunni Arab authority, has issued a statement that jihad or "holy war" was legislated in Islam for the defense of the persons and honor of Muslims, and is not to be used as a threat or a form of aggression against the innocent.

quite different from what the sentence claimed. I deleted it. I think Skywriter you and others have to understand that this topic has been debated endlessly. The claim that anti-semitism includes attacks against Arabs is at best a fringe view not related to this article, which is on research on antisemitism. This does not mean that attacks on Arabs are right, or that everything Jews do is right. Frankly, many people come here withing to politicize the article and use it as a means to criticize Israel and defend Arabs, that is what the St. Francis priest you mention is trying to do. Is the priest antisemitic? I do not have enough information. But I would think that it would be easy enough to defend Christians who were victims of violence, and criticize Jews who attack Christians, without calling those Jews antisemites ... it seems to me to be a very ill-advised rhetorical move, ill-advised because it makes little sense (no one claims Christians are semites) and because it diverts attention away from the real issue, which is persecution of Christians. Why call persecution of Christians "antisemitism?" Why bring in the Holocaust? Is it not enough to say that practicioners of a religion were persecuted and that is wrong? Isn't the issue here, that Christians were persecuted, and not the race of those persecuting? Be that as it may, this priest is obviously no expert in antisemitism and I sincerely believe an inappropriate source for the article. Antisemitism has a meaning, just like phenomenology, deconstruction, and postmodernist. That it is very easy to find examples of people misusing these words - using them in sloppy or entirely incorrect ways - is I think just not important enough to merit discussion in their respective articles, or at best merits minimal discussion (e.g. this term is frequently misused, this is the most common way, period).Slrubenstein | Talk 19:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"Is the priest antisemitic?" Well. Well. Well. I notice a pattern here. The question is raised or the label is affixed to anyone putting forward an alternate argument to the only-Jews-can-be-victims WP:POV viewpoint—that anyone with the temerity to challenge that doctrine of faith, must be, is, or is perhaps antisemitic in the sense of not being a friend to either Jews or Israel or even perhaps the politician du jour.[13] And that line of argument—shutting down differing viewpoints by accusing proponents of being advocates of what this article attempts to describe. Very effective strategy. For awhile. And then it falls apart because no one believes it. The emperor is naked. And so, to defend that doctrinaire article of faith—(in the Roman Catholic Church this method of argument is called the doctrine of infallibility)—and it works like this. Editor/proponents of the only-Jews-can-be-victims-of-antisemitism doctrine of faith persuade themselves that anyone who disagrees must therefore be antisemitic. This is self-serving, solipsism, and fallacy. Notice also that when the defenders of the doctrine of faith that only-Jews-can-be-victims WP:POV of antisemitism choose to take on argument that disputes their version of that doctrine, the defenders take on none but the low-hanging fruit. One editor, for example, quickly linked to the section of a Wikipedia article on Juan Cole that solemnly accuses the professor of being antisemitic and disqualifying him as a contributor to this article on that ground. This line of argument proves only that someone entered that accusation in Cole's biography because it suits a political purpose. That editor, and every other editor defending the only-Jews-can-be-victims WP:POV of antisemitism victimology in the last several days have avoided the example that began this thread demonstrating that antisemitism concerned Arabs as well as Jews in the colonial era when Aryan racial theory prevailed. [14] See this chapter, for example. [15] Now I can understand that the centrality of the example may escape anyone whose French is rusty. Still rigorous argument demands effort. Google will translate that 19th century text allowing anyone to see very specifically that antisemitism was historically directed at Arabs as well as Jews. Now, it is one thing for anyone who did not bother to follow those links sufficient to spend a bit of time with the text. It is another to randomly attack "bloggers" (and whatever special expertise they may bring to the subject) and also to simultaneously ignore that the usage of the term antisemitism to describe Arab feelings was used in a recent issue of a prominent Israeli newspaper. Just another example of ignoring more challenging examples in favor of "low-hanging fruit." (Ignoring counter-argument does not make the myth true. It only means the more challenging arguments were ignored.) At the start of this thread I wrote, "the Israeli Arabs named in the Haaretz article said the show was antisemitic. And now we have two editors here at Wikipedia disallowing their self-perception?" No one responded to that perhaps because self-perceptions do not fit squarely within the framework of the only-Jews-can-be-victims of antisemitism myth. You may have convinced yourself that the doctrine of only-Jews-can-be-victims WP:POV of antisemitism is true and that there are no counter examples. To do that you have to either ignore counter examples or disparage them. For that method of argument to work for you for awhile, you have to not examine the counter examples and also censor them. That method worked for awhile in the 1950s when the State Department pulled Paul Robeson's passport and the rest of the Joe McCarthy-influenced government made certain that he was not permitted to perform at any major venue in the US or to publicly speak his mind about lynching and other forms of racial discrimination. But that mode of censorhsip wasn't honest and it certainly wasn't moral. You may not see that your argumentation is weak because, so far, in the history of this article, you have been able to gang up on and beat away anyone who does not adopt your WP:POV personal viewpoint. (Couple of editors even used ridicule in the beatdown.) While I am impressed with your determination, the holes weaken your argument. The inability to include and balance differing viewpoints not only weakens the article, it also violates Wikipedia guidelines for neutrality. The takeaway from your argument can be summarized as: "It is my opinion and it is very true." Good luck with that.Skywriter (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me where in anything I have written I said only Jews can be victims? I do not see anyone here or in the article claiming that. Since you cannot read the very words before you, you may want to reflect a bit on why ou are so Jew-obsessed. If you are truly concerned with persectution of Christians, why not work on that article (yes it has its own entire article!)? "You may have convinced yourself that the doctrine of only-Jews-can-be-victims" - where do I say that? And how does this square with the fact that many Rabbis marched with Martin Luther King, and were active in fighting for desegregation and the rights of Blacks in the US? You think Andrew Goodwin and Mike Schwerner were Christians? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"Ignorant?" "Jew-obsessed? Lovely! More personal insults. Why don't you try "self-hating Jew?" The quality of your argument is in its own class, particularly the vulgar distortion that this is about Christians. Repeatedly it has been said--This is about the self-perception of Arabs as Semites as they are affected by antisemitism. I understand your devotion to what you perceive as your page ownership and duty to censor viewpoints that differ from your own. That you think you are right is obvious. That you have failed to persuade is obvious. That this stance is also in violation of Wikipedia rules is evident.Skywriter (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I repeat: "Please tell me where in anything I have written I said only Jews can be victimgs?" ANd please what you mean by "antisemitism victimology?" Are you saying that victims of anti-semitism should not complain? Are you saying that witness of anti-semitism should not complain? Are you suggesting that a victim of anti-semitism cannot care about other victims of racism or oppression? Why can't one oppose anti-semitism and other forms of racism? I repeat my question about Goodwin and Schwerner. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This post does not make a good impression. I am hoping that you will answer the question which is "why do you insist on including all possible sources by using the word exclusive which by its nature gives undue weight to tiny minority views". Exclusive is technically wrong, without doubt. Debated endlessly I agree with you. However in this instance as far as I can see this is entirely because the argument for discussing usage rather than meaning does not exist and it is just WP:OWN which keeps adding back an inappropriate term. --BozMo talk 20:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you responding to my post? Doesn't sound like it. Dude, I am not going to answer your question because I did not add the word "exclusive" to the article and have never argued in favor of its exclusion. This thread opens with Skywriter arguing that antisemitism is also directed at Arabs and I have simply been responding to Skywriter. I know my last post chronologically follows one by you, but I mention Skywriter at the beginnign to make it clear I was responding to his or her post. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I was thrown by the address to Skywriter being a sentence in and the over-indenting. --BozMo talk 08:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

When I worked in (Moslem) Turkey the worst insult seemed to be "Arap" (Arab). No Turk I knew mentioned the Jews either in a negative or positive sense. Not sure whether this is a helpful comment, though it suggests to me that there is a lot of anti-Arabism around and that Moslem brotherhood can be overstated...Colin4C (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)