Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Allegations of Plagiarism

Could user Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 please clarify what I was plagiarising in my last edit? I properly attributed the source of this information, provided citations to the several sources (which are RS) and I am certainly not attempting to pass this work off as my own. I attempted to alter the wording to greater extent then before, but if this is not sufficient, please let me know. I have asked Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 to discuss this on my talk page but he has so far refused to. Therefore, I will bring the issue up here.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

You cannot copy someone else's words and pretend you wrote them yourself. Period. A citation indicates that the information comes from the cited source, not that you have lifted their text and claimed it as your own. You would be (at best) laughed out of any academic institution for trying to copy someone else's book and saying that you cited them so it was okay. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You clearly missed the point of what I was stating - of course I would never submit information taken from another person's work and claim it was my own - I learned that in grade school. However, I have never claimed that the material I added to this article was my own work (I am not getting a grade for this). Rather I was citing information from a reliable source while acknowledging the author and sources and providing proper references. I have admitted that the wording and structure of this information could be altered further (I have already made a proposal which was rejected without any explanation). Your allegation that I am claiming this text as my own is nonsense - I am submitting Robert Fulford's work as it is relevant to this article and is properly sourced (additional sources backing up this information have also been provided). I do acknowledge that I should have altered the wording and sentence structure of this information to a larger degree - but for you to accuse that I am trying to claim this work as my own just is just ridiculous. Furthermore (not that it matters) but I have been editing Wikipedia for several years now and this is the first time I have ever been accused of plagiarism. If I have made a mistake here (I.e. That the wording is to similar) then I will gladly attempt to correct this on the talk page before reinserting it. But comparing this to passing off another person's work as your own in an academic paper is just preposterous. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

Just to follow up, I have added a related case to WP:CCI. a13ean (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

"misnomer" etc

The recent additions have been problematic in a number of ways. Firstly changes to sentences have been made without altering the citations which support them. This can create the impression that the citations say something that they do not. Also there is a confusion between two quite separate issues - whether the term is a "misnomer" (arguably that is the case) and whether it therefore should be used differently. user:Galerita's edit summary implies that he thinks the latter ("The references & the title of Wilhelm Marr's pamphlet suggest anti-semitism was chosen to avoid the religious overtones of Judenhass. For NPOV the refs also make abundantly clear there is significant opposition to the narrow defintion of antisemitism". IMO, they don't.) The EB has been cited on this, which is certainly legitimate. But we should avoid confusion. "Anti-Americanism" refers exclusively to the United States of America. It does not, nor has it ever, meant "antipathy to the people of the continent of America". So it is valid to say BOTH "Hugo Chavez has been accused of being anti-American" and "Hugo Chavez is South American". Likewise "Francophobia" is not aversion to the Franks, or Franconians, despite its etymology. This point, has of course been made repeatedly. In my view the EB is simply wrong to use the term "misnomer", but of course it's a respected source, so its position can legitimately be included with regard to due weight. Paul B (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Although I was the one who first reverted, I would like to see what Galerita's response is to Paul's comments above before I respond to comments Galerita has made elsewhere. Singularity42 (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I've left a note on his talk page. He attempted to raise the matter at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard [1]. Paul B (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Julius Schoeps

I undid a recent edit adding a paragraph sourced to a JPost article about the scholar named above criticizing the Bundestag. I don't think I did a good job of clarifying my objection in the edit summary, so I wanted to spell it out here. In particular I think it focuses too much on one person's comments, and even those don't appear to be reported outside the JP. That being said, I think there's a lot of good material from the controversies stemming from the circumcision stuff, and would suggest this article as a better basis for a paragraph. a13ean (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

MS St. Louis is in Category:Antisemitic attacks and incidents

But Voyage of the Damned isn't mentioned here. It has been also removed from History of antisemitism. Please explain why US antisemitism isn't antisemitism. Xx236 (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC) See also History of antisemitism in the United States.Xx236 (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

See also section

Can this be trimmed of the articles that are already linked in the article body? The section seems pretty bloated. I might come back later but wanted to post here first. Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian quote

I think the quote from an opinion piece by Mudar Zahran ought to be removed from the Palestinian section of this article. It is interesting in a way but it is not a reliable source (as an opinion piece from a highly contraversial figure) about anything and is only relevant on its own merits rather than as a source. As such it is way too fringe for this main article (which is way to long anyway). As I have said before a long lower quality article undermines the impact of ths topic considerably. --BozMo talk 13:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree, but without better, well-sourced content to replace it with, I'm unwilling to remove it personally. My experience is that there is nothing better than excellent, well-sourced content to crowd out bad content, but removing contentious bad content leaves a vacuum that will probably start a fight or simply get replaced with other bad content... Zad68 01:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Protection

Getting to be too much back and forth. Rather than block anybody, it stops them from discussing, I protected. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

From my reading the additions by Redheylin have been reverted by Alexbrn, Roscelese, Singularity42, and myself, and no one has restored Redheylin's edits. The disussion shows a consensus against Reheylin and if he wants to persue his quest, he should stop reverting and take the issue to a notice board. TFD (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, that consensus has been to maintain a contradictory text that misrepresents the cited sources, based upon a pre-existent stated decision to retain a non-neutral article. There is that. Redheylin (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If you believe that the consensus is wrong, then you need to change it. You appear to have failed to persuade the regular editors here and need to persue dispute resolution, rather than edit-warring. TFD (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've read the consensus text and this Talk: page closely, and see neither a "contradictory text that misrepresents the cited sources", nor "a pre-existent stated decision to retain a non-neutral article". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

TFD: "persuade the regular editors here" - WP:OWN "The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article" - "local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline.". Redheylin (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Redheylin, you are conflating WP:OWN with WP:CONSENSUS. You should read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, particularly 2.9, 2.13 and 2.14 there. Zad68 04:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not tendentious editing, Jayjg and Zad68, though it may be that I have misunderstood Roscelese's reason for reversion; "No, that isn't how it works here...the definition is not going to change" as a "pre-existent decision", and misinterpreted that editor's failure to engage in the subsequent debate. Perhaps I have been further misled by that editor's rather long block-log. Redheylin (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It is also not true to say that a consensus on the talk page was opposed to your changes. Some vociferous editors were, but I have pointed out above that your text was a much closer match to Encyclopaedia Britannica, seemed a reasonable compromise and was more logical. There are however some editors who care way too much about the issue and the page has WP:OWN issues so it might be easier for you to walk away. It is a topic with more heat than light. That is not unusual for pages about prejudices, for example it has taken a while to get Anti-Catholicism in the United Kingdom to include that the legislation against Catholics in the UK occurred AFTER the Pope declared that all Roman Catholics had a religious duty to overthrow the British Crown. Do I care? No. --BozMo talk 09:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Apocalyptic antisemitism

This isn't urgent so I'm not making it an edit request, but I'm putting this here so either I or someone else remembers to do it once the page is unprotected - anyway, I'm certain that "apocalyptic antisemitism" is not actually a strain of antisemitism the way economic, racial etc. are, but simply the coincidental usage of the phrase "apocalyptic" to describe antisemitism by two different authors. (The second source cited, the encyclopedia, also uses the phrase "overt antisemitism", but I don't think we would call that a strain either - it is antisemitism that is overt.) Actually, when I noticed that heading, I expected that it would be about something else. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Orientalism

Copy/pasting from my response on my talk page: As I said in my edit summary, I agree that some mention of orientalism may be warranted in the article - it's just that it should be written up rather than just linked, so that readers have some idea of why it is included. Do you think you [Evildoer187 ]could write up a short paragraph on that? I also don't think the category belongs because so much antisemitism is not about orientalism.

(Also - I question the addition of "diaspora". Was that community the largest diaspora community, or the largest at all??) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, antisemitism has very much to do with Orientalism. As the source I've linked to demonstrates, the majority of classic anti-Jewish prejudice operates in conjunction with perceptions of Eastern peoples as mysterious, manipulative, conniving, disloyal, and above all, alien (seeing that Jews are essentially a Middle Eastern people, and not particularly "native" to Europe in that sense). For example, Jewish conspiracy theories such as the Protocols, the killing of Christ, blood libels, Jewish control of the media, banking, etc all have firm roots in European Orientalist prejudices. European enlightenment figures such as Immanuel Kant and Johann Gottfried von Herder designated local Jewish communities as "Palestinians" and "the Asiatics of Europe".

Here's the link again, if you need it: Evildoer187 (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the source is arguing that all antisemitism (as opposed to some antisemitism) is orientalist. (see eg. "American antisemitism has been relatively free of the European staple accusation that Jews were a nomadic desert people.") Even if it did argue that, though, one source, even a good one, would not really be sufficient to make that claim in Wikipedia's voice for a subject about which there is such an immense corpus of scholarship. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, what does the size of the diaspora community have to do with anything? It seems irrelevant to me.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You added the word "diaspora," so I asked you to confirm that it was correct. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I typed up a paragraph on Orientalism, as you requested. Here it is:

Ashkenazi Jews, who are of ancestral South West Asian origins and culturally (and often physically) isolated from the indigenous European populations amongst whom they were resident, were widely understood to be an Oriental people in many of the European countries they had settled. One notable example of this is Immanuel Kant, who once referred to the local Jewish population as "Palestinians among us" in his Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View book. As such, many of the oldest and longest enduring anti-Jewish stereotypes are rooted in Euro-centric prejudices towards peoples of the East. This trend, now commonly known as Orientalism, is the conception of Asian and North African peoples as mysterious, dishonestly and manipulatively intelligent, overly sensual, warlike, and barbarically loyal to their 'tribe' instead of humanity. Examples of this include Jewish conspiracy theories and myths such as blood libels (even though consumption of blood is not kosher), the Jewish killing of Christ, myths of supernatural Jewish powers, Zionist collaboration with the Nazis, Jewish money stereotypes, fears of a Jewish or Zionist 'plot to control the world' (see also: Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and the general idea that Jews/Zionists are immoral, mysterious, demonic, and often act secretly behind the scenes.

Evildoer187 (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That looks good. What section do you think it should go in? (Also, would you agree that it's not appropriate to add Category:Orientalism to the article, since your source points out that not all antisemitism is orientalism? What we could do, if it's important to you to have it in the category in some way, is create something like a redirect Orientalism and antisemitism to the section, and put the redirect in the category.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think it fits in one specific category because a lot of these categories (cultural, racial, economic, apocalyptic, conspiracy theories, and new antisemitism) have their roots in Euro-centric prejudices against Asian/North African peoples i.e. Orientalism. My suggestion would be to add another category and call it "Orientalism", explaining how a lot of antisemitism is driven by, if not directly rooted in, Orientalist prejudice.Evildoer187 (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Evildoer197, do you have a reliable source that antisemitism is rooted in Orientalism? (I ask, because as explained at History of antisemitism, and Antisemitism#history, there appears to be reliable sources identifying other origins of antisemitisim.) On a similar vein, wouldn't the proposed paragraph better fit into the history section rather than its own section? Singularity42 (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

What I just provided is a reliable source. I already explained why on the Jews talk page.Evildoer187 (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It's reliable, but it's one source among hundreds or thousands on antisemitism, and one source alone can't support these sweeping claims about the entire nature of the phenomenon. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I feel it deserves a mention though.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree (the mention should probably be attributed though and not include a WP category). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Article lede

Looking at a recent edit to the article opening, I think that the entire lede here is potentially problematic. Antisemitism (as the article content well demonstrates) is a complex topic that is difficult to define pithily. By trying to have a short once-and-for-all definition, the lede I think over-simplifies it to the point of distorting its meaning. I think the opening definition should be a non-contentious subset of a full definition, that does not give the impression that it is a complete definition; then the reader is invited to discover more in the article body. I think the Anti-Zionism article is a model in doing this (although that article has other problems). The opening words here could be simply "Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is suspicion of, hatred toward, or discrimination against Jews". I think the following list of historical instances, and the discussion of the word's origin would also be better devolved into the article body. Alexbrn (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I have substituted the former edit of the lede. Well referenced material showing alteration of the term's usage attested by notable and authorititive writers was removed by a single editor on his own whim. This is NNPV. Please do not make this alteration again without discussion reaching consensus. Thx. Redheylin (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No, that isn't how it works here. You made an edit that inflated an unusual definition of the word to grossly undue prominence in the article based on comments in news sources rather than scholarly analysis, and it is your job to gain consensus for the change you wish to make. We have the "does anti-Arab hate = antisemitism" issue all the time and the definition is not going to change. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you're addressing me, but I didn't remove any material on usage (and have no intention of so doing) – and I'm not sure its quite right to portray whoever did it as acting on a "whim" … edits should be assumed to be in good-faith edit in the absence of evidence otherwise. Also, of course, consensus does not have to be reached through discussion. But leaving all that aside, I think the material in the lede now misrepresents the report it sources, since that report states "For the purposes of this report, anti-Semitism is considered [etc.]" — i.e. it is not attempting to "define" antisemitism in the same way as the EU activities in this space, but it is a working definition with the narrower scope of the document in which it is made. I will edit the content to make this clear, and I suggest that this just exemplifies the problem I suggested in my first para here — it is not a good idea to try and get a "once and for all" definition into the lede. (Though, Redheylin, I think your last edit makes it much better.) Alexbrn (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I was not addressing you since, as you say, you did not remove the material. Thank you for your support of the edit. Of course you are right about good faith, which I assume as far as possible. However, now Roscelese has got around to explaining this double reversion, I find the following "reasons" given; "that isn't how it works here" (page ownership claim) and "the definition is not going to change" - I'd say that "whim" is a pretty kind expression. Also it is said; "based on comments in news sources rather than scholarly analysis" - whereas in fact, a) one quote I added was from a paper by a Colombia University professor, b) the article already uses CNN and several other news sources and c) the overwhelming majority of "scholarly" quotes come from Jewish polemical sources, creating a NNPOV. Lastly, bold editing is perfectly usual and not to be censured in itself. The job is to reflect all notable and authoritative views and to reflect current usage and I can find no valid reason for reversion here. Just "the definition is not going to change", (even if it HAS changed in the real world, which is clear) which is not, in any way, an acceptable reason for a 2nd reversion. Roscolese has objected to what s/he considers "undue prominence" but has not re-edited it into a more appropriate position - simply removed material that s/he personally does not like, twice BEFORE engaging in discussion. I need a better reason for this lack of etiquette, please. Redheylin (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear that in real life the definition is contested (e.g. a recent legal action in the UK centred on the question of the definition), and this article itself demonstrates that there isn't one clear-cut wording that can be picked as definitive; doing so would be OR. For this reason I don't agree with the removal of the word "commonly" from the opening sentence, and will put it back. As it currently stands, the lede reads like an editorial argument is going on underneath (the para starting 'While ...' is a giveaway). I am not convinced a discussion of etymology is so important it needs to be in the lede. And I think a mention of antisemitism being anti-Arab appearing the lede is to give that aspect undue weight. But then ... I return to my opening comment here. If antisemitism is a topic that has (say) 20 aspects then picking just 3 of those aspects and promoting them to the lede risks structuring the article in such a way that it become OR — and for this reason I'd prefer to see no particular aspects given prominence in this way (unless there's well-sourced justification). Finally, reviewing this article's recent history, I agree it does appear some recent edits here have been peremtory. Alexbrn (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "most commonly" is misleading, because it infers there are exceptions. There is no dispute about the definition, just dispute about what fits the definition. Anti-Zionism may for example be a mask for anti-Semitism. TFD (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The article itself provides multiple different definitions, so it is simply incorrect to claim there is "no dispute". For an editor to boil the definitions down into a single form of words and offer them, without caveat or qualification, as the definition in the the opening words of this article is straightforward WP:SYN in my view. (As an aside, in real life, I refer you to the legal action I mentioned in my previous comment, where the defense against a charge of antisemitism was to produce a definition such as the one that leads this article now, and to claim that because the behavior in question fell outside it, there was no case to answer w.r.t. antisemitism; so I think, given the sensitivity of this article's topic, that editors need to be especially responsible in not unwittingly providing bespoke WP:OR "definitions".) I agree with your comment on Anti-Zionism! Alexbrn (talk) 08:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There is certainly dispute about what constitutes an antisemitic belief, but that's quite different from saying there is dispute about the meaning of the word. There may be dispute about what beliefs or actions would count as "anti-Christian" or "anti-German", but the meaning of the terms themselves are not disputed. Execpt in very very rare and marginal instances the "semitic" part means "jewish", and "antisemitic" has never meant opposition to all Semitic peoples. Paul B (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually I thought "most commonly" was a good compromise because "commonly" is clearly about usage rather than meaning. Ab-usage certainly exists (just as Matan Vilnai's promise of Shoah in the Gaza strip is widely regarded as an ab-usage of "Shoah"). Seems very difficult to care much about the semantics though, the boundaries on use of the word do not change the question of whether there is a concept with value in classifying human behaviour value, which is the point. Otherwise it all seems a bit petty, no?--BozMo talk 15:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of getting lost in some kind of Wittgensteinian maze, I think that's to take a different definition of "define" :-) Sure, in some academic sense the word could be "defined" as you say. But this article opens by stating: "Antisemitism is A, B or C, for reason D" and that form of definition suggests behaviour and intent that will make a reader think about human agency. My worry is that this is WP:SYN since the definitions of what antisemitism "is" that we cite in the article say no such thing in (just) the terms used: they are wider, more nuanced and simply – longer. Maybe it's the word "is" which is problematic ... which I why I favoured "commonly define as" before. But on reflection that is not great either. Maybe something like "is characterized by", "is essentially", "can be summarized as" ... or? Alexbrn (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The bald statement "X is antisemitic", means "x is anti jewish". So that's what the word means. There are of course rhetorical uses to make a point - but that can be applied to lots of words. Paul B (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. It's not an "academic" definition. It's established usage. Foer example "Pedophile" means someone who is sexually attracted to children. It does not mean someone who likes children, analagous to Bibliophile or Francophile, but one can eaily find people who rhetorically say things like "a man who likes children is nowadays suspected of being a pedophile, well that's what it should mean..." [2] [3]. Paul B (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, at the risk of getting into a general discussion, consider three (hypothetical) statements: (1) "I have no problem with Jews in themselves, so long as they accept the Holocaust is not historically proven and that those with power use their power to invent history"; (2) "I have no problem with Jews in themselves, but it must be admitted that Israel, with its immense wealth and tentacles extending into Western governments, has too much power and alone among nations pursues inhuman, monstrous policies"; (3) "I have no problem with Jews in themselves, but Palestine must be free - free from the river to the sea". Are any of these antisemitic? According to the ad hoc opening "definition" in this article's opening arguably not. But according to a properly sourced definition, almost certainly so. So at the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam the problem here is that this article is providing an unsourced, unverified definition of antisemitism which is out-of-sync with verifiable sources in such a way that it makes a meaningful difference when it's put to the test. Alexbrn (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:ARBPIA "All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict *broadly construed* are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). *When in doubt, assume it is related*..... You may also wish to review the arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!" Redheylin (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Alexbrn, your examples shown a confusion between the definition of anti-Semitism and whether specific actions meet the definition. Holocaust denial is considered to be anti-Semitic because the intention and the result is to denigrate Jews. Holocaust deniers deny that is their intention and therefore deny that they are anti-Semitic. TFD (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

TFD, I don't think I'm confusing them, so much as testing one against the other. If somebody says "The sky is blue" and I reply "not when it is cloudy, or at night" - that is not to "confuse" definitions and instances, but to say that some instances call the definition into question. In any case, as this discussion continues I see now that there are really two parallel discussions taking place, and my concern about the opening words is not helpful in the context of the other strand of discussion about anti-Arab anti-semitism ... so I'll go quiet for now and wait until the other issues have got resolved before returning to this topic! Alexbrn (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there are actions specified in the article that might be challenged - particularly mere migration from Arab countries to the new state of Israel. But I'd rather explain why I want to introduce more discussion of usage. The article records; "the word was first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider...about how "Semitic races" were (held) inferior to "Aryan races." And yet the same section says; " the term was coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred")" - now, which is it?

Recently some notable people have questioned the common usage in Europe, unexceptionable when European Semites were almost exclusively Jewish. Many of these recent objectors are of Arab extraction. I find their objection intelligible since they ARE Semites, living in the same land, speaking a mutually-intelligible language, yet the *racial" term, adopted by Jews, is now used against Arabs, perhaps due to the Arab-Israeli wars, whereas expressions such as "anti-Judaic" and "anti-Israel" might be used, specifying not a race but a state or a sect. Certainly it is not surprising that the English-language term has been attached primarily to anti-Jewishness in the 20th century, but this is the 21st.

Since there has now been something of an "Arab diaspora" in the west the objections of such people as Nader, Massad, James Zogby have achieved an audience that certainly compares with that accorded to the plea for the revised spelling "antisemitism" - which is itself proposed in order to circumvent the very problem we are discussing. Yet the article gives full details of this latter. The objection has been accepted by non-Arabs such as the British politician Duncan McFarlane, and this constitutes a minor but significant reversion to Steinschneider's usage. Usages do change, no matter how much one may object: we no longer use expressions such as "Eskimo" and "Hottentot" so freely as was done in the 19thC, and many people also now find the preference for the term "Native American" intelligible enough to accord respect. It seems to me that the usage can only decline in just the same way in the future. If Steinschneider's precedence be accepted, the argument against his original definition is only a matter of usage - and usage appears to be changing. Therefore the article should reflect this properly. Redheylin (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

McFarlane ran as an independent in a council election and got a few hundred votes. Although he said that anti-Arabism is also anti-semitism, you would need a source that this is a common use of the word. I suspect that most prejudice against Arabs is actually Islamophobia and most adherents do not know that Persians and Indians are not Arabs or that all Arabs are not Muslims. TFD (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The EXACT PHRASE "anti-semitism against Arabs" gets 86,700 hits on Google. I think pretty much all British people know that Indians aren't Arabs - and many will remember that Tariq Aziz, for example, is a Christian Arab. And one can argue the same; that most "antisemitism" against Jews is really "anti-Judaism" - otherwise how do converts like Felix Mendelssohn reach the very top of British society, and why was most mediaeval hate of Jews directed against their supposed religious practices and their rejection of Jesus as Messiah?? (the people who DID accept him are now called "Arab Christians"!) Redheylin (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe some people regard attempts to redefine antisemtism to encompass anti-Arab feeling as form of antisemitism in itself i.e. attempting to deconstruct/dilute/discredit established legitimate notions of antisemitism — that might be an explanation of why it's widespread on the web Alexbrn (talk) 10:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

"And one can argue the same; that most "antisemitism" against Jews is really "anti-Judaism" - otherwise how do converts like Felix Mendelssohn reach the very top of British society." Jeez. Perhaps you mean Benjamin Disraeli. Mendelssohn was not British. However, you miss the point entirely. To say "antisemitism" really means "anti-judaism" is simply to say that's what the word means. Like Anti-Americanism means anti-USAism, not anti-Canadianism or anti-Argentinaism. And Francophobia means being anti-French, not anti-Frank. How many times does this have to be repeated???? User talk:The Four Deuces is of course right. There is little or no specifically anti-Arab prejudice. The Taliban, Hezbollah and the Al-Qaeda are interchangable in anti-Islamic popular culture. Paul B (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Alex B - you say; "I believe some people regard attempts to redefine antisemtism to encompass anti-Arab feeling as form of antisemitism in itself". That may be true - I am not arguing one way or another on it, but that web-argument surely only exists because of a perceived change in current usage. Paul B - you are welcome to your personal views but they do not affect the case. Redheylin (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Redheylin — I was being quite straight when I wrote "I believe some people regard …" as this is something I have heard said, and which I repeated to inform the discussion here; as it happens I don't have a personal view on this precise aspect of the debate (and I believe trying to speculate about what editors' personal views are is unhelpful). I wouldn't like to say why the web stats are as they are: Google hit counts don't verify anything clearly one way or the other. I do, however, think the claim than antisemitism encompasses anti-Arab feeling is extraordinary, and so would need extraordinarily convincing sources to have it in the article, and especially in its lede. Having the claim there falls foul of WP:UNDUE and maybe WP:FRINGE – and for that reason (for the purposes of clarifying consensus) I object strongly to your two recent edits that try to place it there. Alexbrn (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Alexbrn, you wrote "I was being quite straight" - I know, and I have also seen this proposition. I am sorry to hear that you object to the last two edits: they merely reinstated the original edit, of which you approved to some extent. I do this because those who are reverting are not those who are discussing. I already invited the information to be placed elsewhere instead: please do. I have pointed out contradictory statements in the text, you have pointed to badly represented citations, the piece looks like a theatre of edit-war. The contradictory account of the term's origin bears directly upon the present case.

I have no doubt about your good faith and your intention to achieve a well-nuanced outcome. I am not arguing morals: to this extent I am surprised by some arguments advanced here. I am arguing usage, and I am doing so because I have the impression that the issue is widespread - even if a broader usage should turn out to be exclusively adopted by English-speaking Arabs, it nevertheless exists. As Roscelese wrote; "We have the "does anti-Arab hate = antisemitism" issue all the time" To me this speaks for itself! - the question is; does the controversy really constitute an adoption of a wider meaning, or is it merely an objection? I am not sure that is yet clear. But frankly, however partial these notable commentators may be, they can barely be excluded for this since some of the "antisemitism=antijudaism only" proponents cited might also be thought to have personal interests.

At the very least I must regard this issue in terms of current affairs, and I think a non-neutral article will therefore reflect the present debate. This might well require modification to categorical statements in the lede, particularly if they are poor representations of the cited sources. Redheylin (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Redheylin, I agree about the "theatre of edit-war" flavour of the lede, and yes - some aspects of your edit are okay, but taken overall I object to it for the reasons i give above. On the topic of personal interests/opinions, I think for Wikipedia in general - and for such a topic as this in particular - there is no value whatsoever in considering them. Editors should resolve just to "not go there"! It seems to me part of the difficulty of this current discussion is there is more than one intersecting discussion going on about the lede. Perhaps a useful consolidation exercise might be to see if we can get consensus at least on where we have got to, and what the issues are before continuing. I think they are:

1. The issue of the opening words of the article (only), and whether the definition they embody is sourced (of particular interest to me, User:Alexbrn)
2. The issue of whether the definition of antisemitism should be expanded to encompass anti-Arabism in (a) this article at all; (b) and/or in the lede (of particular interest to User:Redheylin)
3. The issue of whether the etymological link between the term "Judenhass" and antisemitism belongs in the lede (no partcular owner of this issue??)

— am I right in thinking these are the issues being contended? Alexbrn (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Redheylin, if anti-Semitism has two meanings - prejudice against Jews or prejudice against Semites, then you should have no problem finding a reliable source where one uses the term in the second meaning without mentioning the first, Otherwise all we have is a typical attempt to appropriate a term by changing its meaning, and negate the original meaning. TFD (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

"Redheylin, if anti-Semitism has two meanings - prejudice against Jews or prejudice against Semites, then you should have no problem finding a reliable source where one uses the term in the second meaning without mentioning the first". - I already did, TFD, it's already in the article; "the word was first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider...about how "Semitic races" were (held) inferior to "Aryan races."" Redheylin (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Alexbrn; "The issue of whether the definition of antisemitism should be expanded to encompass anti-Arabism in (a) this article at all; (b) and/or in the lede (of particular interest to User:Redheylin)" My question is; since this idea has been proposed by notable authoritative sources, and since, as Roscelese wrote; "We have the "does anti-Arab hate = antisemitism" issue all the time", why is this issue purposely excluded? We do not have to decide whether the definition SHOULD be expanded, but we DO have to note that this is a notable current issue and ask whether this expanded definition IS ACTUALLY (or ever has been) in use. P.S. Please note; I am speaking of the partiality of cited sources, not of wikipedia-editors. Redheylin (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

A single opinion piece by Joseph Massad (who is hardly a neutral source) and a statement by Ralph Nader sourced solely to a non-mainstream news website do not make this issue notable.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC))

"Redheylin, if anti-Semitism has two meanings - prejudice against Jews or prejudice against Semites, then you should have no problem finding a reliable source where one uses the term in the second meaning without mentioning the first". The reliable source you provided does mention the first meaning. TFD (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh? What kind of random logic is that? As a set theoretist I find it rather astonishing as a claim. --BozMo talk 13:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Out of interest Encyclopaedia Britannica has "usually" where we had "commonly" until it was removed: "Although this term now has wide currency, it is a misnomer, since it implies a discrimination against all Semites. Arabs and other peoples are also Semites, and yet they are not the targets of anti-Semitism as it is usually understood. The term is especially inappropriate as a label for the anti-Jewish prejudices, statements, or actions of Arabs or other Semites." --BozMo talk 13:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Hyperionsteel - you write; "Joseph Massad (who is hardly a neutral source)" - of course, it is we, not our sources, who must be neutral, but I am curious to know why you have decided he is non-neutral?

User:The Four Deuces - Please read Bein (cited): Steinschneider used the term "anti-semitism" to include anti-Arabism and even anti-ancient-Mesopotamianism: it derives from Steinthal's "Semitism", this latter coined to refer to Renan's characterisation of the "Semitic mind". This occurred in 1860, 20 yrs before Marr's followers first used the term as synonymous with "anti-Judaism". Redheylin (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Bein says that "Steinschneider used the term "anti-semitism" to include anti-Arabism" and also says that "Marr's followers first used the term as synonymous with "anti-Judaism"." Now please "find[] a reliable source where one uses the term in the second meaning without mentioning the first." TFD (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, TFD - You can't be asking for a source that uses the term in Marr's sense and ignores Steinschneider's? Are you asking for a quotation that says Jews are NOT Semites, or simply one that mentions Semites without mentioning Jews? No wonder User:BozMo mentioned set theory! Obviously the set "Semites" includes the set "Jews". That is, this is obvious to everybody apart from the Nazis, who said that the term "anti-Semite" should not apply to Jews because they are of mixed race. If you want a piece about anti-Semitism that ONLY mentions anti-Arabism and NOT anti-Judaism, then http://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=2264847&language=en

By the way, equally obviously "Marr's followers first used the term as synonymous with "anti-Judaism"." does not mean "Marr's followers first used the term" but rather that they changed its original sense. Redheylin (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The point is that anti-Semitism refers to prejudice against Jews. You will find some tendentious writers who while acknowledging that meaning will say that it really means prejudice against all Semites. But you cannot find any reliable sources that use the term in that way. You will not find for example articles that refer to bad treatment of the Arab world by the West as anti-Semitism. TFD (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I just gave a link to such an article. The originator of the term referred it to "all Semites". The Encyclopedia Brttanica (and the Nazi party) rejected the term as applying to Jews only. This is because Arabs rightly feel that it applies to them - this has been clear for 80 years, and it is getting much clearer these days. You have a strong personal opinion - a categorical opinion - and label such people "tendentious", but whether they are or not, they exist, and there is no good reason to suppress mention of their existence. Bad reasons there are - a-plenty. Redheylin (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

In response to Redheylin's question "why you have decided he [Massad] is non-neutral? The answer is that he is virulently anti-Israel (and Anti-American), and his efforts to redefine anti-Semitism are related to his efforts to try and delegitimise Israel's existence (i.e. Arabs are semites - So it is actually Israeli Jews who are the real anti-semites). I'm not saying that he can't be considered a reliable source, but he is certainly not a neutral source on this topic. More specifically, Massad's numerous colourful rants against Israel and Jews are legendary (e.g. "It is only by making the costs of Jewish supremacy too high that Israeli Jews will give it up,”) (“[the] Jewish state is a racist state that does not have the right to exist”) (“the racist curricula of Israeli Jewish schools, the racist Israeli Jewish media representations of Palestinians, the racist declarations of Israeli Jewish leaders on the right and on the left, and the Jewish supremacist rights and privileges guiding Zionism and Israeli state laws and policies”) ("[the Zionist urge to] transform European (and later other) Jews into European Christians culturally, while continuing to call them Jews [caused a] historical process by which it was to metamorphose Palestinian Arabs into Jews in a displaced geography of anti-Semitism [and to transform] the Jew into the anti-Semite"). It is statements like these that have led me to conclude (perhaps wrongly) that when it comes to defining and/or redefining Anti-Semitism, Massad cannot be considered neutral source (if you really think that Massad can be considered a neutral source when it comes to the definition of Anti-Semitism, I look forward to hearing your argument. Even so, surely you will agree that a professor who, unlike Massad, doesn't have a life-long neurotic obsession with Israel's destruction would be a more suitable source for this topic.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC))

User:Hyperionsteel - thank you for your well-considered answer. I agree that Massad's work, while scholarly and notable, may well be influenced, as a Palestinian, by his views on the state of Israel, but the "antisemitism" issue is not merely his idea, nor always related to Israel, the founding of which it precedes so, while I accept your personal view is sincerely held, it is no more than a personal view. For my part I'd not venture to base the entire article on his work, but I would have you consider the following sources, all freely used in the article; Ha'aretz, The Jerusalem Post, The Stephen Roth Institute, The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, The Holocaust History Project, The Anti-Defamation League - and ask you to consider whether or not all Wikipedia editors might accept these sources, among others, as clearly neutral. If not it is up to us to achieve neutrality, first by accurate use of cited sources, second by taking due cognisance of the widespread nature of the debate ("We have the "does anti-Arab hate = antisemitism" issue all the time") and lastly but not least, to take care to balance non-neutral sources appropriately, for which last purpose Massad is sufficiently reliable and notable. It seems to me that these three things are not being done, and so neutrality has not been achieved. The only other possibility is to remove ALL aligned and interested sources. Redheylin (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Redheylin's observations that Hyperionsteel's response, which is in effect saying "Massad's use of the word can't be considered useful because he is an antisemite himself," is not a strong argument, as it's an ad hominem. To answer the question "What should be in the article, and what emphasis should the article give?" I'd rather look for consensus across the best available reliable secondary and tertiary sources. I looked at a few dozen search results for "antisemitism" in Google Scholar and Highbeam, and reviewed the use of the word by secondary and tertiary sources. My observation is that academic reliable sources overwhelmingly consider antisemitism to be, as Encyclopedia Britannica puts it, "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group." EB goes out of its way to say "Arabs and other peoples are also Semites, and yet they are not the targets of anti-Semitism as it is usually understood." The other sources bore this out. The application of 'antisemitism' to groups other than Jews, and to Arabs in particular, does happen, but is a highly unusual use of the term, to the point of being a striking rhetorical device used to make a point when it does happen. Massad's article is a case in point. Redheylin does have a point that the article should mention this, but in line with WP:DUE weight it should be only briefly in the body of the article, perhaps a sentence or two. The sources do not at all support having this use of the term take up half of the first paragraph of the lead, as was proposed in the edit under discussion. Personally, I don't see the sources supporting a mention of this highly unusual use of the word in the lead at all, but could be convinced otherwise if sufficient high-quality secondary sourcing were found for it. Zad68 01:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Zad68 - I have not reintroduced Massad, Nader, James Zogby, the Kuwaiti National News Agency, Edward Said or any of the other notable claimants, but, following Bein and Lewis' excellent work, I have reworked the top of the article to avoid contradicting them, particularly by removing the now-obsolete notion that "Marr invented the term as an alternative to "Judenhass"". I hope it will be found that the article reads well, is supported by the most modern and exhaustive authorities, includes all valid former information and yet will allow the current debate to be included without causing contradictions. Please discuss any necessary revision - thanks. Redheylin (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: My point was that an opinion piece published on an Egyptian government-controlled website by a professor with a life-long neurotic hatred of Israel and Jews isn't exactly an impeccable source when it comes to defining or redefining Anti-Semitism. If the redefinition of this term is as widespread as you have claimed, I'm sure scholars who are less contentious than Massad, and who have been published in sources that are more mainstream, can be found for citations.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC))

PS - the exact text of the Chambers Dictionary definition I used; "anti-Semite, n, a hater of Semites, esp. Jews, or of their influence". The narrower Merriam-Webster definition remains below. thx. Redheylin (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Clarification; You still appear to be saying that a pro-Israel, anti-Arab source is OK - you are not removing them or commenting on them - but anything written by an Arab is "not OK". Redheylin (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Really? Please clarify where I stated or implied that "anything written by an Arab is not ok"? Massad's ethnicity is irrelevant if he was White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, or Vulcan, I would express the same concern for the same reason: he passionately dispises Israel and anyone who believes it has a right to exist and a single polemical opinion piece by him, published in a government controlled Egyptian newspaper, is not sufficient to justify the inclusion of the concept that Anti-Semitism applies to all Semitic peoples as opposed to Jews (in an earlier version of this, Massad's opinion piece was front and centre). Your implication, that I am somehow arguing that "anything written by an Arab is not ok", is based either an extremely exiguous interpretation on your part, or you are simply being disingenuous. To be clear, my concern about Massad is his concupiscent hatred of Israel and those who belief it has a right to exist, and my belief that an opinion piece by him is (or rather, was) not sufficient to support this concept. Please be more careful making allegations of racism or bias in the future.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC))

The fact that you're cherrypicking the few sources which support your preferred definition, in the face of the enormous body of scholarship that uses a different definition, is exactly the problem. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Roscolese, I use the dictionary I have. That's what it says. It is a definition that does not contradict the rest of the article. On the other hand the following statements are contradicted by Bein and other modern authorities;

• the term was coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred")
• Heinrich von Treitschke... coined the term "the Jews are our misfortune"
• Marr developed his ideas further and coined the related German word Antisemitismus

The contradiction is with the following, already in the text;

• "the word was first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider"

- I pointed this out the other day. No response.

The following quote, used several times, is misquoted by removing the rider "for the purposes of this report";

• "The U.S. Department of State defines antisemitism in its 2005 Report on Global Anti-Semitism as "hatred toward Jews—individually and as a group—that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity."

The following, already in the text, is contradicted in the lede and elsewhere;

• "The term anti-Semitic has been used on occasion to include bigotry against other Semitic-language peoples such as Arabs"

Finally, the account of Steinschneider I added is far more refined and better-sourced.

Roscolese, I take your remark about "cherry-picking" as an accusation of bad faith, and ask you to modify or to withdraw it, please.

Both of you, I draw your attention again to; Wikipedia:ARBPIA "All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict *broadly construed* are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). *When in doubt, assume it is related*

I look forward to a point for point justification of all material you have reverted. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for me, or anybody, to provide a point-for-point anything. I will say simply this: don't make significant edits that attempt to decide an ongoing discussion in a certain way, when it's clear no consensus has been reached. As to the substance of your edit, I have already written my view above: I may have some disagreement with this article's definition of antisemitism, but I certainly don't think it should be extended to encompass anti-Arabism, without an extraordinarily convincing source. Alexbrn (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Alex, thank you for responding. Now, point for point! Can you point out where the edit you reverted "extended (the article) to encompass anti-Arabism" and "attempted to decide an ongoing discussion in a certain way"? And can you explain why you reintroduced the objective failings of the article I listed above? Especially, why did you remove the clarifications "normally/usually" and "for the purposes of this report", which you yourself have said are better representations of cited sources? This, again, is a matter of fact, and nobody has contradicted you - they can not! Is it OK to revert without discussing? Is it OK to revert without even reading? Redheylin (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Redheylin, I am using "anti-Arabism" (sloppily) as shorthand for "anti-anything-except-Jews-and-Jewishness", so you'll understand why I don't accept your edit, particularly when its very opening is "Antisemitism [...] is suspicion of, hatred toward, or discrimination against Semitic-speaking peoples". I think that's undue/fringe. Alexbrn (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"I think that's undue/fringe" - I think that is Chambers' Dictionary, as quoted above. I also think it is preventing the lede from contradicting the following existent text; "The term anti-Semitic has been used on occasion to include bigotry against other Semitic-language peoples such as Arabs, but such usage is not widely accepted.<r*f>Matas, David.[http:books.google.com/books?id=DYR7SqcMe9gC&pg=PA34 Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism], Dundurn Press, 2005, p. 34.</r*f><r*f>Lewis, Bernard (1999). Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry Into conflict and Prejudice. p. 117.</r*f> I also think it is taking stock of Bein - the cited authority on Steinschneider - who also contradicts the article's account of Marr and Trietschke. And I also think it is taking account of the fact that all this misinformation, serving the supposed "mainstream" view with which the cited authorities to various degrees disagree, is from the hand of one single editor. Finally, reverting changes that you have advocated and removing accurate, well-sourced information because of your personal wish to make the lede contradict the text is, to say the least, odd, and maintaining that the above exchange constitutes a search for consensus is difficult. Redheylin (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Why the bizarre accusation of having a "personal wish to make the lede contradict the text"? It was after all I that opened up this whole discussion of the lede! The lead must necessarily be a subset of what is contained in the article as a whole, and only the most significant things should be there. I don't regard Chambers dictionary as the last word in authorities for defining antisemitism which - as you surely know (since it has been discussed above) - has a great many contested definitions. The challenge is sorting the wheat from the chaff. Alexbrn (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"Why the bizarre accusation?" - It's a plain description of bizarre behaviour, Alex. You say; "The lead must necessarily be a subset of what is contained in the article as a whole, and only the most significant things should be there." - but the guideline says "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies" (without undue weight): if you have "insignificant" things in the text - if you are going to have "a great many contested definitions" - and they are there, I did not put them there - then you cannot begin with a definition that excludes them. You cannot have an article that says "this nearly always means A, and rarely B", with a lede that says "this always means A and never B". But this is the state of affairs you chose, and now you are asking "why would I choose that?". I don't know. Redheylin (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Redheylin, I am sorry you've now descended to personal attack. As a newcomer to this Article I am interested in improving the definition, but that does not mean that the way that you think disparate opinions are to be synthesized, is something I have to agree with. Please accept that different opinions on antisemitism must be accorded different weight. Granted, this is a tricky thing to do well -- I have started a new section here which suggests a way forward. Alexbrn (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

As has been explained, and shown with the sources, antisemitism's meaning has always been (and remains) "Jew hatred", despite arguments by some that it should be redefined. An argument that a common term should be redefined is not the same as an example of common usage (or even an example of usage at all). If you want to discuss anti-Arabism, there is a whole article devoted to it. And by the way, Marr did indeed coin the modern term "antisemitism" (antisemitismus); Steinschneider coined the term "anti-Semitic" (antisemitisch) to describe a different phenomenon, but his coining did not gain acceptance or become common use. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Cited source; Alex Bein, "The Jewish Question: Biography of a World Problem", quoting Eisenstadt's "Ozar Ysrael" - this is the source currently used. P 594; "The compound "anti-Semitism" appears to have first been used by Steinschneider". p.595; "Marr never claimed to have coined the word" (or to have founded the Anti-Semitic League btw). The article says that these two usages derive from the very same source - Steinthal's "Semitism". Nothing about a "different phenomenon" or any distinction between "anti-semitic" and "antisemitism" - that's your OR. Bein makes it clear that Renan, Steinthal and Steinschneider all meant "Semitic-speaking people" as a whole, and specifically says that this usage "contains all the elements that may be found in the later political, militant version of the word". The article also quotes Lewis and Matas as saying; "The term anti-Semitic has been used on occasion to include bigotry against other Semitic-language peoples such as Arabs". My edit reflected these sources faithfully. I also provided an example of current usage in the original sense. I also provided sources for the current controversy about the meaning which you wish to exclude. But the article as it stands does not make sense and does not accurately reflect the sources, and this is not a matter that requires consensus, it is a matter of fact. Redheylin (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that a great solution to this is to state the sources exactly as they are with due weight. For example take one sentence in the lede I'm sure thats enough and say something like "It is also rarely used to include discrimination against other semites but this use is controversial." I think that would guarantee its stated while making sure that it is know that is by far not the common or possibly even proper usuage. This reminds alot of how people sometimes mis-use the word racism to refer to non-racial, non-ethnic and non-national groups. Ex. "You're racist against gays". Clearly thats not the proper usage of racism. But I won't deny that it is used that way at times.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Redheylin is incorrect in saying there was an original meaning as Steinschneider's word did not enter the language with his meaning. TFD (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that's the critical point here; all sorts of words are coined, often multiple times, but the meaning is that with which they finally enter the language and gain common currency. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A way forward? Proposal on using EUMC definition

The recent discussions about the definition of antisemitism and how it is described in the lede, has furthered my conviction that the Article currently does this poorly. I think the "heat" of the discussion is a symptom of that: because there is no authoritative definition given, there is a risk of other, dubious/fringe definitions claiming a right to be here. As editors here have been pointing out, there is a vast range of opinion on how antisemitism is defined. The problem then is how we as editors pick and choose among these, to decide which to include, and how to synthesize them, while maintaining a visible and defensible NPOV. What we really need is some "super-survey" of antisemitism, which provides an authoritative distillation which we can cite. Well, I believe just such a thing exists: the so-called "EUMC" definition which came out of the European Forum on Antisemitism (now the Union Agency for Fundamental Rights). This piece of work aimed at drafting "a single, comprehensive definition for use in the field". The working definition is available here (and is of course, already mentioned in this Article).

Using this document as a gold-standard source, I think we have a way to address the question above of whether prejudice against non-Jews counts as antisemitism. I propose that since the EUMC definition casts antisemitism purely as a phenomenon involving Jews, Jewishness, Jewish institutions, and the Jewish state, anything which falls outside this can be considered as WP:FRINGE. This is not to say that such definitions are not worthy of a proportionate (i.e. brief) mention in the body of the article, but should probably be identified as minority views. I further think that the article should use the EUMC definition as its opening words: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” This is an up-to-date view which has been synthesized by experts, and so beats (I suggest) anything which we as Wikipedia editors might synthesize ourselves. Alexbrn (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think the EUMC is not a good starting place. I am afraid that it is very definitely a lobby group with a very strong POV. I wonder if that was the reason why the EU quietly shuffled away from it. --BozMo talk 10:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

"The European Forum on Antisemitism (EFA) was founded in Berlin on March 13th, 2008, at a conference of more than 50 Jewish leaders and experts from 15 European countries, the U.S. and Israel. The European Forum on Antisemitism assists Jewish leaders and experts accessing and exchanging relevant information on strategies to combat antisemitism. In addition, the forum promotes public discussion of facets of antisemitism and seeks to heighten public awareness of cases of antisemitism." With the greatest respect, a pan European meeting of "Jewish leaders and experts" has a very definite perspective on the issue of Anti-Semitism. --BozMo talk 10:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

What a curious position! Such people are likely to be experts aren't they? Would you maintain that racism couldn't be well defined by a group of black people, or feminism by a group of women? Personally, I think the idea that Jews cannot decide what antisemitism is, is in itself antisemitic. Also to call the group "very definitely" a lobby group seems strange: this was an international (European) effort established by European legislation and acting as a governmental agency. Who was meant to be lobbying whom? Alexbrn (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth, in common with most Anglicans, I do not accept the Pope's definition of who is "Catholic". I would not accept a Roman Catholic commission, however sincere, as being able to provide a neutral point of view on that issue (I am a Catholic of course, in my view). And I do not equally believe that anti-semitic as a word has owners either and therefore any group with common features will have a perspective. --BozMo talk 13:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You need to establish through a secondary source that their definition has gained acceptance. "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination" could make the definition wider than most sources would. Palestinian opposition to the establishment of Israel was not necessarily motivated by anti-Semitism. TFD (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, in the UK, in 2006, the primary recommendation of an All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism] was that "the EUMC Working Definition of antisemitism is adopted and promoted by the Government and law enforcement agencies" - I think I can source plenty of stuff showing the definition has been used in public and private organisations in the UK, if more would help. Incidentally, the EUMC document is, I think, extremely carefully worded, and you have misrepesented it slightly. In its terms, "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination" is not necessarily antisemtic, but is an example of the way in which antisemtism manifests itself, taking account of the overall context.

I'm not claiming the definition is perfect, BTW, but it's something that has been reviewed, decided and used under governmental oversight by hundreds of people, and so is going to be a lot better than what a bunch of Wikipedia editors synthesize themselves. Alexbrn (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have read the definition and am aware that it draws the line between Israeli and Jewish carefully and sensibly. It does certainly try to be entirely fair. However, trying to be fair is different from having a neutral point of view. The document is really trying to establish the limits of legal behaviour which are not the same as the limits of usage. And of course the UK commission has the same weakness: there was essentially no representation from, for example Islamic or Arabic mainstream groups. To give you another example, consider the word "Orphan". There is a widespread legal definition in immigration which is "a minor bereft through death or disappearance of, abandonment or desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents". The definition is critical for establishing who can enter a country but that definition is not an accurate reflection of common linguistic usage. What is prohibited in law as anti-semitic may not reflect what many people on the planet feel is AS. I do not offer it as a source, but I do observe that there are hundreds of millions of arabs in the Middle East and the few dozen from whom I have heard opinion on this point all regard restricting "anti-semitism" to anti Jewish prejudice similarly to how the Irish react when told (correctly) that Eire is part of the British Isles. The (ex) Prime Minister of Lebanon made some comments along the lines of it being a theft of his ethnicity and millions of people agreed with him. Fine, Wikipedia is an American encyclopaedia which reflects usage in New York, I don't have a problem with that. But writing off the opinions millions of people as fringe on the basis of a working party of that composition is not something to be proud of. --BozMo talk 13:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we all need to be clear that in the document the "definition" is just the first couple of lines: the rest of the document is supporting narrative. What I am proposing in textual terms is taking the definition and using it as the opening of the article. Going forward, as an MO I am also suggesting that we Wikiepdia editors can, if we like, use this document as a basis for deciding questions of what is fringe or not, rather than having never-ending vexed discussions about that (as we have been doing).

I am not entirely sure what your objections are w.r.t. neutral point of view of the definition. It's not as if a valid definition has to balance (say) Nazi ideology with Zionism before it's okay. The definition is the result of a huge amount of expert work.

I am surprised by your statement that the UK inquiry lacked representation — it simply isn't true. If you look at the list of witnesses (122 people!) you will see a very broad representation, including multiple foreign embassies, police, representatives of anti-racist groups, an Imam, and Sir Iqbal Sacranie (then Secretary-General, Muslim Council of Britain). The MP's who constitute the committee are of course democratically elected representatives of their constituents (of all races and creeds).

I take your point about the word orphan, but fail to see its relevance here. First because we lack a "common linguistic usage" of antisemitism (the reason for this entire discussion!), and secondly because the EUMC definition aims to be "a single, comprehensive definition for use in the field" (my emphasis) — of all the criticisms I've heard levelled against it, being too technical to be understood isn't one of them! Alexbrn (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Witnesses are of course different from authors. Broadly I think here it is true to say that a legal definition of AS exists, and certainly has to exist for jurisdictions or environments where it needs to be banned. However the legal definition for such a context is not the end of the discussion on the meaning of the word, and certainly does not of itself constitute a basis for defining "fringe". Here, the common usage and the legal usage nearly do coincide (you notice that I only suggested including "usually" per Encyclopaedia Britannica or "commonally" per the edits of another. I am sorry that you do not seem willing to think about the distinction. --BozMo talk 19:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

BozMo — thank you for informing me of what I do not seem willing to think about (which is wrong, BTW). If you review the discussion above you will see I was quite happy to countenance the use of the word "commonly" ("usually" would have been okay too). However, I am now proposing another approach. How is that not okay? Alexbrn (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposing another approach per sae is a good thing of course. However, careful consideration of issues raised about the new approach you propose would be more helpful than polemics. Perhaps though reading the above I started it by being too direct about the issue; but I did try to illustrate the problem with several examples and was met with your comment that you "fail to see its relevance here". Sorry if I took that as meaning more that you intended but you were the person to use the word "fail" about what you were doing. The distinction I was making is fairly clear and I am puzzled if you are really trying to see it and failing. --BozMo talk 21:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

As to what "millions of people" think — the very last thing we should be doing as Wikipedians is considering ourselves unelected representatives of the people of the planet, and trying to second-guess and represent their unpublished views. Wikipedia deals in verifiablity, not truth – that's just basic. The EUMC definition offers a well-tested well-sourced single written definition of antisemitism, and I suggest we should be using it … without interposing layers of WP:OR ! Alexbrn (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I did of course take care to say that I was not proposing the comment as a source. However, again you seem to be trying to win an argument to the gallery rather than understand what the issues are. I am not bothered in any particular way about the article on AS and did not edit it. I have only ever come across current (as opposed to historical) antisemitism on a website someone told me about, it is not something one encounters where I live. I care only as a long term editor about quality on Wikipedia but I am sure I can find a better return on my time. So go ahead, take a lobby group set up to try to get national governments to enact policy as a basis to define something in a manner which E Britannica says is "especially inappropriate as a label for the anti-Jewish prejudices, statements, or actions of Arabs or other Semites". It is fine as a basis for legislation of course. --BozMo talk 19:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

BozMo — thanks for telling us what a great editor you are, and how I am failing. And I'm sorry you feel your valuable time is wasted here – but I truly hope for Wikipedia's sake that your concept of "quality" isn't exemplified by that last comment. Alexbrn (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that again you misrepresent me for some reason. I did not say I was a great editor as you know. I do not appreciate your repeated attempts to personalise this discussion. --BozMo talk 21:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Bozmo — I'm sorry, but that's pretty rich. The personalization has originated from you, specifically your statements about things I "do not seem willing to think about" (how can you presume to know that? why couch it in those personal terms?) and your personal self-characterization as someone who "care[s] only as a long term editor about quality" … the clear implication being that others, in comparison, do not care ... especially when followed by your snidely dismissive injunction "So go ahead …". And what do you think it says to editors here that you state "I can find a better return on my time" (another personal statement)? I know I am only a newbie with 1,000 edits to my name, while you are an Admin with an order of magnitude more … but I put it to you that your mode of discussion here is less than exemplary. I am sorry though that I have responded to it in kind and for this I apologize both to you, and to other readers. Alexbrn (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Fine. My remark was tired and resigned rather than snide but I can see why you read it that way. --BozMo talk 07:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Bozmo — I read the Britannica entry differently to you I think. I take "The term is especially inappropriate as ..." as meaning "The term's misnomer nature is especially pronounced as ..." – this seems to me to make sense given context of the preceding sentence. Alexbrn (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No, thats how I read it. --BozMo talk 07:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we perhaps weight it differently then? I read this as just being an etymological curio and then move on (pausing briefly to reflect with a sigh that language is messy and unstable). Alexbrn (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

And for clarity I mentioned I was a long standing editor/admin mainly because you produced what I am afraid I took as a rather patronising speech in response to something which was not a content proposal. I am sure that that does not reflect your normal approach on Wikipedia. Of course had you said I was off topic I would have taken it on the chin. --BozMo talk 21:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry BozMo, I didn't know you were an Admin when I wrote that post; so I'm sure you know about "verifiability, not truth" and all that :-O I mainly frequent rather less, errr, prestigious Articles than this one so don't think I've ever run into an Admin on a Talk page before. I suppose I see this Article (to which I am new, BTW) as being fairly deadlocked with regard to the definition of AS, so am adopting quite a provocative, advocacy-like approach to try and get some movement on the lede. Maybe that's not the best way for WP? Alexbrn (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of admins on this page. Of course on content being an admin does not make one's opinion more valuable, it was only the policy bit. Incidentally I am happy including the definition you suggest in the lede but it has to be couched as a teachnical definition not used as the shiboleth for what is core. I think (as you appear to) that the lede needs some recognition of the issues. --BozMo talk 07:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Weight is not assigned on the basis of numbers supporting different views, what governments say or what Americans living in New York (and we know who lives there) think. It is what mainsteam academic sources say. So we need to find how academic sources have responded to the EUMC definition. TFD (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure. It's quite rare, I think, to find much scholarly work that evaluates definitions such as this; they tend instead to restate it and analyse its real-world reception. Nevertheless, here are some pertinent snippets from books (I can't search journals just now).

• In Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America — "an influential modern modern reformulation of the definition of antisemitism ... important for its recognition that "such manifestations could also target the State of Israel ..."
• In Politics and Resentment: Antisemitism and Counter-Cosmopolitanism — "[EUMC] offers some useful reference points in order to develop a set of robust criteria to classify antisemitism"
• In The Cambridge Dictionary of Judaism and Jewish — "The behaviour is a prescriptive statement about behaviours that might be regarded as socially unacceptable ... No single definition can be regarded as correct or incorrect: the test of the various definitions can be only the extent to which they aid or inhibit the understand of how Jews and non-Jews have interacted and continue to interact"
• In If I Am Not For Myself: Journey of an Anti-Zionist Jew (with regard to holding Jews responsible for the actions of Israel) — "here for once we ought to be able to share the solid ground of a recognized common feature of racism ... Everybody agrees that it is deplorable to blame an individual Jew"

So, Alex, if I may ask - you did not mention the source of your reason for reverting, that I had introduced Arabs - which I had not. If it was a simple mistake, that's perfectly alright - or rather, nearly alright. What I did, following Chambers, was try out the word "especially" as an alternative to forms such as "normally", "(most) commonly" (which you had supported), and I did so because the article does record other uses, "fringe" though they may be. This occurs both in the earliest usages and the latest - and also, oddly, with the Nazis who, Bein records, knew that the word (as the Enc. Brit. concurs) might offend Arabs. Still, this was hardly a reason to revert the entire thing.

As far as your present suggestion goes, at least, I do think it would be a really good idea to distinguish between a) political statements (such as the EU), b) scholarly sources (Bein, Lewis et al. which I prefer), c) journalism and d) polemic. I am not worried about facile notions of balance in scholarly sources - for example Bein was a major Zionist, but his scholarship is impeccable and rises above narrow allegiance - but I AM concerned about the unbalanced use of the last 2 categories, all of which seem to be strongly weighted towards a Jewish viewpoint that tends to see ALL negative comment about any Jew as anti-semitic and strongly rejects any non-Jewish application of that term. For example, there's a piece about "antisemitism in the ancient world", a concept that Lewis strongly rejects, as he does also the idea of Muslim anti-semitism - moreover, he rejects these ideas in essays that are cited in the article. This is not a reason to dispose of the topic - Flannery accepts the idea, for example - but it is wrong to ignore his view, he is a leading authority who happens to believe that anti-semitism is rooted in Christianity, first and last. His view, it seems to me, may be excluded IN ORDER to maximise the amount of apparent antisemitism in the world!

Similarly, looking at these political statements, again, a significant one is missing; the 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance Declaration, which, once more, is excluded EVEN THOUGH it is tacitly in a (very polemical) cited source. It is freely available on the web,[4] it is referred to in cited works, but it is not here. It "Calls upon States, in opposing all forms of racism, to recognize the need to counter anti-Semitism, anti-Arabism and Islamophobia world-wide, and urges all States to take effective measures to prevent the emergence of movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas concerning these communities...." Does not actually *identify* anti-Arabism and anti-Semitism, but... I can understand how, even in good faith, it might be dismissed as unworthy by some editors, but it *does* exist. That is; in this case, some ideas run so deep as to produce assumptions that are not quite NNPOV - such as the idea, expressed above, that "anti-semitism" and "anti-semitic" are two completely different concepts. Like BozMo, I have run into similar things before in religiously-related articles, with Muslims, with Hindus - it is "faith", not "bad faith" - but it is still non-neutral to the non-aligned reader. Redheylin (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Redheylin — we seem to be going round in circles, us two. I think my revert is consistent with my opinion that (a) any definition of AS, especially in the lede, MUST be mainstream and good in the various ways WP demands, and (b) that any major edit, particularly which bears on a topic under discussion, needs to have broad consensus from the editors here. I have no objection to recording minority definitions (such as the ones that interest you) elsewhere in the article, with appropriate labelling.

As to the 2001 World Conference, I've just read this and can't see it has any special stance on AS. Am I missing something?

You refer to the view that "ALL negative comment about any Jew [be seen] as anti-semitic", and such a view would of course be ludicrous. But nobody is proposing such a view be included here, are they? Alexbrn (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Alex, you had commented; "Redheylin, I think your last edit makes it much better" "this article is providing an unsourced, unverified definition of antisemitism"... "I favoured "commonly define as" before. But on reflection that is not great either. Maybe something like "is characterized by", "is essentially", "can be summarized as" ..." In order to deal with this, taking account of the pre-existent statement in the article; "The term anti-Semitic has been used on occasion to include bigotry against other Semitic-language peoples", I inserted the Chambers definition (the only dictionary I have by me), which says "prejudice against Semites, especially Jews". In doing so I believed I was working in the direction you (and BozMo) intended. You reverted. I asked why: you said I was attacking you. I asked again - still no answer. There can be no consensus if you do not discuss, while avoidance of explicit contradictions is a matter of policy, not local consensus. So this is why we are going in circles - or simply getting nowhere. The only other option I can suggest is something like "Antisemitism is prejudice against Jews though this is a change from its original meaning (cite Bein on Steinschneider) and a misnomer (cite Enc. Brit.) and is contested by, and offensive to, other Semitic-speakers (several cites). How about that?

Re; the "ludicrous view", such a view is also present in that a great deal of space is dedicated to Antisemitism in antiquity and Muslim antisemitism. A leading authority, much used in the article, Bernard Lewis, contends that neither of these exists, but this view is avoided in the text, even though the short essay in which he states this is freely used elsewhere. This is what I mean by "maximising antisemitism". Redheylin (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello again Redheylin — Do I think the article can stand improvement? Yes. Do I think some limited aspects of your proposals would aid in that? Yes. Do I think your last edit achieved an overall improvement? No.

My hunch is that while I am coming at this from the perspective of wanting to broaden the definition to align it with real contemporary usage (which broadens it in certain ways compared to how it stands), and while you too want to broaden it, our wished-for broadenings are quite different in character. I want to ensure that behaviours such as Holocaust denial and obsessive anti-Israel criticism are explicitly encompassed in this article's opening conception of antisemtism: and that is why I am in favour of caveating the opening definition as it stands (as a gesture in that direction, in lieu of getting a better re-write). You (correct me if I'm wrong) want to broaden the definition to encompass prejudice against "Semitic-speaking peoples". While I accept that this latter definition exists - it is a curious kind of fringe definition so should appear - if at all - in the article body, and not in the lede. I think we also have merely procedural difference in that I am thinking of fixing the lede first, then attending to consistency issues in the body, while you (perhaps more properly) are taking a "whole article" view. Alexbrn (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

So what about the alternative I proposed Alex? It gets around the (still well-referenced and accurate) mention of "Semites". I have not at any time suggested that "behaviours such as Holocaust denial and obsessive anti-Israel criticism" are not to be mentioned. (You have still not stated your objection to the rewrite of the "origins and usage" section that you also removed). Please note WP:Lede - "The lead should..define the topic..including any prominent controversies" and also the existence of Template:Contradict. I certainly am concerned about making the lede summarise the entire article adequately. Redheylin (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Redheylin, but it's not clear to me what your current proposal is. Could you please briefly list your proposed "before" and "after" texts? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I find the EUMC Working Definition to be extremely useful, but it cannot be taken as a "gold standard" definition; it is precisely a working definition and it has been contentious. Its purpose is in providing a guideline for those responsible for monitoring these, in assessing hate crimes if hate crimes should count as antisemitic, but it also makes it clear that whether they will always depends on "context", so it cannot by itself be used as a final gold standard criterion. Also, a couple of inaccuracies in the discussion above, worth bearing in mind: European Forum on Antisemitism did not become the Fundamental Rights Agency. The Forum was involved in the origin of the Working Definition, but the body which gave birth to it (as its name implies) was the EUMC - European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, now the FRA. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Bob! I think that is an interesting observation. I agree with your characterization of the definition as a guideline. With its appeals to context it is surely unsuitable as the basis for legislation (this view contrasts with BozMo's above worry that the definition is a technical, legalistic definition). However, for this reason I think it's good for Wikipedia, since it is a good example of current usage (not perfect, but a lot better than what we've got, which is fairly close to the rather unhelpful "hating Jews as Jews" definition) – it also has the advantage of being verifiable while what we've currently got is editorial synthesis, I think. Alexbrn (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jayjg, the controversy revolves around the following; on the one hand the general usage of the term "antisemite" has been overwhelmingly to describe European religio-political anti-Judaism, and many authorities confine its usage to this, particularly within Jewish scholarship/polemic about Jews. On the other hand this is a "misnomer" (Enc. Brit.) since the term "Semite" began as a linguistic one before it was used in racist anthropology by Renan to refer to Arabs and Jews alike, characterised by Steinschneider as "antisemite". The term was then adopted by political activists - Germans against Jews. However even the Nazis recognised that the "misnomer" antagonised other Semitic-speakers, and in the last 20 years or so, since it has been applied by Jews to Arabs themselves, it has caused controversy.

Some editors wish to exclude this "other hand" from the lede. It is poorly represented in the text, in a way that barely represents the quoted sources neutrally, and is felt to be too "fringe" to appear in the lede. On the other hand, I'd like those matters to be carefully explained in the text, just as I explained them hereabove, and I'd like to at least prevent the lede from directly contradicting the text. I have suggested three or four ways of doing this, but I am being reverted each time without substantive discussion. Redheylin (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Redheylin — I don't think you've characterized the debate quite correctly. I think everybody accepts that the word is a misnomer (that is surely unarguable). The argument is about usage – in particular whether the usage you mention (broadly, prejudice against semitic-speaking peoples) is fringe, and if so whether it should appear in the article and/or in the lede. A parallel argument, about another misnomer, is whether the etymologically-derived meaning of the word "pedophile" (i.e. a friendly child enthusiast) should be mentioned in the article on that topic. Alexbrn (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Etymology is one thing, usage is another. "Paedophile" is a badly-constructed word, and I'd not object to that being pointed out in an article, but it has only ever been used in one way and so would not cause any contradiction if the bad etymology were not mentioned in the lede. Here, on the other hand, there is an undoubted history of different usage, already mentioned in the text, and there has been ongoing controversy about the term's narrower but more common usage because of an alteration of meaning from its original intent. The present text does not handle this well - it says both that Steinschneider and Marr originated the word, and that it both can and can't be used more broadly. The broader meaning is still included in Chambers' - not a fringe source. Various other notable controversies have, similarly, been excluded from the text on the grounds, apprently, that one side is obviously right. Redheylin (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Redheylin my friend, you have done me the favour of answering as I hoped you would when you say (of 'Pedophile' being an innocent word) that "it has only ever been used one way" — in point of fact it hasn't: there are those who invoke its etymological definition (see e.g. here, or Google for more). Can you now empathize with those on this page who are denying your definition? As one "meaning" of pedophile appears to you to be "fringe", so your meaning of anti-semitism appears to them to be so.

The historical etymology of the word is an interesting but relatively unimportant footnote. An impartial review of the reliable sources we have do not support the idea that there is any sort of significant "controversy" regarding the use of the word today. The consensus of sources show antisemitism to mean hatred of Jews. As has already been demonstrated, its use for other purposes based on etymological technicalities has been for rhetorical purposes, or does not figure significantly enough to rise above WP:FRINGE. Zad68 17:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you please cite the impartial review you mention? Redheylin (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"there are those who invoke its etymological definition". The cited source says. "This is what paedophilia is, the sexual attraction towards children." This is the only sense in which I have heard it used - not your "friendly child enthusiast". Redheylin (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Redheylin — I was thinking of the outrage in the source that "somehow paedophilia has come to mean instead of a love of all things childlike an uncontrollable desire to murder children for sexual kicks" ... the implication being that the word's true meaning has been corrupted by usage. If you want another example, perhaps closer to home, see this comment made by an editor on Wiktionary about the word ... the argument seems eerily familiar in nature. But the point is your position is inconsistent: on "pedophile" you are arguing based on usage, but on "antisemitism" you are denying the primacy of usage. Alexbrn (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No, this is just equivalent to saying; "People often think of anti-semites as thugs, but really they represent a respectable political position". Further, the comments are not to be considered notable. But, Alex, I do not get what you mean, since you say "I was thinking of", about a question apparently asked by Zad68. Meanwhile I have waited days for you to address issues I have raised. I have the impression of fielding a long string of red herrings - etymology, insistence on Arabs in the lede, my supposed desire to remove certain manifestations of anti-semitism and so forth. I have set out the argument, based upon original usage, usage in authoritative non-aligned sources, usage noted in the text, Nazi questioning of usage, current objections to and attempts to reclaim usage. It is true, though, that many of these devolve from the original intended usage, which is etymologically correct (though overlooking the misuse of a linguistic term to describe a genetic one). Redheylin (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentation on the Current Situation UK

I have just looked at the cited report [5] to try to find why in the article the UK summary on current situation says "It found a reversal of this progress since 2000." I do not think this phrase is remotely representative of the report which concludes that although the UK remains "one of the least antisemitic societies in the world" "there are greater fears now about antisemitism than there have been for many decades". The report endorses both statements as currently true and does not use the terms of the summary in the article which imply (offensively I might add) that the UK (which has been pretty multi-cultural for centuries) has recently ceased to be predominantly inclusive and has recently ceased to be one of the least AS countries in the world. --BozMo talk 17:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph is politically incorrect.

Semites are not exclusives Jewish; therefore, it is crucial to detach the word 'Jew' from the introductory paragraph unless one [editor] was to name all other Semitic peoples alongside the Jews. It is within the best interest of all other Semitic people that you do not make antisemitism exclusively about the Jewish religion. 75.32.244.23 (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Please review Antisemitism#Usage. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Jayig. TFD (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see people are willing to start new sections on this discussion page without reading anything in the sections above. Singularity42 (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Like I said above, this is a widely-expressed current issue that is excluded from the article purely upon ideological grounds - that editors take a side in the debate and so prevent views they do not like from being represented - NNPOV. Redheylin (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseum above. There is no consensus to change the article as proposed. No amount of repeating the same argument or assuming bad faith on behalf of the editors who disagree with you will change that. Time to drop the stick. Singularity42 (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The issue isn't excluded from the article. The article actually explains that the term covers all Semitic people, etymologically speaking, but that it isn't used to refer to non-Jews. That should be enough to end this ridiculous discussion. Belchfire-TALK 21:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It's "nauseam". As I explained, I do not "assume bad faith", but I certainly assume massive blind spots that lead to the preservation of straightforward self-contradictions in the text, and the assertion of others in this debate, which maintains that this issue is always being brought up here and at the same time that it is too obscure to be included. Some facts again;

1) The usage that includes all Semitic speakers is the original one. This is recorded in sources cited in the text, but contradicted in the text for no good reason. It is not a matter of "etymology". The clause "While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples..." etc. is not supported by the sources cited. Several other sources refer to the possibility of the term being used or understood in a wider sense.

2) Since Steinschneider's usage is the first, the lede should not assert that "the term was coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred")" since, although some authorities may say so (though the citations do not), it is not true, and it contradicts the account under "Etymology".

3) At least one notable contemporary neutral source, Chamber's dictionary, refers to this original meaning. Though this does not eclipse all other sources, there is no apparent reason to exclude it entirely.

4) The sentence following the above "For the purposes of a 2005 U.S. governmental report, antisemitism was considered "hatred toward Jews..."" is worded in a misleading way since that report itself says that the term is so defined "for the purposes of this report", implying the possibility of a wider definition.

5) Whether rightly or not, several notable commentators (Nader et al.), as well as a number of editors, have lately raised the issue of the alteration of the original meaning, particularly with regard to the inappropriateness (noted also by the Enc. Brit.) of this usage in describing other Semitic speakers. Even if such arguments are asserted to be "fringe", they are supported by notable sources and there is no good reason to exclude them entirely, even as a current controversy.

6) The above state of affairs is exacerbated - indeed, facilitated - by the poor and fragmentary presentation of the article (referred to by other users both above and below).

7) Appeals to "consensus" are not conclusive since a) consensus does not obviate policy, guidelines and norms, and cannot be invoked to uphold misrepresentation of sources, self-contradiction and the preservation of statements known to be inaccurate. Furthermore, true "consensus" cannot be attained here since several who oppose the above facts do so without presenting reasons, or else by continually asserting arguments, such as "etymology", that have been refuted.

8) The misuse of sources affects other issues in the article. For example, Bernard Lewis is much quoted, yet his most-quoted paper states that "Some people have written and spoken about anti-Semitism in antiquity, but the term in that context is misleading" - yet the article includes a good deal on this subject without mentioning Lewis, although it does record that "Bohak has argued, however, that early animosity against the Jews cannot be regarded as being anti-Judaic or antisemitic...". Similarly, the article treats at length of "middle-eastern antisemitism" but fails to record Lewis' assertion that "Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism". Once again, sources have been cherry-picked and the article asserts the omnipresence of antisemitism in despite of authorities that it elsewhere relies upon. Redheylin (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Any reason why Redheylin's points have not been addressed? In particular, R's historical points 1) and 2) seem well-supported. Dsp13 (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

South- and Eastern Europe

Hi
I hope I'm not the only one...but I find the "Current situation - Europe" quite lacking...there are literally no South- and Eastern Europe countries. Can't we just replace sweden or norway with one?
Regards
Paranoid Android1208 (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you find some reliable sources about notable current AS existing in such places? It is not a matter of needing to replace something, just of finding anything notable to include. AS is not a universal truth occuring everywhere or even in most places it is something which happens sometimes... --BozMo talk 17:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

e.g.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2006/jun/25/toppolishtvpostforrightwi
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASInt_13/6266_13.htm
these are from the AS in Europe article
and: i was inclined to replace because the article is quite LONG (maybe own article?)...and by leaving south&east europe unmentioned, it is unintentionally implied that there is NO current AS there
"AS is not a universal truth occureing everywhere or even in most places it is something which happens sometimes"
I would claim, that is a really remarkable thing to say :-( (for the western world and the near east)
regards
Paranoid Android1208 (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You can happily add in these sources; I think when things get to critical mass we could move them out to a new article. Or just have a regional section without listing country by country if it makes more sense. As to the other point it isn't really about the article but why should AS be a universal truth? It doesn't make any sense to me that it should be? Although it is an important historical concept I have never actually come across current Antisemitism except on an internet site someone here pointed me to it (Jew Watch) although some of the Iranians and Lebanese I have met were pretty cross with Israel. Perhaps I am just naive. --BozMo talk 19:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me go a little further. I guess it is possible to view Antisemitism as a widespread connected conspiracy of indoctrination and hatred. But that way of viewing things is pretty much a mirror of the way that the website I mentioned looks at Jews: as a connected conspiracy with devious aims. In reality I do not believe in hidden networks or conspiracies. Sure people like other people who have things in common with them but that's about it. I believe that prejudice is ignorant, stupid, misinformed and based on fear of the unknown. In all guises prejudice sometimes becomes frighteningly strong in dangerous popular movements but that does not mean that the rest of the time it is lurking behind every corner. In the UK there is a lot more hostility towards the Church than there is antisemitism (and that's still not much). --BozMo talk 19:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

it's neither a conspiracy nor is an mirror image of anything
it's a specific form of racism, with a despicable past, and the existence of it in europe is (according to the numbers) more or less not over
"In the UK there is a lot more hostility towards the Church than there is antisemitism (and that's still not much)"
I think sometimes its better not to show to much of yourself in wp...and I don't think it's probable that you'll find any studies that are confirming this observation.
regards

Paranoid Android1208 (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not worried about who I am, what I think or of showing myself. My real name is on my user page :) . But no one can deal with what you think is or is not probable. I suggest that [6] is not a completely bad starting point if you want to have a knowledge base to work off. Not perfect but not completely bad. FWIW the reason AS exists far more in the USA than in Europe is because extremism exists far more in all its forms in the USA and also awareness is heightened. As for the UK per the Chief Rabbi in the reference given it is only found in the extreme margins of society and as for needing a study no one bothers to show things which no one really contests. --BozMo talk 00:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

well, I'm a firm believer that you should thoroughly read what you post...so lets fisk this "starting point" and your interpretation of it a little
e.g. Introduction section 1:
"The inquiry was established to investigate the belief, widely held within the Jewish community, that levels of antisemitism in Britain are rising. Following an investigation, we have reached the troubling conclusion that this belief is JUSTIFIED." (my emphasis)
and the definition of AS in the report: which (as one can see) is of AS incidents(verbal,physical and things like boycotts)...not attitudes and/or ANY numbers(%ages) to them.
Summary:
"UNTIL recently, the prevailing opinion both within the Jewish community and beyond _WAS_ that antisemitism HAD receded to the point that it existed only on the margins of society. However, the EVIDENCE we received INDICATES that there has been a REVERSAL of this progress since the year 2000, which has created anxiety and concern within the Jewish community."(my emphasis)
this report is 6 years old...does anything suggest that it may have(/has?) got better?

"In his oral evidence, the Chief Rabbi stated: “If you were to ask me is Britain an antisemitic society, the answer is manifestly and obviously no. It is one of the least antisemitic societies in the world.”2 However, the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews told us, “There is probably a greater feeling of discomfort, greater concerns, greater fears now about antisemitism than there have been for many decades.”3 Having considered all of the evidence submitted, we are of the opinion that there is much truth in both of these ostensibly contradictory views."
somehow you omitted the 2n and 3rd part.... ;-) *I_assume_good_faith*
ps: this is getting waaaaaaaayy to forum-ish...which is (as we all know) contrary to the WP-policy
Regards
Paranoid Android1208 (talk) 10:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought I included both comments in my remarks below um three days ago? Fear of antisemitism, you will agree, is not the same as existence of antisemitism. --BozMo talk 20:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

(Off Topic) Yes, and at the risk of going even further into forum territory, but being pertinent to the topic at hand, I'll just add that an interesting piece in Standpoint magazine has just appeared which discusses the increasing embeddedness of antisemitism in certain strata of British left-wing politics. I wonder if any of that could be used in this article? Alexbrn (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

But interesting indeed. Especially as the leader of the Labour Party and several prominent senior figures in it are Jewish.--BozMo talk 20:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It is quite a good article. Although disappointingly it about not seem to say much about "the increasing embeddedness of antisemitism in certain strata of British left-wing politics". NC particularly comes over as being very open minded. Thanks for sharing it. --BozMo talk 20:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm

Does the Dreyfus affair really merit inclusion in a list of "extreme persecution" in the third para? Isn't notable more important than exteme? --BozMo talk 18:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I found your comment a bit confusing at first, but I guess you wanted to make 2 points: We should list notable instances, not extreme instances. But if we continue to list extreme instances, then the Dreyfus affair should arguably be removed.

I agree with both points. The first sort of follows from the second, as the Dreyfus affair really belongs in the lead. Hans Adler 23:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

To confirm that this is exactly what I meant. --BozMo talk 10:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Remove redundant text

In the section "Ancient world", the text '... Philo of Alexandria describes an attack on Jews in Alexandria in 38 CE in which thousands of Jews died ...' appears twice and should be redacted. Grimne (talk)

Done! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Too Long / Bloated

This article is way too long and quite frankly undeserving of its own separate article. It should be broken up and added to the various articles on different types of prejudice. It is also one-sided and biased, a complete violation of neutrality rules.

(rant snipped)

... I can't be alone here thinking this. My talk comments have been deleted twice which is proof in itself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.228.157 (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Admin comment: I am leaving this comment here, trimming the inappropriate rant, because it contains some criticism of the article. However, I have the following options:

• Play whack-a-mole blocking of each new IP address that adds it back
• Range block to expire after a week or so
• Semi-protect this talk page

None of those are attractive. Thoughts? ~Amatulić (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts? Even the snippet you left is without substance. There's nothing to discuss. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is. This page is being disrupted. The thoughts I asked for was how best to prevent it, using the tools at my disposal. I am inclined to semi-protect this page, although that would create collateral damage to other anonymous IPs that may have constructive comments. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Ok. That's indeed a good question. Range-block is probably better. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The article itself has not been "disrupted", you are discussing potentially semi-protecting a talk page for absurd reasons which would NOT apply in any other circumstance. If you do a range block I will simply acquire a new range. But I am finished here, I've made my point and have no further intension of "disrupting" the discussion. If you have to go to such lengths in order to censor criticism over an article, perhaps the critic is not the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.228.156 (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The page has been disrupted because Wikipedia is not a soapbox and you have been using it as such. You are welcome to post constructive criticism. Screeds, rants, and editorial opinions are not entertained on any talk page. There is no censorship involved. This is an encyclopedia, so we all voluntarily restrict ourselves to discuss article improvements. Those who cannot do that, and prefer instead to cause disruption, will be prevented from doing so one way or another. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

category

shouldn't this be part of prejudice and discrimination category? 24.94.251.19 (talk) 06:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's in Category:Prejudices which is a sub-category of "prejudice and discrimination". We don't repeat articles in the main category if they are in a sub-category. Paul B (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Modern Usage Clarification Needed

The article is effective at describing one theory behind German usage of the term "anti-Semitic" during WWII. What isn't clear is what "anti-Semitic" means in modern usage, and since none of us live in WWII Germany the current description of the word's use is meaningful only as a historical footnote. Modern usage sometimes means one is against Jews the religious group, other times Jews the racial group, other times Talmudic Jews the political movement, and still other times refers to anyone who disagrees with mainstream historical accounts of the Holocaust, notes the relevance of Jews in international finance, etc. So, what does the term actually mean today? It would appear (based on modern usage) that it means anyone who disagrees with a mainstream doxy relating to Jewish heritage in any form. As such, it is a rather meaningless term, since anyone could simultaneously have his/her five best friends be fervently Jewish people and have no qualms about them, and yet be correctly labeled "anti-Semitic" if he/she disagreed with some detail of the historical account of the holocaust, the precepts of the Talmudic political movement, had noted Jewish financial influence/power, etc. I propose that an area be added that discusses this dilemma, since "anti-Semitic" in modern usage frequently means anything but hatred for actual everyday Jewish people. Perhaps the fact that a Jew who disagrees with any such mainstream doxy would also be "anti-Semitic" most aptly reveals the absurdity of the word's modern usage. A discussion of this paradox certainly deserves a place in the article. 67.235.207.140 (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Since your first sentence is not fact-based, there's not much to go on here. The article has precisely one sentence about the German use of the term during WWII: In the aftermath of the Kristallnacht pogrom in 1938, German propaganda minister Goebbels announced: "The German people is anti-Semitic. It has no desire to have its rights restricted or to be provoked in the future by parasites of the Jewish race. And yes, it's entirely possible to have five Jewish best friends and still be antisemitic; "some of my best friends are Jewish" is a cliche for a reason. And no, you're not considered antisemitic if you disagreed with some detail of the historical account of the holocaust; you're considered that if you speak and act like a Holocaust denier. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It is a confusing term. I remember being in a room full of people (mostly, like myself, saying nothing) while three jewish Americans argued about the then newish settlements in Israel. What finally ended the argument was one jew calling the other two "anti-Semites." It was food for thought then, and still is 20 years later. Carptrash (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The crux of the question, I think, is whether or not it is actually possible for a Jew to be an anti-Semite at all. Jpgordon notes that one can have friends who are Jewish and still be an anti-Semite, but to that I would argue that Jpgordon's definition of "friend" must be quite loose, something more along the lines of what I would call an aquiantance. But back to the crux: is it possible for a Jew to be anti-Semitic? When this question is answered, perhaps we can finally get to figuring out what the heck the word "anti-Semitic" actually means. After all, can a Christian be an anti-Christian? Can a Catholic be an anti-Catholic? Can a Buddhist be an anti-Buddhist? Can a Jew be an anti-Semite? 108.167.119.69 (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's possible to be Jewish and antisemitic. See Self-hating Jew. It's also possible to be grossly hypocritical; it's possible to hate the Jews as a whole but like a few of them; it's possible to be slightly antisemitic. What NPOV, reliably sourced information would you like to add to the article? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The 1906 article here: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1603-anti-semitism is quite interesting incidentally. --BozMo talk 17:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that we can come up with a definition that will fit all the ways that the term is used today. The person I described about used the term to describe anyone who disagreed with her about what was basically a political stance, whether they were Jewish or not. Carptrash (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Holocaust denial, criticism of Israel, etc., are tactics used by anti-Semites, there is no redefinition of the term. Calling others anti-Semites because they are critical of Israel is a claim about their motivation. TFD (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: jpgordon: It is possible to be a self-hating Jew? The next logical question then is: what part of themselves is it that they hate? Is it their Jewish religion? This can't be correct because if so, they would simply become a non-believer by virtue of their loathing of their own beliefs (unless they suffered from multiple personality disorder, where one personality was Jewish and another loathed Judaism). Is it their Hebrew genealogy? This seems unlikely, since many Hebrews are not Jewish (being Muslim or Christian) and those Hebrews are nary referred to as "self-hating" for reasons of their lineage (or any other reason). After all, what is a "self-hating Christian?" The term is nonsensical. What is a "self-hating Latino?" Again, nonsensical. "Self hating Jew" is equally nonsensical, and if you take the time to consider it, in modern usage "anti-semite" is void of meaning. It conveys loathing and disdain as well as any derogative, but the emotional conveyance says absolutely nothing. I would further add that it is not possible under any logical definition of the word "anti-Semitic" to describe someone as such simply by virtue of their being a "Holocaust denier." The acceptance of one's history lessons, however incorrect those lessons may be, says nothing about their racial or religious biases. The denial of the Holocaust may very well be a tactic of some nefarious people in undermining Jewish credibility, but simply because it is a tactic of some does not make it indicitive of a bias of all who subscribe to an alternate view of history. For this reason, "Holocaust denial" really has nothing to do with "anti-Semitism," as one is historical academia while the other is some form of bigotry (of what exactly remains unclear). 108.167.119.69 (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the content of the article "antisemitism", not for general musings on the topic. Criticism of the concept of "self-hating Jew" is legitimately discussed on that page. Many of the points you make have been made by critics of the term, which is controversial for that reason. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion here is relevant as it ties directly with what it means to be an "anti-Semite" (whether a Jew can be one, for purposes of uncovering a sensible meaning for the term). I suggest you read the full discussion before attempting slamming your imaginary gavel. 108.167.119.69 (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:TALK before jumping on your imaginary high horse. This page is not for musings or "discussion" of the topic, but for addressing specific, actionable issues. Paul B (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen. Could we leave both horses and gavels outside? Carptrash (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Then allow me to attempt to make an actionable point: The article as it is contains no discussion of the problems (or shortcomings) of the derogatory phrase "anti-Semite." There is no "criticism" section for this phrase. However, there is criticism of the word outside the halls of Wikipedia. Such criticism deserves a place in the article. If you are wondering what that criticism is, I have and will continue to explain it. The word itself in today's usage conveys no particular meaning beyond "I don't like you and I want you to shut up." I have never seen the word used in modern, mainstream media, against anyone who felt that Hebrews were genetically inferior, or against anyone who had a problem with Jewish prayers, practices, or beliefs. The only way I have ever witnessed it used is to quiet anyone critical of the state of Israel, or critical of Western support of Israel. I have (once) heard someone on a national radio show critical of the Federal Reserve and international finance called an "anti-Semite," and in that instance the person being called it had not even made any connection between large banks and Jewish people at all. Typically it is thus used to preempt possible rational arguments before they can occur (i.e. you’re a racist and you don’t even know it, so you must stop). With that in mind, I have set out to discover what the word means, only to uncover its utter meaninglessness. It means everything and nothing all at once. I still don't know if an anti-Semite is someone who despises Hebrew genetics, Jewish prayers, mainstream history lessons, or what. One way to uncover its meaning is to ask whether a Jew can be an anti-Semite, because if they can, then we can rule at that anti-Semitism means to be against the Jewish religion, because if it did, then one cannot be both for and against their own religion. Therefore, in this discussion we have effectively ruled out religion as a factor in anti-Semitism (at least according to jpgordon, who believes Jews can be anti-Semitic and are those Jews frequently referred to as “self hating.”) Still, though, we haven't determined what the phrase does mean. If Hebrews are to be considered the "Jewish lineage," then do anti-Semitics also hate Christians, Muslims, and atheists of Hebrew lineage? My guess would be no. Therefore, the only consistent meaning of “anti-Semitic” is someone whose political goals are unaligned or at odds with the political goals of Israel. That is quite literally the only manner in modern times that I have witnessed the word used in mainstream media outlets. I believe that this criticism of the word’s modern usage deserves a discussion in this rather long article; I’m certain there’s room for it. 108.167.119.69 (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you are limited or limit yourself to the experiences you describe does not warrant a section here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

As you say, the term can be "used to preempt possible rational arguments." That does not mean that it is meaningless, anymore than terms such as racist, anti-American, anti-labor, anti-Catholic, etc., can be used as ad hominem arguments, yet remain meaningful concepts. TFD (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, 108, you must really like to type. If you're confused about what the word means, consult a dictionary. If you have ideas about how the article should be changed, find a reliable source. Your personal musings and anecdotes don't count for anything here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Semantics

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we are superimposing the notions "semitic languages" and "semitic people", the category becomes extremely large. Involving people and ethnic groups of muslim and even Christian religion. Perhaps although widely used, it's not altogether correct to infer that anti-Jewish means anti-Semitic.Supermaverick (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

We've been over this about one billion times, to the point that it's in a frequently discussed topics list near the top of the talk page. To sum up: no, regardless of the etymology, it means and has pretty much always meant one thing. (look also at the etymology section of the article) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

NO criticism of this word "antisemitism"?

Is there a unanimous consensus about this word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.145.73.26 (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I have antisemitic feelings simply because Jews have discriminated against me, a non-Jew, "because of my heritage." Is the subject of Jewish discrimination against non-Jews a forbidden topic? --Shortchuck (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes, because it just encourages a bunch of foaming-at-the-mouth types to turn up. Paul B (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

True. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

And I'll say "No." You get your story written up by a respected author and published in an acceptable source and we can probably fit it in somewhere. However starting your posting with "I have antisemitic feelings simply because . ......." is not the best way to get taken seriously. It is a bit like saying, "I am a thief because . . ." or "I am not decent person because...." or something like that. The "because" often becomes rather transparent when examined in daylight. Carptrash (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There have been some criticism of the misuse of the antisemite label. It was well sources, but still removed. // Liftarn (talk)

Brustein - Jewish success causes antisemitism?

I've removed some material recently added to the article by an IP editor.[7] The gist of the material was essentially that Jews in late 19th and early 20th century Germany were "overrepresented" in the middle and upper classes and in certain professions, and that these were "empirical economic factors" that cause antisemitism by "creat[ing] aggravation towards Jews by non-Jews in Germany especially during economic crises". Moreover, the choice of material cited seems intended to "prove" that this was indeed the case.
If this is the thrust of Brustein's argument, then the insertion appears to give WP:UNDUE prominence to unusual claims, and essentially blames German antisemitism on the Jews. Moreover, I'm not at all sure that this accurately represents Brustein's views; the publisher's synopsis of Brustein's book says that "Brustein proposes that European anti-Semitism flowed from religious, racial, economic, and political roots, which became enflamed by economic distress, rising Jewish immigration, and socialist success", which is not the impression one gets from this insertion. In any event, the material obviously gives undue prominence to one author's theories about one specific Jewish population in one specific country during a relatively brief time period; there's no way so much space should be devoted to it, and certainly not any space at all in the article lead. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I mostly agree. I'm not sure I feel so strongly that the material as written blames antisemitism on Jews, but I can see that it would be easy to read it differently if one didn't approach it with the mindset of "this was what antisemitic people trotted out to justify their antisemitism". Maybe the IP can suggest a draft on the talk page that is shorter and that makes more of an effort to provide context for these ideas. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to sign in when I put the material in. This is not victim blaming as I saw alleged in the diff where the content was removed and here. It is NOT saying it was Jewish people's fault for anti-Semitism. It is saying that economic factors, including the success of certain Jews in Germany resulted in stimulating a reaction of aggravation and prejudice towards Jews. It is not that the victim is at fault, it is that existing economic factors involving comparative economic situations of Jews and non-Jews created an environment where aggravation stimulated prejudice towards Jews occurred. Note that it is the comparison, not the situation of Jews alone, that Brustein shows as aggravating factors. Read the pages of the source used in the intro and body of the article, it is available on Google Books. Since there is not support for it to be in the intro I have removed it from there, but it is from a reputable author and a reputable publisher that should be in the main body of the article; the history of antisemitism in Germany is extremely important, and economic antisemitism played a major role in Germany and what stimulated it should be addressed here. William I. Brustein, the author of the book I have used as a reference, is a prominent Jewish American historian associated with Ohio State University and the Melton Center for Jewish Studies, who has written award-winning works, and this work that is being used here has been published by the very reputable Cambridge University Press.--R-41 (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have links to Google Books' pages 207 and 210 in William Brustein's "Roots of Hate: Anti-Semitism in Europe Before the Holocaust"? Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Soviet POW

Great picture. I'm not suggesting removing it. However I just finished reading a history of the Second World War ("Moral Combat" by British historian Michael Burleigh) and I somehow feel compelled to mention that 3 million Soviet POWs of all ethnicities died in German captivity during the war, mostly from starvation and freezing being kept in outdoor enclosures or riding in the same type of railway freight cars that Jewish victims of the Holocaust did. Borock (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Democracy

Unless I missed it the word "democracy" does not appear in the article. Why not? Borock (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

See also link to Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence

I'm starting a discussion here to see if Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence should be added to the "see also" section. User:Scott Illini boldly added it, I reverted it, and then it has gone back and forth with me starting a discussion here to avoid an edit war and determine if there is a consensus to add the link.

IMO, I don't see the connection. The article mainly refers to a 2005 paper which makes a passin reference "laws [that] barred Ashkenazi Jews" as one of the many conditions that led to the paper's conclusions that Ashkenazi Jews have higher verbal and mathematical intelligence. I appreciate that WP:SEEALSO allows for links to articles that are tangentially related, but ultimately it must be relevant - and I'm just not seeing it with this one. A passing reference to antisemitism does not automatically make that article relevant to this article. Singularity42 (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Racial anti-Semitism

The first two paragraphs of this section make very sweeping generalisations: a) re eugenics "which categorized non-Europeans as inferior". I'm not at all sure this is true - certainly not of everyone who 'followed' eugenics. This really needs to be more specific. b) "With the decreasing role of religion in public life tempering religious antisemitism" appears to be nonsense; if anything, religion played a leading role in antisemitism, witness, for instance, the Spanish Inquisition. I'm inclined to cut that clause altogether, unless someone can give a scholarly citation to justify it. In any case, both these contentions need citations or they will have to be amended/cut. Alfietucker (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Khmelnitzky's uprising

Similar to Petliura's self-declared Cossacks the majority of Khmelnitzky's rebels were not Cossacks at all. Contrary to Petliura's people there were Cossacks and Jews in significant numbers among Khmelnitzky's people only. The massacres were made by the mob. Crimean Karaites were Khmelnitzky's allies. Don Cossacks waged a war against Khmelnitzky's allies during Russian-Polish alliance against Khmelnitzky. Many Cossacks of Ukraine if not a majority supported the opponent of Khmelniztky prince Vishnevetzky , whose Cossack soldiers were the major anti-Khmelnitzky's force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.70.224.196 (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

1) I really can't tell what you are trying to say. 2) Do you have any reliable sources for this? a13ean (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Globalize

Need no western perspectives. That doesnt mean western views of how others see it, but other cviews of the phenemenon. Semitic includes non-jewish people.(Lihaas (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)).

Ohhh my god how many times do we have to go over the fact that "Semite" may refer to non-Jews but "anti-Semitism" is prejudice against Jews? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has frequently denied the Holocaust.

This is a false statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zidovi (talk • contribs) 07:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted uncited biased statement

I deleted the following sentence:

"In the Middle East, anti-Zionist propaganda frequently adopts the terminology and symbols of the Holocaust to demonize Israel and its leaders."

because it is both uncited and biased. For one thing, the use of the word "propaganda" has a negative connotation and implies that anti-Zionism is based on lies and misinformation. The sentence also implicitly equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Jadhachem (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

antisemitism in New York

I created Adam Wiercinski to document the recent anti-Semitism case that made all the headlines. Feel free to contribute to the article. Tkuvho (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Religious antisemitism – A major shift

In the past few years there has been a major shift in Christian Biblical scholarship. Leading Biblical scholars such as Ehrman, Casey, Edwards have now taken the position that Jesus was a Jew and that the historical roots of Christianity must be seen in a Jewish context. This scholarship has sparked debate for some still hold the position that Jesus was a Greek speaking Galilean whose teachings were anti-Jewish. (See the heated debates at the Gospel of Matthew and the Oral gospel traditions.)

Dunn affirms this new scholarship

Last month, one of the world's leading historians on Early Christianity released his latest work. James D. G. Dunn, The Oral Gospel Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013. argues that the assumption that Jesus was not Jewish has been a real stumbling block for Biblical scholars. If anything, more serious has been what might be called “institutional anti-Semitism, or more accurately anti-Judaism, which for so long disfigured Christian theology, including NT scholarship." The so called mainline or classic position of Ernest Renan, who wrote: "Fundamentally there was nothing Jewish about Jesus" is mistaken and encapsulates "Christianity's historic denigration of Judaism."

The truth is Christianity has been anti Jewish and Christian scholarship has failed to be "Christian" in its treatment of Jews. This can be seen in the disparagement of the Hebrew Gospel which is viewed as little more than a Jewish Bastardwerk. The mainline position of 20th Century scholars bordered on antisemitism. The Deutsche Christen movement produced the Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, still the standard Theological Dictionary of the New Testament found in theological libraries and used by students all over the world as if it were nothing but a standard work of reference.

Nor should it be imagined that such bias was isolated to scholars who fought for Nazi Germany for even Bultmann was tainted by the effect of working in a German environment in which Jewishness was so unwelcome. Google Link Nor should it be imagined that such anti-Jewish sentiment was isolated to scholars coming out of Germany. Google Link. The Jewish tradition has generally been viewed pejoratively and judged inferior by many other scholars instrumental in the formation theories regarding the Synoptic tradition. Google Link. One must take care to distinguish between Biblical Scholarship based on reliable historical evidence and “the age-long, inbred, instinctive Jew-hatred” of the West.

• Roots of Theological Anti-Semitism: German Biblical Interpretation and the Jews, from Herder and Semler to Kittel and Bultmann

Volume 20 of Studies in Jewish History and Culture, BRILL, 2009. -

• Susannah Heschel, 2008
• Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012.
• James Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel, 2009. pp 194 - 208
• Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010

Edwards, Casey, Ehrman etc all line up behind Dunn. Spatjudentum is not the an acceptable default setting for Christianity. Jesus was Jewish! So were his early followers along with the early Oral tradition and the first written Gospel accounts of his life. Ret.Prof (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Summary of the New Scholarship

Dunn argues to understand the historical roots of Christianity one must look at Second Temple Judaism along with the impact of the destruction of the Temple in the year 70, for Christianity began as an enthusiastic Jewish sect. In other words we must study how the traditions of Jesus, might have functioned in first-century Palestine.

There is a growing number of historians that believe:

1. Jesus was a Jewish teacher living in a Jewish society (Sitz im Leban).
2. Jesus and later his disciples were active participants in the Oral Tradition of the Second Temple Period.
3. Early Christians, sustained the Gospel message of Jesus, by sharing the stories of his life and his teachings orally. Rabbis or teachers in every generation were raised up and trained to deliver this Oral Tradition accurately. This Oral tradition consisted of two parts: the 1) JESUS-TRADITION (logia or sayings of Jesus) and 2) INSPIRED OPINION. The distinction is one of authority: where the earthly Jesus has spoken on a subject, that word is to be regarded as an instruction or command. This Oral Tradition remained vibrant until the destruction of the Temple.
4. The testimony of Papias records that Matthew wrote down the Jesus-tradition (logia or sayings of Jesus) in a Hebrew dialect. This testimony is independent of the Gospels themselves and "explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly to the disciples of Jesus themselves." Although it Papias who tells us about the origins of Matthew's Gospel we should not draw from Papias' statement an inference that Papias distrusted oral tradition
5. Although it is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language it should not be assumed that this Hebrew Gospel was translated into the canonical Gospel of Matthew (ie Matthew's Hebrew Gospel and the Gospel of Matthew are two distinct Gospels.)
6. It is important to note that these sources are NOT saying that "Matthew's collection sayings in a Hebrew dialect" and the Gospel of Matthew are the same work. Indeed there is clear evidence that "Matthew's Hebrew Gospel" was NOT translated into what we call the Gospel of Matthew. Casey after studying composite authorship in the Second Temple period comes to his scholarly conclusion. The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous and is the product of composite authorship of which Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead. Hence the name Gospel of Matthew as Matthew was probably a major source.

Not only do the Gospel of Matthew and the Oral gospel traditions need to be updated, but eventually the section on Religious antisemitism. Ret.Prof (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

.............really? "Leading Biblical scholars such as Ehrman, Casey, Edwards have now taken the position that Jesus was a Jew ...this story, and associated pastes of OR have repeatedly been inserted, deleted, reappeared, deleted, reappeared deleted so often that it seems to be a seasonal event. The same old hobbyhorse doesn't need to escape from the historical Jesus pages where editors have rejected it to reappear in a major en.wp article such as Antisemitism. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Dunn's book was just released?? - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Look again. The book is a collection of essays originally published between 1991 and 2011.--Rbreen (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point, but there is new material as well. Have you had time to read it? I value your opinion! - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that this is entirely off-topic to the subject of this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Dunn elaborates by writing If anything, more serious has been what might be called “the institutional anti- Semitism,” or more accurately anti-Judaism, which for so long disfigured Christian theology, including NT scholarship. True it seems a bit harsh but it is supported by Bart Ehrman who writes, "Christianity has by its very nature always been anti-Jewish". However I will keep an open mind. Thanks for you input. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2014

On 3 August 2013, this page was damaged and not restored. A very important reference was removed pertaining to the etymology of the word anti-Semitism:

Alex Bein writes that the word was first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase "anti-Semitic prejudices". Steinschneider used this phrase to characterize Ernest Renan's ideas about how "Semitic races" were inferior to "Aryan races."

Alex Bein is the Chief Librarian of Israel, and his research pushes back the invention of the term by over a decade. The removal of this reference could be due to political motives. Regardless, this is one of the most important pieces of information that used to be in the Etymology section. Its removal is a complete mystery.

24.165.27.55 (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Apparently by another user who never marked the request as "answered". Joefromrandb (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

In fact there was no edit on 3 August 2013 removing the sentence. The only edits that day added a citation needed tag. Nor can I see any evidence that was ever removed. So this request is either a rather perplexingly pointless hoax, or the result of confusion of some sort. Paul B (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely hope it was the latter, as I spent about 20 minutes trying to figure out what exactly the OP was requesting. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I've no idea what "political motives" would be served by removing the reference. How does it serve anyone's ideology? However, it's worth noting that a phrase is not the same as a word or a concept. The combination is descriptive in this case. However, I agree it's worth including because Renan is really the major figure in giving significance to the Aryan versus Semite concept. Paul B (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Reasons and causes of Antisemitism

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

You can start your research by actually reading the article. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Dennis Prager - Why the Jews?: The Reason for Antisemitism
• "What Is the Cause of Antisemitism?" on Chabad.org, and "Why Literally Everyone in the World Hates the Jews, and What To Do About It" on Tablet Magazine,
• thisthis, this, this, or this link
• These three books I found: 1, 2, and 3.

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

Why antisemitism is considered racism

Antisemitism is considered racism because Jews are considered an ethnoreligious group. Racism is discrimination based on someone's race, ethnicity or nationality. Race itself is a word without a very clear definition and it is completely unclear whether Jews (or anyone for that matter) is a race or not because of extreme variance among the defintions of race. Islamophobia is called racism several times throughout its article with no explanation to why it is called racism even though Muslims are clearly only a religious group. I therefore think we should make it clear in the article that the reason antisemitism is considered racism is because Jews are an ethnic group.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting question, Rainbowofpeace. First of all, note that there's more than just one type of antisemitism, there is religious antisemitism, racial antisemitism, and more. The majority of today's Jews are indeed part of an ethnoreligious group, but Jews, often called Jewish people, are clearly not a race (found info on Judaism101, "JewFAQ"), and here is why:

Race is a genetic distinction, and refers to people with shared ancestry and shared genetic traits. You can't change your race, it's in your DNA. For example, I could never become black or Asian no matter how much I want to. Common ancestry is not required to be a Jew. Many Jews worldwide share common ancestry, as shown by genetic research, however, you can be a Jew without sharing this common ancestry, for example, by converting. Thus, although I could never become black or Asian, blacks and Asians can have become Jews.

I'll take a look at the article "Islamophonia" some time soon. Muslims are simply followers of Islam, and therefore cannot be referred to as a race. Just a few month ago there was a vote on whether that article should be include "Category:Race", and it was decided not to add this category, which I personally think was the right decision. Here, see this for more if you're interested.

Hope this helped clarify things. Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Please note that race is one hundred percent a social construct. I would also like to share even if Jews aren't a race antisemtism is still racism because that the Jews are an ethnic group. And by the way the vast majority of Jews have Jewish ancestry with Judaism having an exceedingly small amount of converts.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Reasons and causes of Antisemitism

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

You can start your research by actually reading the article. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Dennis Prager - Why the Jews?: The Reason for Antisemitism
• "What Is the Cause of Antisemitism?" on Chabad.org, and "Why Literally Everyone in the World Hates the Jews, and What To Do About It" on Tablet Magazine,
• thisthis, this, this, or this link
• These three books I found: 1, 2, and 3.

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

POV-section

I have added a POV-tag to the section about the situation in Malmö. This belongs to Antisemitism in Sweden and just copying it from there to any article about the same topic is not right. Summarize the content instead. --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason you have chosen {{POV}} instead of, you know, {{Summarize section}}? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I was asking myself the same thing Roscelese did. Anyway, I fixed the issue now by removing some of the content from that section, along with the misused POV-tag. Shalom11111 (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not know of that Summarize-tag but it is just more than just a problem with summarize. Some has copied the info from there and spread them. POV includes balance and weight, not only disputed statements. It is good that it has been shortened but it is still long and detailed with long comments. Just compare it with the others countries listed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

There are other countries in the article whose sections have the same length as Sweden's one. Sweden's section is relatively long simply because there's a lot of information about antisemitism in that country, especially in recent years. Shalom11111 (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It is long because of all those comments. What is needed is less of that and more about the general situation. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

POV-section

I have added a POV-tag to the section about the situation in Malmö. This belongs to Antisemitism in Sweden and just copying it from there to any article about the same topic is not right. Summarize the content instead. --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason you have chosen {{POV}} instead of, you know, {{Summarize section}}? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I was asking myself the same thing Roscelese did. Anyway, I fixed the issue now by removing some of the content from that section, along with the misused POV-tag. Shalom11111 (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not know of that Summarize-tag but it is just more than just a problem with summarize. Some has copied the info from there and spread them. POV includes balance and weight, not only disputed statements. It is good that it has been shortened but it is still long and detailed with long comments. Just compare it with the others countries listed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

There are other countries in the article whose sections have the same length as Sweden's one. Sweden's section is relatively long simply because there's a lot of information about antisemitism in that country, especially in recent years. Shalom11111 (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It is long because of all those comments. What is needed is less of that and more about the general situation. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Antisemitism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Antisemitism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "JCPA":

• From Ethnic cleansing: The Forgotten Narrative: Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries
• From Antisemitism in Greece: "Anti-Semitism in Greece: Embedded in Society". Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Retrieved 26 July 2013.
• From Antisemitism in contemporary Austria: "Austria, the Jews, and Anti-Semitism: Ambivalence and Ambiguity". Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Retrieved 12 October 2013.
• From Antisemitism in contemporary Hungary: Molnár, László. "Anti-Semitism in Hungary". Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Retrieved 13 April 2013.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look at these articles soon and will fix the incorrect references formats, thanks bot. Shalom11111 (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Definition of Antisemitism

I don't think that the definition of Antisemitism being racism against jews, is altogether correct. Yes it does mean that, but jews aren't the only semitic people. Wikipedia has a page about semitic people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people) which shows that. Anti-semitism means anti-anything-semitic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninzhan5 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Ninzhan5 (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You're committing the etymological fallacy. The meanings of words are not determined by their etymology but by their usage. Look it up in the dictionary and you will see that you're wrong. Irrespective of that, this question has been discussed here ad infinitum for over 12 years. You can see a summary of the dicussions here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Alf.laylah.wa.laylah is right, Ninzhan5, (could it be an SPI?) read what it says in the lead: "While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic people, the term was coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred"),[2] and that has been its normal use since then.[3]" Just like there are Anti-Christian and Islamophobia sentiments for example, antisemitism is specifically for Jewish people. Shalom11111 (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2014

128.32.146.11 (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Why here 'pseudo-scientific' and not scientific theory that has been discredited? That sanitation of the facts is dangerous for future such theories will have the unblemished name of science at their back. The euphemism, pseudo-science, has a manifestly good intent, yet it is not judicious or wise on closer look.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 01:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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