Category talk:Antisemitism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

2006 comments[edit]

So are all the subcategories going to have to be renamed now too? I'm sometimes amazed that the absurdity of this place can still surprise me.--T. Anthony 04:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Apologies, I should have looked this up more thoroughly earlier. On learning more I see that the B'nai B'rith and Simon Wiesenthal Center prefer this spelling. I got thrown off by the statements about "scholarly concensus" which make no sense to me. However the people who have reason to care most about this now predominately use this spelling so I withdraw any complaints. Again, I'm sorry if I'd been insensitive.--T. Anthony 05:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Antisemitism template[edit]

The Anti-Semitism template is confusing and potentially misleading. Check out for instance the Host desecration page which has the Antisemitism template. It lists organizations and writers such as the Anti-Defamation League, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Deborah Lipstadt etc who are scholars and organizations involved in COMBATING antisemitism, i.e. they are Anti-anti-Semitism. To include them in the antisemitism template would make an unfamiliar reader think that they ARE anti-semites. It should probably include Anti-Semitic organizations like Neo-Nazis, and people like Hitler, the Protocols of Zion etc instead. Perhaps someone can correct the template to include a clarifying that Jonathan Sacks and Deborah Lipstadt are scholars who are NOT Anti-Semitic...maybe something like Organizations/Writers FIGHTING ANTI-SEMITISM would be more appropriate— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I know this is not considered polite, and i don't very well know an alternative, but i think the german word jude in the antisemitism picture is not quitte apropriate. (only a j perhaps like many europeans versions of the symbol. This one suggests the german stereotyping of jews is the most clear, when i would rather make the point it is actually the least clear, albeit the most obvious.) Ofcourse I trust (what is that called? judaic? israeli? ) historical analyses, but i think this invites surplus anti-germanism, hardly a way to sincerely counter discrimination , and the resent of the poor suppressed masses in general, perhaps. Neither is it representative, for what actually may have been the root cause of this anti-semitism: The general contempt of jewish and other minoritys(!?) human life. I don't mind, i don't want to be naughty either, i will try to forget of the hypocracy of this german word immediatly, (More russians died in german camps then did jews , they died there for rasist reasons.) If billions of ppl can't have it but this way, okay for me, but i think it helps not to trouble history. The J is much more representative because it was the lax rasist and antisemite attitude europewide and over many centurys that facilitated nazism and especially the jewish shoa/holocaust. Not specifically the german variety of it. If not that is the point made, what is ? 09:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Probable misuse and misapplication of this category[edit]

OK -- perhaps the deletion of Category:Anti-Semitic people was a mistake because it seems that many/most of the names formerly found in that category have now made their way over to this more general category, and now this category is positively overflowing with individuals that may or may not be personally anti-Semitic (many of them are still living; thus the potential for libel al la John Seigenthaler, Sr.). We have obvious anti-Semites rightfully categorized like Hitler & the major Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, Holocaust deniers, and Neo-Nazis, but others are certainly more ambiguous ('anti-Zionists,' etc). For instance, in regards to ambiguity, I just removed the controversial American academic Kevin B. MacDonald from the category because it has never been definitively 'proven' that he is indeed an anti-Semite, and I have placed him under the more specific Category:Scholars of antisemitism (because he has written scholarly books on the subject of anti-Semitism). I think that it's fairly correct to say that he indeed harbors some anti-Semitic views (or views that are thought to be anti-Semitic by most), but it is not up to us here on Wikipedia to INFER things like this, but yet he continues to be wrongfully placed in this category. There is a disclaimer that states: "Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is antisemitic," but in all reality adding this category to an person's article is indeed tantamount to labeling a person/group/event as anti-Semitic. Others individuals in this category include Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Gilad Atzmon, Charley Reese, Lenora Fulani, Horst Mahler, and a host of others (just scroll through the category and look for individual names). Again, I think that we must be VERY CAREFUL about adding this category to the articles of living people lest Wikipedia be damaged by even more controversies that involve mislabeling/miscategorizing living people through the spreading of potentially damning information (even if it is not true!). It's best to let history decide stuff like this, I think. --Wassermann 12:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The presence of the Category:Antisemitism tag on a biography article does not imply that the subject of the article is antisemitic. It simply means that antisemitism is significantly discussed in the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The difference between "guilty of" and "accused of" should be explicit. Since this category has loose boundaries, it seems more suited to rename it "Antisemitism polemics" or something equivalent. Pronoein (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I admit I'm mildly interested in how one would go about categorically deciding which people were "guilty of" vs. "accused of", but in any event, it's irrelevant. This isn't a category for antisemites, it's a category for articles that discuss some facet of or issue in antisemitism. That's why, for example, you'll find it includes the Hugo Bettauer and Ivan Bloch articles, among others. Jayjg (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. By explicit I meant that whatever you think this category should be used for, its name should convey this meaning instead of a vague word that could lead - and is leading - to misinterpretations. People tagged in the Antisemitism category could be perceived as guilty or accused of antisemitism, whereas the quiproquo vanishes with more explicit category. Since it's a passionnate and sometimes hateful topic, setting in advance well-defined rules could defuse some fights to come.Pronoein (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what the big blue box at the top of the category is for. It says in huge letters:

This category contains articles that discuss or refer to the topic of antisemitism.

It does not imply that the subjects of any articles in the category are antisemitic.

That's pretty clear. Jayjg (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree again, but we're not talking about the same.
That's pretty clear if you're reading this very page. This clarification, however, comes too late: if you're reading an article about a person and discover that he was tagged in the antisemitism category, then, unless you investigate further and read the explanations of the category page, you may misinterpret the meaning. This is where and when the possible misunderstanding I was talking about may occur, not on this page, but still because of the category's name.
I don't think that it's up to the readers to investigate. It's up to the editors to use good wording and self explanatory categories.
Also, Jayjg, please don't be ironic or condescendent, even slightly, when considering and answering me. What's been amusing you twice so far is a product of your own misrepresentation. Communicating a representation is hard, but if the listener considers the other dumb, it's nigh impossible - and disrespectful. Pronoein (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I haven't been "ironic or condescendent, even slightly" when answering you. I'm not even sure what you want to do with the category. Jayjg (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree it is very problematic and overly broad and putting the disclaimer up there doesn't work. Either people and groups are accused of antisemitism by WP:RS or they are not. Everything else is general discussion of or groups working against antisemitism. (Which might also have its own category, if it does not currently.)
Therefore there should be a category called something like Category:Accusations of Antisemitism. Wikipedia is lousy with such articles with accusations that people and groups are antisemites, some with multiple solid WP:RS; some with less reliable WP:RS or greatly conflicting WP:RS opinions; some with clearly Non-WP:RS references or WP:Undue discussions (later re-add: and this category would help NPOV editors find and remove the latter). SO let's have an honest category. (Also note just looking through just the "As" I found at least one article that was totally unrelated except in some WP:OR of some editor, and a couple others that were so tangentially related their categorization should be removed.) I am a bold editor, so speak up if you don't like the idea :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The category is quite honest. It includes articles that mention or discuss antisemitism in some way. We don't have categories for people accused of antisemitism - that, in fact, would create the very kind of WP:BLP problem you claim you are trying to avoid. Jayjg (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The below is more relevant discussion now. Obviously it's a BLP issue across a number of categories. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The "more relevant discussion" below you claim consists of one statement made 8 months ago, and another one made by you made today - hardly "more relevant". This is one category, with very clear inclusion criteria the top, and there's no BLP issue, much less an "obvious" one. Your claiming the opposite doesn't make it so, and your attempt to create the very kind of BLP issue/category that you claim to be trying to avoid, and your mis-characterization of the "discussion" below, indicates that your statements aren't factual. Please don't continue trying to change the criteria for/definition of the category simply because you don't like seeing it at the bottom of one article on an individual you support. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Please remove the personal attack/accusation of "supporting" someone. People keep trying to make me prove I don't support someone by trying to get me to say nasty things against the subjects of a BLP or otherwise WP:Soapbox ad nauseum, as they do. And if I was trying to protect a specific individual, why would I suggest a category called "accusations" where this person easily would fit??
As a matter of fact, I was thinking there's probably a number of WP:RS on a number of males calling them sexist already included, not to mention many more which could be included, and was wondering if putting their names under Sexism would lead to a problem. Again, this should be dealt with as a BLP issue across various categories with same principle being used. I think there needs to be a community discussion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The simplest explanation for a suggestion to create a BLP-violating category to replace a non BLP-violating one would be the hope that it would subsequently be deleted as an obvious BLP violation. Jayjg (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I would have thought so myself, except I could swear in last few days I did find a category called something like [[Category: {bigoted} activists]] for one of the forms of bigotry. So until I find it again, or give up, that also enters into the mix. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Looked under [{Category:activists]] and low and behold: Category: Anti-Islam activists (1 C, 23 P) and Category: Former anti-Islam activists (3 P). Hmmm, why does one group of activists get a category and all the others are dismissed as bigots? Consistency would seem to be relevant to BLP. So that's another issue to lob on there. (People do have a right to criticize various religions, of course. At what point criticism becomes bigotry can be a fine line and when an activist becomes someone accused of bigotry can be a fine line. Or maybe it means inclusion in both categories if WP:RS support it? Or maybe all relevant categories or listing of people in more general categories should be removed. It's an important community decision to be made, not just you and me. But thanks for jangling my thinking juices on the issue. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Not sure why those would be related; this category is for articles that discuss antisemitism in some way. It doesn't categorize or label individuals as "bigots", "activists" or anything else. Jayjg (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>FYI, to anyone who passes by, I finally got around to reading Wikipedia:BLP#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates and Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Inappropriate_categories and see even in those some contradictions, incomplete material, etc. OI!! Complicated issues. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really, as this category doesn't categorize people, it categorizes article topics - see comment above. Jayjg (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Results of Homophobia Discussion[edit]

I just investigated Racism talk page and found Category_talk:Racism#Removing_names_discussion and left this comment, after original comment, also in box:

Removing names discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_18#Category:Homophobia about renaming it where it was suggested all WP:BLP names should be removed from this category and antisemitism and such ones where the tag could be considered pejorative. Dmcq (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that the result of this discussion was: The result of the discussion was: no consensus for the proposed rename. However, because consistent consensus has been to delete categories that label people, organizations, media, etc. as "homophobic" (see, e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) no articles for allegedly homophobic people (including fictional people), organizations, or media should exist in this category. I also note that there are serious WP:BLP concerns with adding this category to articles about living people. If this restriction cannot be adhered to, users can notify me and we can go from there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC) It seems to me that either this should be the policy for both Category:Racism and Category:Antisemitism or, to the opposite so that such accusations may be more easily identified and verified, all three should have subcategories called Category:Accusations of ____. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

So it looks like this is a topic that needs review on both Racism and Antisemtism articles. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Not seeing any reason for a review here. This category includes articles that mention or discuss antisemitism in some way, and long term consensus is that nothing else is required. Please don't continue trying to change the criteria for the category simply because you don't like seeing it at the bottom of one article on an individual you support. Jayjg (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Repeating the same attack does not make it right. See my 23:52, 1 August 2010 comment above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This category used vs. BLP Policy; and a BLP-Acceptable New Category[edit]

First, Wikipedia:BLPCAT#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates makes it clear that putting people in categories like this that may clearly or ambiguously infer the person has a "poor reputation" is against policy. Putting a disclaimer on the top of the category is just an end run around this issue.

Proposal: Since no people at all should be mentioned in this category, start a category called something like Category:Opponents of antisemitism or Category:Activists against antisemitism. This allows such people to be in a relevant category, and removes the problem of people possibly confusing them with people who are accused of antisemitism. Again, I personally wouldn't be opposed to a clear category for people with sufficient WP:RS accusing them of antisemitism, but that category created by someone else recently was deleted speedily and was roundly rejected at BLP talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As explained above, this category in no way violates WP:BLP, since it does not imply anything at all about the people in it. It is not a category that classes individuals, such as Category:Criminals, to give the example used in that section. Rather, it is a category for articles that discuss or refer to antisemitism, no more, and includes many individuals who have never been accused of antisemitism. There is no confusion here, as has been explained above, and has been confirmed in multiple previous discussions. Jayjg (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
That is your opinion. However, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates reads in first sentence: Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. If there is ambiguity about an individual's inclusion in a category that violates Biographies of Living People policy, the individual's name should be removed... Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). ... These principles apply equally to lists and navigation templates based on religious beliefs and sexual orientation, or which suggest that the persons included in the list or template have a poor reputation.
See Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Proposal_to_clarify_language to participate in policy discussions which will continue as a guideline page is updated.
Do you have a problem with creating the proposed category? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not my opinion, it's a simple fact. Category:Antisemitism categorizes articles, not people - it is not analogous to Category:Criminals, to use the example in that section. Most articles in the category aren't even about people. And yes, I have an objection to the proposal above, since it is just a back-door way of creating the very WP:BLP violations you claim to want to get rid of. And finally, a discussion on a policy talk page in which only you participate is not an indiciation of anything - very much like the discussion above, where you pretended that a comment by one individual, and a response by you 8 months later, indicated some huge groundswell of concern over a specific non-issue. Jayjg (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The categories that related to people have been successfully deleted over the past three years; this category relates to discussions about thetopic, which is why the ADL is in this category too. I just added Abraham Foxman to the category as well, as leader of the ADL, he certainly is involved in the discussions. -- Avi (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not a new subcategory called something like Activists Against or Opponents of Antisemitism. Being in such a category shouldn't be a BLP problem and is a useful way of identifying those vs. each form of bigotry in all the various antibigotry categories. Note that this note (post Categories for Discussion debate) from Category:Homophobia may be promoted to antibigotry categories. This category is for issues relating to homophobia. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly homophobic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no BLP problem implicated in this category. It is indisputable that some people and groups are relevant to a discussion of antisemitism (both as purported perpetrators and as activists against) and it is not any form of slander to suggest so. A category for "opponents of antisemitism" is a terrible idea, and will invite more of this kind of opposition in the future because people will still have differing views on what "antisemitism" is. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
This issue is also relevant to Category:Anti-Catholicism - Category:Anti-Islam sentiment - Category:Homophobia (which now disallows people/groups/media being listed) - Category:Racism - Category:Sexism. And maybe some we've missed. How many people who might be good on one issue have been accused of bigotry on another and people would scream to see their names there? The point is policy must be consistent. It's not just about his category. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Carol, the issue with your suggestion is that it refers specifically to people, which is what we have been trying to avoid for years. If the category is not-people specific, it makes its application much less political and much more based on issues that depend on reliable sources' discussions and not pundits opinions. -- Avi (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Lots of people are put in categories under larger one Category:Activists. It's no more political to put people in one vs. antisemitism than anything else. It's not negative to say someone is active against antisemitism.
It is negative to put people who have been accused of antisemitism by partisans included with people who are hardcore antisemites. While I'm not familiar with many names one way or another, I also don't want to name names because I don't want a guilt by association charge if I missed something reprehensible in the article - or not in the article.
And because other people themselves may dispute the allegations, no matter what I or others think, it remains problematic. The point is the Wikipedia:Blp#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates principle here, most relevant parts of paragraph:Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. ... Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Carol, no one should be in Category:Antisemitism solely because someone "accused them of being an antisemite". But if someone writes about antisemitic topcis, or if someone's work is the subject of discussions about antisemitism, the category applies. For example, if we had two separate articles about Carlos Latuff, one "Carlos Latuff" the person and the other "Cartoons of Carlos Latuff", I would agree that the category be placed solely on the second. However, we only have one article. Moreover, the cartoons are the only reason Latuff is notable in the first place. There has been much written about the nature of the cartoons, including antisemitism, so the category needs to remain. -- Avi (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Talking about whether someone's work is bigoted equals an accusation. Again, I don't have a problem with more specific subcategories about discussions/allegations/ regarding people, but other editors are extremely allergic. But doing it a sneaky way, especially when it makes category rather confusing for many, is problematic. Maybe if we start putting a lot of people under Racism and Sexism, this will start making sense here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We do not talk about if someone's work is bigoted. We bring reliable and verifiable sources that discuss people's work. If part of makes someone notable is how their works, actions, or speech has played in the antisemitism arena, the category is appropriate. What may be sneaky is trying to ignore how various peoples' actions made them worthy of notability in the first place. That would be like saying that Usain Bolt is notable but we cannot put Category:Jamaican sprinters on his article. -- Avi (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Is Category:Jamaican sprinters something that can hurt your reputation? Let's only compare apples and apples. Maybe a category something like Category: People whose articles mention antisemitism. That would be honest and not ambiguous and possibly a hidden attack on their reputation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
To add to what Avi said, "Talking about whether someone's work is bigoted equals an accusation" is simply an incorrect assertion. A discussion has to involve two sides, and if it's a about if someone's work is bigoted (i.e. a debate), then the two sides disagree. Obviously the person who doesn't think it's bigoted doesn't make an accusation that it is. In any case, the comment also misses the main point that both Jayjg and Avi have made: the category Antisemitism does not equal a (theoretical) category Antisemites. The Antisemitism category is for anything that relates to Antisemitism, including in notable discussions. Carlos Latuff and the ADL are examples that both belong in the category. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Examples of current or potential misuse of bigotry-related categories would be placing the following in one or more categories because of material in their bios, causing some scrambling around, debate, edit wars, etc. etc.: Esther_Lederberg, Soferet (documentary), Sarah Silverman, Andrew Dice Clay, The Huffington Post, Phil Mazo, Aurora Levins Morales, Rosalind Franklin , Edna Ferber, Capers Funnye, Sacha Baron Cohen, Stephen Jay Gould, Judd Apatow, Lawrence Summers, Jackie Kallen, Albie Sachs, Dorothy Dinnerstein. And why isn’t Mel Gibson in Category:Antisemitism. Better attorneys? ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Fixed Mel Gibson, BTW. -- Avi (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Artur Carlos de Barros Basto, Jan Gotlib Bloch, Itzik Feffer, Abraham Foxman, Richard J. Green, Norman Hapgood, Pieter Willem van der Horst, Uriah P. Levy, Rodrigo López (physician), Solomon Lozovsky, Frederick Mayer (spy), Irène Némirovsky, John M. Oesterreicher, Aaron Sapiro, Joseph Seligman, Henri Torres, and Benjamin Zuskin are all in the category, with no implication that they are antisemitic. This is a category about articles that discuss or refer to the topic of antisemitism, nothing more; there are no "BLP implications" associated with adding it to any article. Jayjg (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

> Why not a new subcategory called something
> like Activists Against or Opponents of Antisemitism
because arguing about peoples' political aims, real, alleged, or constructed, either by themselves or their opponents, is bound to cause endless POV related disruption. In my native Germany, the most prominent Nazi rag, the National-Zeitung, regularly finds pleasure having their Jewish writers write, particularly when it's about 'Zionism' or Israel. Their goal is the same as is Mahmud Ahmadinedjad's, when he invites both European Neo-Nazis and Jewish representatives to his Teheran conference on the Holocaust. Both the National-Zeitung and the Iranian president claim not to be antisemites, and so do their Jewish collaborators--so, what should we do? While there should be consensus encyclopedically ( an ideal world), politically, there's hardly such thing about what is or not and who is opposing or supporting. More often than not, one group accuses the other of antisemitism, and it's not on us to sort that out. As long as, say, both Latuff and the ADL are filed under [Antisemitism] we're on the safe side, everything else leads to surefire mayhem. --tickle me 01:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Your argument does make the most sense, more than others I've heard. But it doesn't speak to the option of just removing people accused of bigotry from the various categories, especially those who may have made one imperfectly worded or ambiguous angry comment about Israel and suddenly finds four paragraphs about it in their article and placement in this category. (Should there be such persons. I haven't looked at all the articles. Laura Schlessinger would be such an example under Category:Racism.) But partisans might insist because they want to use Wikipedia to defame people for reasons so obvious they need not be explained though others have done so eloquently elsewhere. Also others have said it's better to rename this an similar categories "Debate about (bigotry)" and that certainly would make it less accusatory. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Not that it's relevant to this category, since this category does not label people, but I'm curious; if one were to create new categories that were actually about people, how would one decide which individuals were legitimately accused of antisemitism, versus those who had simply made been "misinterpreted"? It sounds like an impossible minefield of subjectivity and BLP-violations to me. Jayjg (talk) 05:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I have a feeling over time the WP:BLP policy will shift to the policy now used in Category:Homophobia after extensive discussion. A description that says This category is for issues relating to homophobia. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly homophobic. Replacing that with antisemitic. Then you can try to create a category that somehow allows true antisemites to be identified with or without "allegations" in there. Let's see how my future proposals to delete Category:Alleged bodyguards of Osama bin Laden, Category:Alleged witches, Category:Alleged al-Qaeda facilitators go. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
You haven't answered my question at all. In this imaginary world where BLP-policy will shift, how would you identify "true antisemites" and distinguish them from "alleged antisemites" or "false antisemites"? Jayjg (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with the distinction made repeatedly above -- this is not a labeling of people, but clearly as reflected above a reference to articles that relate to the topic.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Just notice JayJg's question: In this imaginary world where BLP-policy will shift, how would you identify "true antisemites" and distinguish them from "alleged antisemites" or "false antisemites"? I meant shift to NOT naming people at all in such a category, obviously starting with other categories first. Time will tell. (And note there are Category:Activists against various BAD things, so people against bigotry can be appropriately labeled.) Thanks for reminding me of a few things I have to do on the topic in general since easy to get distracted, even when you keep a list! CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Namespace template[edit]

Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Category_namespace_templates reads: This category may inappropriately label persons. See Wikipedia:categorization of people for advice on how to apply categorization to articles relating to people. How does this not relate to this category? CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a label for persons (unlike, say, Category:Criminals). It's a category for articles that discuss or refer to the topic of antisemitism. A large majority of the articles in this category are not about persons. Artur Carlos de Barros Basto, Jan Gotlib Bloch, Itzik Feffer, Abraham Foxman, Richard J. Green, Norman Hapgood, Pieter Willem van der Horst, Uriah P. Levy, Rodrigo López (physician), Solomon Lozovsky, Frederick Mayer (spy), Irène Némirovsky, John M. Oesterreicher, Aaron Sapiro, Joseph Seligman, Henri Torres, and Benjamin Zuskin are all in the category, and it does not label them in any way. This has been explained to you many times. I'm not sure how continually asking already-answered questions helps. Jayjg (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
This is from guideline Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people. A guideline about "the categorization of people." Not about "categories that only list people." If this was not relevant, why would Category:Homophobia declare: This category is for issues relating to homophobia. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly homophobic. Obviously editors felt that category was covered by BLP. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
But Category:Antisemitism doesn't categorize people, it categorizes article topics. And it certainly doesn't "label" anyone, much less "inappropriately", so it's not relevant here. This has been explained many times already. And finally, I have no idea who put odd notices on other categories, nor why they did so, but it's also not relevant to this category. Feel free to change that other category's notice to something else, if you find it inappropriate, but please discuss it on that category's Talk: page, not here. Jayjg (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
And I've made my points repeatedly too :-) However, since WP:BLP talk is discussing a policy change that would impact here if eventually if more people get involved, it's not totally irrelevant to bring up other groups. Though frankly I've pretty much had my say here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
You've repeated yourself, at any rate. Jayjg (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

March 7 decision to remove people/organizations from bias categories[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories I have changed the blue header box. I found out from someone who may be using a bot removing a BLP from the article. Not sure how it works. But let's all comply with policy :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that closure was correct, there was majority support but I didn't see consensus myself. I think this is going to get strong pushback, CFD is obscure and has little attention. Such a wideranging decision should have been advertised via an RfC. Fences&Windows 23:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree on all counts. Jayjg (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
You can try to reopen the case. But see the discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 12#Category:People accused of antisemitism etcetera - there is a majority against such categories. And there seems to be a tendency to use the category system for branding people and organizations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Why are you responding to a comment made over a year ago? Jayjg (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, March last year! So it is not just a very recent decision; Galassi (talk · contribs) and Iss246 (talk · contribs) are resisting the removal of biographical articles from this category. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The category is not for branding. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is part of the category. The ADL combats anti-Semitism and other forms of racism. Its being part of the category doesn't mean it is being branded as anti-Semitic. It means that the ADL is relevant to anti-Semitism. It is reasonable to have the ADL as part of the category. We've got to respect the good sense of the reader. We can't worry that the reader who will look at the page for three seconds and leave with a distorted view. That could happen with any reader who looks at any page for three second.Iss246 (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Iss246. The category does and should include individual victims of antisemitic events.--Galassi (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
All the millions?? Plus all the antisemites??? That is not what the category is for. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No. That is an exaggerated interpretation of my position. In the 1930s, my paternal grandfather, a Jewish immigrant from Breslau (now Wroclaw), ran a candy store in the Bushwick section of Brooklyn, then a German-American neighborhood. He was the target of the German-American Bund, a pro-Nazi organization that tried to put him out of business. Do my grandfather's (and father's) travails belong in the category? Of course not. But does Adolf Eichmann belong in the category? He sure does. Does the ADL belong in the category? It sure does, but for the reason that it works to combat anti-Semitism. We have to consider the historical positions of the actors, organizations, and governments.Iss246 (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I add this. I appreciate that Pieter Kuiper does not want to make the category of anti-Semitism become laden with subjectivity. I can imagine that a Wikipedia user may want to take a kind of "revenge" on a historical figure whom the user believes crossed the line into anti-Semitism. A problem such as this can apply to any category that bears on some unfortunate dogma that targets entire group of people (e.g., racism). I think that as long-term contributors to Wikipedia we can productively use the historical record to build the category of anti-Semitism into one that reasonably reflects on important figures, organizations, governments, events, etc. that bear significantly on anti-Semitism.Iss246 (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


Why isn't Anti-Zionism a category of Antisemitism? It is well recognised as the principal contemporary manifestation of Jew hatred and has been since Patrick Moynihan and Chaim Herzog's speeches at the UN. [1]


  1. ^ MacShane, Denis (25 Sep 2008). Globalising Hatred: The New Antisemitism. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 9780297844730. 

Cpsoper (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

RFC on purging individuals and groups[edit]

Numerically, 8 editors are for removing the instructions and 13 against, with some expressing different views such as differentiating depending on BLP status. This does not, in a first approximation, indicate a clear consensus either way. Looking at the arguments, the main argument for removing the restriction is that there are groups and persons that are notable for being verifiably antisemitic, and the main argument against it is that this question should be addressed for all "anti-X sentiment" categories together, not separately for this one. These are both valid lines of argument in the light of Wikipedia policy and practice, and I can't simply dismiss either one. I therefore note that there is no consensus for changing the instructions, with a noticeable majority opposing a change and calling for an RfC covering all similar categories. In my view, such a RfC should also explore nuanced approaches such as some of those proposed in this discussion, or whether separate categories such as "Anti-X persons and groups" might be feasible instead.  Sandstein  20:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Category:Antisemitism and its various subcategories, per this 2011 CFD, continue to include the language that "It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly antisemitic" despite the reality that it does, in practice, include individuals and groups that are, per WP:V and WP:RS, allegedly antisemitic? -- Kendrick7talk 05:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


  • Oppose the current instructions. There clearly have been numerous persons and groups that have been allegedly anti-Semitic throughout human history. Wikipedia should reflect this reality; it does in practice already reflect this reality; and per WP:BURO, our instructions should reflect our actual practices. -- Kendrick7talk 05:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I second that. Antisemitism is largely that - people and groups.--Galassi (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the status quo. No rationale presented as to why antisemitism should be treated differently to all the other forms discrimination listed in the 2011 CFD. The consensus there was for "for a unified approach to these categories". Dlv999 (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It was hardly even a consensus at the time[1] -- Kendrick7talk 06:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect I don't think the IP editor's opinion you have cited shows a very good understanding of consensus which is based on rational arguments, evidence and Wikipedia policy rather than strictly collating votes and calculating percentages. Dlv999 (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Please clue me into what consensus, rational argument, evidence, or Wikipedia policy there is that suggests anti-Semitism has never existed. After all, if no person or group has ever held to the opinion, in what way does it actually exist? -- Kendrick7talk 07:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Kendrick, you're doing a great job of creating straw men. Please stop, it's actually getting annoying. For the last time, no-one is saying antisemitism isn't real, nor that people aren't anti-semitic.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
What part of "[this category] must not include articles about individuals", per the current instructions, do you not understand? Do you admit that there have in fact been anti-Semitic persons in human history, or do you deny it? -- Kendrick7talk 05:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. I'm done with you Kendrick. Read what I wrote. You're pestering people with pointless questions. This isn't about whether there ever were anti-semitic people. Of course there were. This is about whether we use the category system to mark that or not.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with what User:Nick Levinson wrote below: "The purpose of categorization may seem like judgment, but it's mainly to facilitate finding related articles." Our categorization is just what dead tree encyclopedias used to call indexing. The most dog-eared volume in my childhood Funk and Wagnalls was the index. Categorization serves a useful encyclopedic purpose and it's plain silly to hijack that purpose for what seem to be essentially "hippy-dippy" reasons. -- Kendrick7talk 02:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose current "unified" instructions on the cats mentioned in the 2211 discussion. Some individuals and groups are notable for, even defined by, their antisemitism or other prejudice, or for their stance AGAINST such prejudice: Alfred Roth, Anti-Defamation League, Queer Cyprus Association, etc. I note that concern in the 2011 discussion was for potential misuse of the cats. Perhaps what is needed is some guidance on how to use the cats appropriately, and when it is permissible for someone to speedily remove one of the potentially contentious prejudice cats. I would have thought that if the issue of the related prejudice is bought up on the page, and is supported by reliable sources, than a cat would be appropriate. If the prejudice is not mentioned on the page, then the cat can be speedily removed. If there is no restriction on mentioning a prejudice in an article, then we shouldn't have a blanket censor on placing a related category on that article. Imposing a censorship ban on certain categories only inhibits legitimate research into these matters. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: I believe the current consensus does not prevent groups that work against prejudice being added to such categories. The problem is defining which groups are "anti-semitic" enough to warrant inclusion in these categories. The best way to treat this, it was felt by editors and I think still felt by many, is to deal with anti-X in the context of the article text, and not use categories for this purpose, which by their nature are binary - you're either in or out.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I think Obiwankenobi touches on the nub of the problem here. If allegations of antisemitism have been made in sources then these can be dealt with per WP:NPOV in the article themselves, with any denial of the allegations in sources being dealt with in the same way. The problem with adding a category is it lends the weight of the Wikipedia voice to the allegations rather than using Wikipedias normal approach where there are opposing significant views in sources, which is to attribute and present the opposing views per their prominence in the sources, but not to take a position in the Wikipedia voice. Dlv999 (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, which is why all categories pertaining to antisemites, antisemitic people, anti-jewish writers, anti-semitic politicians, etc have been deleted and salted. There is generally agreement to not use the category system to attach pejorative labels to people. Putting the people in the more generic topical categories is just a way of doing an end-run around the problem.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • support status quo pending a broader RFC and oppose this RFC which purports to treat anti-semitism differently than other forms of bias. I suggest this RFC be withdrawn and re-opened with a broader scope in a different location, vs. a very lowly-trafficked category talk page. Perhaps on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
also if we reopen this, the question should not be about the language, but about the consensus rule - kendricks question above seems to suggest that one might keep the rule and simultaneously continue to ignore the rule.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support current instructions The fights over whether this, that or the other indiviudal/media/group should be included would just start up again. (I'd forgotten about this; hope it is linked in appropriate places.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Qualified Support plus want a unified approach. People should not be in such categories, however categories like 'people who have committed antisemitic crimes' would be fine as subcategories, and for living people that would definitely require a criminal conviction before including. For organisations and groups I would want there to be some agreed verifiable inclusion test associated with the category. Dmcq (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course, in BLPs that's only if they are convicted of a crime; historically, there should be RS calling the acts crimes, which obviously there would be in many cases. But there are editors who would love to put into such a category any dead person who said or wrote something in 1840 or 1950 that is a crime in some European country today. I don't think we want to start that lose of categorization either, for this or any other of the many categories of bigotry. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Unified approach either way (which may mean revisiting the discussion in another forum, not here). I'm not super particular about whether categories include organizations etc. or not; I just don't think that any situation which results in "you can categorize a group as antisemitic, but not Islamophobic, homophobic, etc." is at all desirable, which is what would happen without a broader proposed change. We shouldn't have a different approach to how we handle the sources for different biases. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 17:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove that stipulation I am of the opinion that if the attitude of a person or organization is well sourced, then it is permissible to use it on Wikipedia, including in categorization. This includes that I hold we can and should categorize people and organizations as homophobic or antisemitic, if that is well-sourced. Debresser (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem with that is there are dozens, even hundreds, of WP:RS willing to label individuals and media and group as antisemitic from a very partisan view point (especially any criticism of the state of Israel being antisemitic), which obviously affects less partisan mainstream sources. However, you have far fewer WP:RS willing to get in the middle of such debates, investigate or debunk such accusations. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Logically you are right that if editors followed the criteria properly for categories then people could be included. However in reality many just look at the name of the category and have this burning desire to include someone they have a thing against. SO to comply with BLP the safest thing is to not include any people in the main category so any in it stand out, and have a subcategory which is for people but which makes clear in its name that the reason for inclusion has to be something that would pass BLP not just verifiability. Dmcq (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
@Debresser:, the key question is, what is the bar for sourcing? Is Desmond Tutu anti-semitic? Some sources say yes. What about ex-Kiss drummer Peter Criss? A recent tell-all book suggests he is anti-semitic, [2], a charge he denies. The problem with categories is they are all or nothing - binary - so for sensitive and pejorative categorizations such as labeling someone as anti-semitic, you need to establish a threshold - but what is that threshold? a reliable source calling them anti-semitic? Two? They publish a book or make a speech that the ADL calls anti-semitic? What if they deny it? None of this is to say that antisemitism or anti-semitic people do not exist, the problem is in establishing a threshold for a category which either includes or excludes someone - by not putting someone in, we're basically saying in wikipedia's voice "You are an antisemite, but you are not." It is much better to handle such accusations in the article text; indeed, if you look at articles for different famous people accused of anti-semitism, the treatment is always quite different - you have the accusations, the evidence, the response, the response to the response, the apology, and so on - whereas with a category, it's either in or out. If we extend this to racist or homophobic or sexist etc you can see what a mess this would cause. Thus, what are your criteria for inclusion?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
There should be no "one size fits all" instruction. Again, you are saying Hitler must not be an anti-Semite because, oh who knows, Honey Boo Boo maybe has been accused as such. Are we Wikipedians so dumb that we need a rule to prevent us from cleaving them twain? -- Kendrick7talk 04:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'd be happy to have a "hitler + nazis" exception to the rule because they're a bunch of evil shits, but that will never be enough. People will say "But what about this (famous figure from history) who wrote this famous book (that some called antisemitic) - he TOTALLY belongs. You need to have some way of drawing a line to prevent endless arguments, and no-one I've seen has yet proposed such a line. And in any case, we need to have this conversation more broadly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Well indeed a famous person (Martin Luther) did write a famous book (On the Jews and Their Lies) thereof; I fail to see why we need to eliminate Antisemitism from all of human history before 1939. -- Kendrick7talk 05:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Kendrick you're tilting at windmills. No-one in this discussion is saying anti-semitism doesn't exist, but racism and homophobia also exist- we simply don't use the category system to categorize such beliefs. The category system is meant for navigation, it is not meant to describe every true fact about a person. When inclusion criteria are subjective and esp when the result is pejorative we are usually loathe to use the category system to tag people accordingly. This all has nothing to do with whether antisemitism is real so please stop making as it if does.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Why shouldn't we as an encyclopedia categorize Hitler as an anti-Semite? -- Kendrick7talk 04:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support, largely per Dmcq and Roscelese. If the bar extends to people or groups that the courts have explicitly found responsible for antisemitic crimes or torts, and to groups for which antisemitism is a clearly defining characteristic, then I can certainly see a case for shortening it—but even so, such a decision should apply equally to racism, homophobia, & so on, and therefore shouldn‘t be made here.—Odysseus1479 03:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove the stipulation I'm not swayed by the argument that, because it's done wrong in other areas, or is being done inconsistently, it should continue to be done wrong when it comes to antisemitism as well. Change has to start somewhere, something must break the logjam, so why not here. 21:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleener (talkcontribs)
@Fleener:, I'm not sure I understand your point. What do you mean "it's done wrong" - what is being done wrong right now, and how do you suggest doing it "right" for anti-semitism?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove the stipulation This encyclopedia is based on verifiability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, WP:Verifiability is important, but we also have to consider WP:NPOV and WP:BLP here. WP:Verifiability states: "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view". Three of the main points of WP:NPOV tell us to: (1)"Avoid stating opinions as facts", (2) "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" (3) "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views". WP:BLP tells us to strictly adhere to the core policies and that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation.'"
Taken together, the question is how is the best way to cover sourced (i.e. verifiable) allegations of antisemitism (or racism homophobia ect.) that have been made against individuals or groups. It has been felt (and I tend to agree) that adding a category "label" such as Category:Antisemitism is not the best way to deal with it, because you can't attribute a category, you can't give any idea of the weight of views supporting/opposing the allegation, you cannot give any indication of the position of the opposing viewpoints, you can't explicitly indicate to the reader exactly which sources are being used to support the category "label". All these requirements can of course be achieved by covering the allegations in the article itself (and following the relevant policies in the normal way). Dlv999 (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you actually have secret information that Hitler is still alive and well and therefore labeling him as an anti-Semite is a WP:BLP concern? I doubt it. In truth, the whole point of Categories, befitting our role as an encyclopedia, is to provide an index for researchers into a given topic. Denying that any person or group in the history of modern civilization has ever fallen into this category gives to those who use Wikipedia as such a tool a grave disservice. Shall we deny the Holocaust next? -- Kendrick7talk 06:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I was going to say this is reductio ad hitler, but you actually started at hitler, and then ended at holocaust denial. No-one is denying anything. We're just suggesting, using the category system to put pejorative labels on people is problematic. Does racism exist? Absolutely. Are there racists? Surely. Should we add the NBA who made a few racist rants to Category:Racism in America for the rest of time? Mmmm, maybe not. No-one is denying that anyone is or isn't anti-semite. Instead, it's like saying "the pool's closed" - NO one can be in the pool. Thus, no statement is being made about who is or isn't wet. that's what the articles are for.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Again, why is it "problematic" to label Adolph Hitler or Joseph Goebbels as anti-Semites? To label them as such seems to me instead to be a pure application of WP:SPADE, not a mere pejorative. -- Kendrick7talk 05:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Please bring it there again if you have a good case for doing so. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Per the current language at WP:CFD, there's no way to bring about a "discussion" unless you actually support a category's deletion. -- Kendrick7talk 05:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
What status quo? I tried this week to remove this category from Joseph Goebbels and was immediately reverted.[3] The status quo is that these instructions say one thing, but editors in practice do another. Per WP:BURO our rules should reflect our editors's practices. -- Kendrick7talk 06:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Kendrick, you can bring it to CFD, even if it's not for deletion. However, I think this one needs more room and space than CFD provides, I'd suggest like some sort of bias noticeboard, and then launch a broader RFC. You're not going to be able to undo the current consensus, even if it doesn't represent how editors think, if you just focus on one category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Spoken like a true WP:BUROcrat. Now I need to start a noticeboard and launch yet another WP:RFC to change the "consensus" (which everyone has been clearly ignoring in practice) which was the result of a sole admin's close of a WP:CFD from several years ago? Get bent! -- Kendrick7talk 03:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Remove stip. We base such decisions on verifiability. Epeefleche (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Split vote: Usually support where BLP applies, including media, and oppose otherwise. The application of such terms tends to be contentious and strongly controverted by many, probably most, living people, organizations (when led by or representing living people), and media (when created and issued by still-extant organizations) to whom applied, so that sourcing that overcomes contentiousness must be prerequisite if BLP and the standard of contentiousness apply and inclusion in the lead should be required if the category is to be applied.
  • Specific arguments:
    • Other than people, antisemitism and various other -isms are characteristic of some practices, such as the systematic large-scale extermination of Jews or Semites and not of people generally (what the Nazis did included several other defined groups of people but not all people (ignoring BLP arguendo)).
    • On organizations et al. that oppose the -ism being so categorized (e.g., they work against the -ism and list it as a central tenet of their agenda), contentiousness would not apply and therefore they can be so categorized without concern for contentiousness. If an organization, person, or medium may be sourceably described as both against the -ism and as supporting it, if, for example, they disagree on the definition of the -ism in question (disagreement on definitions of widely-used terminology is normal), categorization is appropriate within the category's limit under discussion here. We should not so categorize anyone for opposing the -ism if that opposition is not central; e.g., probably most organizations in the U.S. that hire people have employment nationality and religion nondiscrimination policies but that usually does not warrant due weight for reporting in an article and thus, by itself, would not support opposition to an -ism supporting this kind of categorization.
    • The purpose of categorization may seem like judgment, but it's mainly to facilitate finding related articles. To categorize an article as history is not to say that it is great or wonderful history but simply that it is history, so that readers with an interest in history and who are reading some other article in the same category may find more history articles. To categorize someone as a Nobel winner does emphasize that person's achievement, but the article and the sourcing it cites does that much more substantially. So the judgment effect is secondary to the ability to find related articles. Where the effect of judgment and the ability to find conflict, the ability to find is more important and that supports categorization.
    • Criminal conviction for BLP contentiousness cases is too strong a requirement. Hitler was never convicted of it in the 1940s (ignoring BLP arguendo); I don't know if anyone else was in the subsequent trial/s (I don't remember if Hitler was convicted of anything early in his life). He lost a war over it, but at the moment of his suicide the loss was only a judgment by him and some others, no surrender or treaty on point having been agreed to until after his death. The appropriate threshold of sourcing in BLP cases is that needed to overcome contentiousness, an already-existing standard.
    • Verifiability and NPOV apply to sources and articles, respectively. If those tests are met for articles, they are met for categorization. If they are not met for articles, they are not met for categorization. If they are met for categorization, they do not forbid additional testing or a higher threshold for categorization, which is already the case for other kinds of categories (e.g., we do not categorize as history if an article has very little about history and its lead has nothing about history).
    • The binary nature of categories is true of all caegories and therefore it's already settled that the limitation of being binary is not a disqualification for the concept of categorization. Indexes and lists can provide more thoughtful descriptions. For example, at least one professor of physics has written a book criticizing string theory but it is a minority view; nonetheless, the critique, if an article on it is in Wikipedia, should still be categorized in physics.
    • Belief alone as a basis for categorization is appropriate. Many people are notable only for little more than being ideologues. A broadcast commentator or a newspaper columnist may qualify.
    • Unification is appropriate, but this can be decided for this category first since this RfC is already open. If a unified RfC for all other related categories is set up and goes the other way, the treatment of this category can be reconsidered with an argument for consistency.
    • If anti- applies under any nontrivial definition of anti-, categorization is appropriate regardless of whether other definitions of anti- apply. That's generally the case for other kinds of categories.
    • Subcategorization may be helpful if a category is populated enough, and not all categories need have corresponding subcategories.
  • Nick Levinson (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support status quo - I would oppose the blanket prohibition for all categories had that been the question in a more wide-ranging RfC. Clearly there are people, groups and organizations who can be clearly and verifiably defined as anti-semitic, because people are awful. However, I support the unified approach to these categories. No single one of them should ever be treated differently from all of the others. Ivanvector (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If you want a "unified approach" to so-called "bias categories" the proper way to do that is by creating a WP:POLICY WP:Proposal, and getting support from the community at large. For example, the WP:LINKLOVE policy gives a "unified approach" to how we treat controversial WP:EL's. I'm not one to stand on ceremony, but I take umbrage with WP:CfD having been used to essentially sneak through the backdoor and create a half-baked WP:POLICY with only the support of a 1/2 dozen editors to begin with. This should have gone thru the proper channels. -- Kendrick7talk 01:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The current consensus is that we have a unified approach. The proposal here is to change that approach so that anti-semitism is treated differently to all the other bias categories. I think there is a good argument to say that this is not really the appropriate place for this discussion to be taking place and another venue with wider community input would be more appropriate (as others have said). Dlv999 (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
If such a consensus actually exists, propose it as a policy, per WP:Proposal. The whole idea that there is some hippy-dippy consensus about what a "bias category" is seems completely delusional to me. Atheists are biased against God. Vegetarians are biased against meat. Catholics are biased against Protestants; Protestants are biased against Catholics. Hitler was biased against Jews (but, let us never say so??). Where exactly does this crazy train end? -- Kendrick7talk 06:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Kendrick, a previous consensus did exist. That you disagree with it or the venue where it was held is irrelevant. If you wish to establish a new consensus the onus is on you to start that broader discussion. Making an exception for antisemitism is a bad approach here. As noted we should also explore other possible sub-categories of antisemitism that could capture ppl like the nazis without breaking the general rule - eg by having a category like 'People who committed antisemitic hate crimes' or something similar.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support for retaining guideline in question It's a nuanced case, no doubt, but ultimately I feel the matter comes down to issues of balance and weight. As has been noted above, if a person or organization that is is the subject of an article is said to be antisemitic in nature, we are capable of using multiple citations from reliable sources to present the context of said links as explored through reliable sources and allow the reader. If we lose the requirement in question, a single source would suffice to affix this label to any person or organization in an organizational feature which strips away all context and the Wikipedia approach of presenting to the reader the assessments of our sources, not our editors. That's just a standard that is too far bellow what we require in our content as regards. WP:V and WP:NPOV. Indeed, I think allowing this kind of indexing would constitute sanctioning of a kind of original research, since it would allow editors to pick through the entire (possibly conflicting) selection of sourcing for the individual or organization and select a single source supporting attaching a label in a very black-and-white fashion which prejudice's the reader towards one particular interpretation, rather than presenting them with the facts and allowing them to come to their own conclusions, which is what we are meant to be doing in this case. Of course, it might be argued that the category system at large is prone to these issues and its benefits are generally seen to outweigh those concerns, but I think when we are talking about BLP-style content and a rather heinous ideology to be associated with, we need to exercise appropriate restraint. I think we also need to look at whether the change is likely to help in directing people who are navigating the category to the content which they are actually looking for or will find useful. A sudden glut of indexing to articles for individuals who may or may not be undeniably antisemitic but many of whom have no real major significance to the history or understanding of the ideology is of dubious benefit in that regard. Putting all of these factors together, I see a rather questionable cost-benefit return for changing the guideline. Snow talk 05:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Per Odysseus1479, somethings are too obvious to understand and no one really oppose. No BLP violation if it was added with the reliable source, though it may depend upon the subject. Per Obiwankenobi, if we cannot decide anything then RFC can be reopened for broader discussion on the talk of WikiProject:Discrimination. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 02:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support current wording. Sometimes some editors use categories to impose super-simplication of situations and ideas. They should not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support current wording. As explained above, putting this category on a person's article is an unequivocal statement in Wikipedia's voice that the person is antisemitic, yet the real world is rarely so simple. There are lots of cases where we might all agree with sources that say a particular person is antisemitic, but there are hundreds of other cases where a source might, for example, assert that someone is antisemitic simply because the person opposed an action taken by Israel, yet reasonable people would find that conclusion misleading. The article is the place to explain what a person has done, and to provide sourced responses. An on/off category is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose current wording. Anti-semitism is really and there are a huge number of anti-semites in the world - and some of them would kill all the Jews. If we can't handle this in a way that meets BLP and NPOV (and of course V) that's a pretty bad indictment of Wikipedia. Of course the sources need to say that the person dislikes/hates Jews, not an action by Israel, but our policies deal with that sort of thing. Dougweller (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - only people who were condemned by justice for antisemitism should be there ; not people who are allegedly antisemite according to [some interpretation of] what they [would have] said. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • support what User:Obiwankenobi said. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

I am open to discussion on the matter -- Kendrick7talk 05:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

What is the rationale for taking a different approach to the anti semitism to the other categories of discrimination listed in the 2011 CFD (Ageism, Anti-Ahmadiyya, Anti-Arabism, Anti-Buddhism, Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Hinduism, Anti-Islam sentiment, Anti-Protestantism, Homophobia, Misandrm, Racism, Sexism)
[Insert] And let us not forget Category:Misogyny and Category:Transphobia. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me if the proposal is justifiable in the case of antisemitism it is equally justifiable in the other cases. As such any proposed change should be addressed centrally and applied to all categories. It would seem odd to have one rule for the antisemitism cat and another for all other forms of discrimination. Dlv999 (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this should be opened up to include those other cats in the 2011 CFD. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
We should make the !votes clear, we have people !voting oppose but they seem to support the actual RFC.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Not that I can see: the request itself may be somewhat unusual in that it calls for endorsement of existing language that the proposer wishes to remove (or modify perhaps, without specific changes in mind), but the initial “Oppose the current instructions“ seems to have led off in such a fashion that everyone else has been able to follow suit. FWIW I read the “Unified approach“ as a qualified or provisional Support, and the “Remove …“ as an Oppose.—Odysseus1479 03:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

As much as I hate to make an ad hitlerum argument, if it is the will of the project to remove Adolf Hitler from this category's subcategories, I'll abide by it. I would suggest instead that evil actually does exist and has existed in this world, and just saying it's "bias" is a complete and total intellectual cop-out. -- Kendrick7talk

I see no problem with including Hitler in a subcategory 'people who have committed antisemitic crimes'. I disagree with sticking any people in the top category though. Dmcq (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Also I think we need a clearer definition of "Anti". For example, Anti-Catholicism starts with: "Anti-Catholicism is hostility towards, or opposition to Catholicism". That seems odd to me, because aren't hostility and opposition entirely different concepts? When "Anti" is defined more clearly (e.g. something with denial of basic human rights), then people can be classified as "Anti" more easily as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"Anti-" is a prefix of Latin origin which means "against" or "opposed to." -- Kendrick7talk 10:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I know, the real question is what should categorization of 'anti' be based on? If 'opposed to' is sufficient to categorize, the category becomes meaningless. Hypothetical example, I may be opposed to Hinduism because it's polytheistic and for that reason I may try to convert Hindus to a monotheistic religion - but I would never want to prevent persistent Hindus from exercising their own religion. Should I thus be classified as anti-Hinduist or not? With the literal meaning of 'anti' the answer would be yes, but I strongly doubt that this is the way to go. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you should then be categorized as anti-Hinduistic. Do you not think Fidel Castro is anti-Capitalist? Or that Newt Gingrich is an anti-Communist? Why should Wikipedia have to suddenly deny reality just because a god is in the mix? -- Kendrick7talk 07:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think the alternative proposed above of "anti-semitic crimes" or something similar is an interesting way to go. Clearly, Hitler is not known as an anti-Semite because he ranted and raved about it, he took and directed specific action - indeed all Nazi's could be fairly painted with the same brush, so you could just put the whole Nazi category under "Groups which undertook anti-semitic activities" - we can come up with better wording - but it has to be something more than "made a speech that caused the ADL to brand him as anti-semite". We've been in discussion at the LGBT project about creating something called Anti-gay activists - which is I think an interesting way to classify people like Fred Phelps - he's not just a guy who has a few homophobic sentiments, he has been open about his activism against gay people. I wonder if "Activists promoting anti-semitism" could work? Just throwing out ideas - I think the problem is classifying someone purely on their beliefs esp when such beliefs are often considered pejorative, but if you can find something they did - e.g. committed a crime in the name of anti-semitism, or otherwise were activist in promoting anti-Semitism, then you have a better basis for a category.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I could absolutely live with the instruction that people in this category would have seemed to have "committed a crime in the name of anti-semitism, or otherwise were activist in promoting anti-Semitism"! Although per WP:COMMON it might be overkill, and we should also include notable people who fought against anti-Semitism, etc. Of course I'm not necessarily in a position to trade away the rantings of the ADL given my previous complaints,[4] although you are a witness to my prior attempt to rope User:Slim Virgin into such a discussion so I'm holding up the banner as best I am able. :) -- Kendrick7talk 03:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
We have Category:Opposition_to_antisemitism for example, in which people or orgs who fought against it could go, we probably have some other categories as well for that; such categories as those are no problem, because they aren't contentious. I don't think it's even been a problem to include people who fought AGAINST element X in such categories - it's really the indirect labeling of those who fought for anti-X that becomes problematic. Do you think people would be satisfied with "considered to have committed a crime" - whether convicted or not, history can also offer a verdict, and I don't think people want to treat Hitler as innocent until proven guilty, we can convict him in the court of scholarship. This may still leave out notable writers-of-nasty-books-about-jews, but would probably capture most of the really odious people, and could be created as a subset here to capture them; we could do something similar - but do you see us populating Category:People who committed misogynistic crimes and putting Elliot Rodgers within? Again, I really wish you would have heeded the advice given by several to take this to a broader fora and discuss first, then propose a set of changes; instead you've started an RFC which is essentially "Keep the old rules, or have no rules at all - and by the way whatever we decide only applies to this one category (were subcategories tagged or considered to be included?) It's not nuanced.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
See, I knew you couldn't quit me. :) It's late here and I will get back to you. -- Kendrick7talk 03:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this isn't a matter of criminal conviction. Since when does the compendium of human knowledge have to bow its knee to the opinion of history's court systems or (if you go back far enough) the judgement of kings and queens? But at the same time we shouldn't just leave ideologue's off the hook.
So we're essentially agreed then that the proper instruction on this category (if there must be one) should be, in your words, that it lists only those who "committed a crime in the name of anti-semitism, or otherwise were activist in promoting anti-Semitism"? I like this much more than the previous "consensus" that anti-Semitism more or less has never existed among people or groups. -- Kendrick7talk 00:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm new to this discussion, but I wouldn't agree to that. There is a clear consensus in the aforementioned 2011 CFD that there should be a unified approach to these categories. There is evidence based on how editors are editing that consensus on what the unified approach should be has changed, but I see no evidence and can think of no justification for not maintaining a unified approach across all of these categories. If we change the rules for this one category, we go against that broad consensus. I don't think that's appropriate. Ivanvector (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Just because a sole editor nominated a random selection of categories (well, they mostly begin with the same first four letters, I suppose) that shouldn't mean they are forever thenceforth joined at the hip. Furthermore, to quote another editor's view on that CfD from my talkpage:

Here are my comments on the CfD:

1) The proposer, Roscelese, did not propose banning the adding of individuals, organizations, media, etc. from the bias categories. Her proposal simply asked for consensus on making the bias categories uniform by taking a "unified approach" to them.

2) Roscelese herself does not !vote in favor of not listing "individuals, orgs, etc.".

3) Eighteen editors expressed an opinion on the "unified approach" proposal: Eleven supporting—Roscelese, CarolMooreDC, Good Ol'factory, dmcq, Kaldari, Dezidor, Joe Decker, Nick Levinson, Moni3, Geometry guy and SandyGeorgia; Seven opposing—Avi, Debresser, Rainbowofpeace, Gnangarra, Jayjg, Jack Cox and Ricardianman.

4) Of the eleven supporting !votes, six also supported banning individuals, orgs, etc., from the bias categories: CaroleMooreDC, Good Ol'factory, and Dezidor explicitly, and Nick Levinson, Moni3, and SandyGeorgia by recommending that the bias categories be deleted entirely. (Of the seven oppose !votes, none support banning individuals & orgs, etc.)

5) (The support !vote of dmcq is ambiguous: he says he approves of banning individuals, but appreciates having a "category of people convicted of anti-homosexual crimes".)

6) If you include the !vote of dmcq, there are seven !votes that support not naming individuals, orgs, etc., in bias categories.

7) Seven divided by eighteen is 39%, not even a simple majority of the !vote.

8) The finding by the closer, Timrollpickering, of "Consensus for a unified approach to these categories" is supportable—of eighteen !votes, eleven supported a "unified approach" (consistency is a good thing, right?).

9) The finding by the closer, Timrollpickering, of "most support to ban individuals & organisations", is manifestly incorrect and false—only six (or seven) out of eighteen editors expressed such support.

10) Any action taken on the basis of this manifestly erroneous claim of consensus (i.e. "most support to ban individuals & organisations") is surely invalid.

11) In addition, the closing admin had no warrant to make a determination on anything but the question posed by Roscelese: whether to take a unified approach to bias categories (and not on how to make the bias categories uniform). (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

And I agree that hardly adds up to consensus for the current language here. And we must consider that the outcome has been constantly ignored in practice ever since. No one ran off guns a-blazing to remove Hitler or Goebbels from this category, or else perhaps there might have been some backlash. And since no attempt to purge this category was carried out at the time (as the closing admin basically took a position no one actually asked for), editors who help maintain articles in this category were never made pointedly aware of the admin's decision so as to appeal it to WP:DRV in a timely manner. WP:CONSENSUS isn't something which occurs in smokey back rooms, and gets stuck in the back of a filing cabinet, only to be trotted out years later with the cry of "oh, but this has always been consensus." If you agree, help me strike down this silly rule. -- Kendrick7talk 02:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I tend to ignore most arguments based on a simple vote tally, especially those where editors feel the need to resort to determining the implied vote from an editor's comment so that they can make an argument based on the tally. Here's the thing, though: I agree with you. I don't think that the closer of that discussion overstepped their role as closer per se. In fact, it seems apparent that the question of the unified approach was essentially taken for granted from the outset of that discussion, and the balance really was "what should the unified approach be?" Therefore I don't begrudge the close for commenting on that. However, I disagree with the result.
To me, the close has two parts. One, there is a clear and obvious consensus (based on the strength of the arguments, not the raw !votes) that categories for descriptors which could be considered defamatory if attached to a person or organization (so-called "bias categories") should all be treated with the same guidelines on Wikipedia (i.e. a unified approach). I think it might be better if we call them "POV categories" or something like that. I agree with the unified approach, it makes sense operationally and functionally to treat these categories equally. Two, there is a far less clear consensus that persons and organizations should as a rule be excluded from these categories. The result is what it is, but I disagree with it, and your observation of other users ignoring that direction (intentionally or not) is evidence that the community doesn't support that result, either.
However, I'm standing in opposition to this proposal because I think that uniformity of application is more important than getting it right on one out of however many of these categories there are.
If you were to close this discussion and open a thread about reevaluating the unified approach for all POV categories, I would support you. Hopefully, if you decide to do so, you'll pick somewhere with a lot of eyes, like the Village Pump or a more appropriate noticeboard. And leave me a note so I can stop by to lend my support. Ivanvector (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This category has survived 4 deletions[edit]

... only for editors who are against the idea that anti-Semitism exists to try and game the system by lumping it in with a whole bunch of other categories that happen to begin with the participle "anti" and pretending that makes them all "bias categories" as if that were a thing. And then the discussion gets closed by a bot? Is there no WP:JANITOR willing to stick their neck out on the line and admit that Adolph Hitler was an anti-Semite? This isn't hard people. -- Kendrick7talk 07:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a subcategory for Adolf Hitler and there is a subcategory for antisemitic incidents which is a move towards addressing the concerns of those worried about just sticking peoples names in this category. I just took the first name at random I came across in this category Ludwig Thoma and there was no mention of jews or antisemitism in the article. I don't know if they were antisemitic but I'm pretty sure the category should not be applied to them if it was not a notable aspect of them and that's without them even falling under BLP. How about addressing the problems others see instead of pushing for something which doesn't work and would lead to even worse violations of Wikipedia policy? Dmcq (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The article says Ludwig Thoma became a member of the antisemitic German Fatherland Party near the end of WWI. He was a member of an antisemitic organization but that doesn't verifiably demonstrate that he himself was an antisemite. Category removed. A perfect example of why the instructions not to tag people with these categories are appropriate.
I have posted a request for closure at WP:ANRFC. Ivanvector (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question on above and mass edits[edit]

Considering that the above RFC ended with "no consensus", can it please be explained why that mass edits are taking place that state "rm category; per closure of recent RfC, no person or group can be categorized as anti-Semitic Category_talk:Antisemitism#RFC_on_purging_individuals_and_groups". (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Because it closed with no consensus for changing the old instructions. It looks as though the implications are that some categories should be completely depopulated. Dougweller (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The RFC was about changing text on the category page, and the conclusion was that there was no consensus for any change. I asked the administrator who closed that RFC, who replied “I did not find consensus to systematically remove pages from the category; that was not discussed in the RfC.” As far as I have noticed, none of the other participants in that RFC, regardless of their positions or their votes, are doing this. The editor performing the mass deletions of categories seems to be the only editor with that peculiar interpretation of the RFC results.  Unician   11:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
So, take your bite at the apple. I agree with relisting the RfC. That the closing admin didn't understand that language such that this category "must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly anti-semitic" might actually mean exactly what it says is extremely problematic. But I've used up my chances and recognize that someone else needs to step up to the plate. -- Kendrick7talk 07:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
"Allegedly" is the tricky bit, but I've raised this at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Being confident that I've given everyone involved fair warning, whether or not you liked the way I phrased the RfC, or how exactly the closing admin understood it, that the original CfD is still in play, I am nevertheless resuming the purge the CfD originally called for until such a time as the language is removed from this, the parent category. -- Kendrick7talk 05:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What a Semite is[edit]

Yeah, I know, anyone here who reads this will find it to be pointless, but a Semite is a thing, and that thing is not Jewish. If you are anti-Arab, you are anti-Semite, and that is just the most prominent example. We are supposed to write articles to the reader who has no previous knowledge of the topic. The beginning of this article defines that which a Semite is by defining its opposite. And yet, taking that on good value, appraising that with good faith, leaves nothing and leads nowhere in relation to a wealth of information. Now people here are going to say that doesn't matter because we are sourcing information and we follow it to the sources. But in fact we are democratising sources, lending more weight to the bigger present-day swing. But there are some sources and facts which stretch back and are more significant. That significance is not about whose name gets scrawled on a wall after you beat each other up, but it is simply about who and what we are from before we had an influence, and that is a lot more important and significant and notable no matter how much spam the wars and their props receive! ~ R.T.G 20:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Antisemitism doesn't mean and has never ment hostility to Semites in general. It has always ment anti-Jewish. Sjö (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's worth learning that usage, not etymology, is the determinant of meaning. Anti-Semitism, as any decent dictionary will tell you, is "hostility or prejudice against Jews", and that a Semite is "a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs". That the etymology might mislead you into thinking anti-Semitism includes hostility or prejudice against Arabs is neither here nor there; that's not what it means. - Nunh-huh 22:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree, and have thus changed antisemitism to a disambiguation page for now. The hypen completely changes the meaning. -- Kendrick7talk 04:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, that didn't stick, but it's nevertheless a fall back plan. -- Kendrick7talk 02:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

"Antisemite" is not a real word. It is a fake British word. The real spelling is anti-Semitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)