Talk:Antisemitism

Picture in "Antisemitism in Germany" section

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

He has clearly visible Nazi tattoos on his arm. VQuakr (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

We talked about this in January (see the talk archive) He's a neo-nazi who's demonstrating for Palestine because it's an opportunity to stick it to Jews - although I did note in the previous discussion that that is in no way obvious from the thumbnail. I'd support replacing it for this reason - in the version readers see, if they don't click through, it's not that illuminating. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Rewriting caption to clarify.E.M.Gregory (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, this photo is the object of commentary at [1], which renders the text as "Das tapfere palästinensische Volk sollte man ehren da sie noch die einzigen sind auf dieser Welt die sich gegen den Zionisten wehren" (oddly, the photo appears to have capitalized "Ehren", but it seems used as a verb here ... but I'm no great expert in German). Anyway, the Google translation seems plausible enough: "The brave Palestinian people should be honored because they are still the only ones in the world who oppose the Zionists."

Also, so far as I can tell the Nazi aspect is sort of obscure - the "88" is a sort of American prison code for "HH" i.e. "Heil Hitler". That's probably a creepy Nazi eagle, but who can tell? - practically every country has some creepy eagle perched on its flag waiting for war to throw carrion its way. Wnt (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

"Practically every country"? o.O Bit overstating it, are we? Taking the nations' flags in alphabetical order, the first flag with a bird on it is Dominica - and that's a parrot. The next one is Papua New Guinea, and it has a Bird-of-paradise. lol Geofferic ^T•_C✡ 06:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Example farming

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

It also may be unbalanced. In many other parallel contents on discrimination such as Anti-Americanism and Anti-British sentiment there are large contents to describe things that the US and the British had done that may have provoked reactions. GregKaye 18:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we should be encouraging justifications for blood libel and the Holocaust to be added to Wikipedia, unless it's under a special heading indicating that they are justifications and not causes. Bigotry is not provoked; it is rationalized. Geofferic ^T•_C✡ 06:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there's a big problem. My feeling is that the article needs to be divided into two: History of anti-Semitism - which actually already exists, and follows a parallel structure to much of this article with duplicated content - and Anti-Semitism by country, which should survey country by country like the "modern" section. I should note for this structure that, despite the name of the former article, there should be no arbitrary cutoff between "historical" and "modern" anti-Semitism, despite the existence of a really obvious demarcation point. Rather, the idea is, the former article goes through and subdivides anti-Semitism by historical era, while the latter subdivides it by country. So the History of anti-Semitism article should have a little section in summary style (not out of line with the sizes of the others) explaining the modern situation worldwide, and the Anti-Semitism by country article should explain older events, at least in brief, for each country. Wnt (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Better source for the lead?

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

Some sources I've found calling antisemitism racism. Please note I'm not claiming we can use all these. Some I have marked with reasons why I think they shouldn't be used. None the less I found them.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/canadareport2011.pdf

http://www.islamdenouncesantisemitism.com/antisemitism.htm (not sure if this is a good enough source)

http://www.ecaj.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2014_antisemitism_report.pdf

http://jewdas.org/keeping-antisemitism-simple/ (I highly doubt this is good enough but I'm okay with putting it on the talk page).

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/antisemitism.htm (might be too Christian of a site)

(I indented your post to thread it. I hope you don't mind, and you can revert it if you want.) Thanks for the sources. The first source distinguishes between racism and antisemitism; this doesn't necessarily contradict the claim that antisemitism is a form of racism, but it's important to note. Here are some quotes from that document, published by the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism, which I believe is relevant to this matter (bold added for emphasis to this and all future quotes):

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

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

Here is another:

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

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

Here is one more:

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

Again, another opinion, but this doesn't really verify the claim in any sort of authoritative way. This quote implies that "public expressions of racism" can include said expressions of racism toward the Jewish community. This isn't saying that antisemitism is racism, though, only that Jews can face racism.

Those are the three main quotes I could see as relevant in the document. There are other statements (CTRL+F "racism"), but they don't really state or imply anything about antisemitism as a form of racism, and in fact many distinguish between the two.

The second source is, in my opinion, clearly an agenda-driven site intended to condemn antisemitism and separate it from Islam. Regardless of the source's meritorious aims, I wouldn't consider it neutral or reliable. The third source, published by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, is interesting, and it clearly claims that antisemitism is racism and argues that it is in multiple places. However, is this a neutral and reliable source? I am new, and I don't know enough about these matters to judge it myself, so I'd need more input from other editors. My concern with this source, as with the source currently being used in the article, is that the organization is clearly Jewish and wishes to endorse the best for its people. Good for them, and I have no problem with that, but from a Wikipedia standpoint this may also mean that they have an agenda of their own, or collectively holds views about antisemitism which are not widely or universally recognized by society, or even recognized by all Jews (after all, they are not an organization officially representing all Jews globally).

I wouldn't be surprised if antisemitism is a form of racism, and I have no formed opinion about this matter, but I am worried that the assertion of antisemitism being a form of racism might not be as widespread a view as is claimed in this article. We need to be careful when speaking in WikiVoice, since that is the voice which readers will take to be most authoritative on Wikipedia. Unless there is evidence from some major news sources or (preferably) the United Nations which claim that antisemitism is a form of racism, it's difficult for me to consider this claim to be properly sourced. If no authoritative source(s) are provided, I think it may be best to reword the sentence in question. For example, we could have the sentence be:

Some consider antisemitism to be a form of racism.

We could then cite the reliable sources we've gathered here and leave it at that: an assertion, in WikiVoice, that some consider antisemitism to be a form of racism. The sources would indicate that this view is held by some pretty notable bodies, which would lend credit to the claim. We wouldn't be POV, however, by asserting that antisemitism definitely and authoritatively is a form of racism despite a lack of verified global consensus, though.

As for the fourth source, I believe it is a blog, and clearly violates WP:RS. It's interesting, and I appreciate your providing it, but I don't think it qualifies. I may be wrong on that, though, in which case feel free to correct me. Likewise with the fifth source, which appears to be the blog of one man espousing his own views on Christian deism (or perhaps deistic Christianity). I'll continue to check for some sources over the next day or two, as well, and hope that others could find some in the meantime. As a side note regarding the source currently being used in the article, I've also found this, which appears to be the same resolution with the same text. That's great and all, but I still can't find it in the UN archives. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 05:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

As for finding anything about racism, anti-semitism or any other form of discrimination I seriously doubt that we will ever find anything that is completely free of bias. I strongly think the ones I didn't mark with notes work fine for now. If you research Jews, their primary identity comes from ethnic/cultural association rather than religion. Therefore by logic that would mean discrimination against them would be racism. Usually alone I would state that evidence is enough but along with the fact that we have now 3 sources that work (the one already provided and two more) I think we can safely keep it (at least for now). I will however continue searching out the U.N. declaration but I can also tell you that the U.N. has condemned Genocide and occasionally even milder violence against Jews as racism. I might also expand into non-English sources to seek out more information. I will continue to add more sources but for right now I think if we add those two new sources they should at least temporarily hold the argument. If you disagree I would love to hear your explanation. Thank you for helping on wikipedia :) -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Heres another source as well that mentions in passing but in my opinion pretty clearly what the resolution of the U.N. stated. https://books.google.com/books?id=xWusAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA279&lpg=PA279&dq=UN+Resolution+623+Jews&source=bl&ots=EoR2VFZ0o6&sig=PEZSkgZIdkTk6Qt4ahzdGyz2LMo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fQAyVfOrIMjRoATl-YGIDg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=UN%20Resolution%20623%20Jews&f=false -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Finally! I searched the information in the book link you provided, and I found the resolution. Apparently, the problem was that CTRL+F doesn't work on the document, so it didn't find any of the search terms. In any case, here is the official document for Resolution 623 of the United Nations General Assembly on December 9, 1998. Item 17 states (emphasis added):

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

For some reason, the UNGA specifies "racism" and "racial discrimination". This could simply be a legal tactic to ensure that all forms of racism and racial discrimination are covered, since some would argue that they are two different, albeit intimately related, forms of discrimination. It could also imply that the UNGA wanted to specify that discrimination against "blacks, Arabs and Muslims" and other forms of discrimination, such as "xenophobia, Negrophobia, anti-Semitism and related intolerance", are all forms of racial discrimination, which is distinct from racism. Moreover, the final specification of "related intolerance" means that one could argue that antisemitism is classified as intolerance, or (more likely, given the contect) racial intolerance. I feel like this is all unclear, however, and from a classification standpoint, any of these could apply. They all have differing meanings and degrees of intensity, according to some, but it could simply be that the UNGA uses these terms interchangeably.

In any case, the matter of whether to classify antisemitism as "racism" or "racial discrimination" or "[racial] intolerance" is pretty much negated by the other sources. If we use the other sources, then we'll need to define it as racism. Not what I'd classify it as, but that's what the sources say. If you don't mind, I'll be deleting the old link and replace it with the official UN document. I'll also add the other sources you've provided. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your work on Wikipedia. Keep it up so we can continue to improve it.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Use mention error

"the term was popularized in Germany"

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

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

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