Talk:Antisemitism

Troubled Etymology

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

The etymology of the word is discussed at length in the first section of the article after the lede. VQuakr (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

That section seems to say a lot of things, without saying anything at all. Just as "Washington Redskins" is offensive to Native Americans, using antisemitism only to means Jews is offensive to Arabs. All in all, this article seems to be written with a fairly strong anti-Arab bias. Quite ironic that the Wikipedia article on Antisemitism is itself anti-semitic. --Westwind273 (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The word "antisemitism" was invented by Jew-haters to refer specifically to the hatred of Jews. Arabs were not considered at all. It has never meant anything else except in very minor usage. Blame the Jew-hating creators of the term for not spreading their hatred more widely. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

By German Jew-haters. There is a long tradition of Jewdenhass in the Arab world.Scientus (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"Judeophobia"

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

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

"...recognizing, correctly, the ethnocentric confusion caused by the term "anti-Semitism," which was entering the lexicon..." [1] Editorializing, much? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:POINT, kinda too? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm especially taken with the very important bolding of the term. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"Judeophobia" and neutrality of the lede

Since at least 3 editors are in favor of including the term "Judeophobia" in the lede, and since it has been sourced by an editor, so for neutrality please do not remove the term in the lede unless a consensus is reached to remove it. Khestwol (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You are very conveniently ignoring everyone who is against the change. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

indeed. It doesn't belong there; it's too minor a usage. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:UNDUE for an explanation of why Judeophobia doesn't belong in the lead. WP:LEAD is on point as well. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Firstly "antisemitism" is not a correct term but has a heavy WP:Systemic bias against the Arab semites. And secondly, it is not even the most common term per Google Ngram -- "anti-Semitism" is the WP:COMMONNAME, not antisemitism. I suggest that we mention all the 3 terms from this Ngram (anti-Semitism,antisemitism,Judeophobia) on the lede. Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it. Removing any of the aforementioned 3 terms and leaving only "antisemitism" makes the lede non-neutral. Khestwol (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Highlighting an obscure neologism would be WP:UNDUE and that would be non-neutral. Despite the recent edit warring, we have "Antisemitism (also spelled anti-Semitism or anti-semitism)". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The hyphen is just a spelling issue. It's disputed whether COMMONNAME covers that. As for "discrimination" a term can't discriminate in the way you mean, only in the same sense that the word "Arab" discriminates by excluding non-Arabs. All meaning discriminates. Paul B (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The capitalisation of the letter S in terminologies related to Semitic peoples (of which Jewish people comprise one group) is an issue of recognition. You consistently ignore this point. GregKaye 05:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, it has been addressed over and over and over. The repetition of the same arguments incessantly is becoming disruptive. Paul B (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this term should not be included. VQuakr (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that, while to some extent "Judeophobia" may be a minor usage it remains a extremely significant one. As Jpgordon has helpfully pointed out it was used prominently by Leo Pinsker and on this basis I have compiled:

relevant quotes related to Judeophobia and anti-Semitism as appearing within:"Auto-Emancipation" by Leon Pinsker (1882)

That hoary problem, subsumed under the Jewish question, today, as ever in the past, provokes discussion. Like the squaring of the circle it remains unsolved, but unlike it, continues to be the ever-burning question of the day. That is because the problem is not one of mere theoretical interest: it renews and revives in every-day life and presses ever more urgently for solution. This is the kernel of the problem, as we see it: the Jews comprise a distinctive element among the nations under which they dwell, and as such can neither assimilate nor be readily digested by any nation. ...Only when this basis is established, when the equality of Jews with other nations becomes a fact, can the Jewish problem be considered solved. ... With the loss of their country, the Jewish people lost their independence,... The world saw in this people the uncanny form of one of the dead walking among the living. The Ghostlike apparition of a living corpse, of a people without unity or organization, without land or other bonds of unity, no longer alive, and yet walking among the living -- this spectral form without precedence in history, unlike anything that preceded or followed it, could but strangely affect the imagination of the nations. And if the fear of ghosts is something inborn, and has a certain justification in the psychic life of mankind, why be surprised at the effect produced by this dead but still living nation A fear of the Jewish ghost has passed down the generations and the centuries. First a breeder of prejudice, later in conjunction with other forces we are about to discuss, it culminated in Judeophobia. Judeophobia, together with other symbols, superstitions and idiosyncrasies, has acquired legitimacy phobia among all the peoples of the earth with whom the Jews had intercourse. Judeophobia is a variety of demonopathy with the distinction that it is not peculiar to particular races but is common to the whole of mankind, and that this ghost is not disembodied like other ghosts but partakes of flesh and blood, must endure pain inflicted by the fearful mob who imagines itself endangered. Judeophobia is a psychic aberration. As a psychic aberration it is hereditary, and as a disease transmitted for two thousand years it is incurable. It is this fear of ghosts, the mother of Judeophobia, that has evoked this abstract, I might say Platonic hatred, thanks to which the whole Jewish nation is wont to be held responsible for the real or supposed misdeeds of its individual members, and to be libeled in so many ways, to be buffeted about so shamefully. Friend and foe alike have tried to explain or to justify this hatred of the Jews by bringing all sorts of charges against them. ... In this way have Judaism and Anti-Semitism passed for centuries through history as inseparable companions. Like the Jewish people, the real wandering Jew, Anti-Semitism, too, seems as if it would never die. He must be blind indeed who will assert that the Jews are not the chosen people, the people chosen for universal hatred. No matter how much the nations are at variance in their relations with one another, however diverse their instincts and aims, they join hands in their hatred of the Jews; on this one matter all are agreed. Having analyzed Judeophobia as an hereditary form of demonopathy, peculiar to the human race, and having represented Anti-Semitism as proceeding from an inherited aberration of the human mind, we must draw the important conclusion that we must give' up contending against these hostile impulses as we must against every other inherited predisposition...

The significant use of Judeophobia is that it actually gives direct reference, via the "Judeo ..." prefix, to the Jewish people. Please can editors note that Wikipedia is not a censor. The other advantage of an added reference to "Judeophobia" is that it provides reference to the similarly abhorrent phenomena as Islamophobia.

I find it incredibly humorous that editors are using a WP:UNDUE justification for a non inclusion of "Judeophobia" even though the article uses a non representative title of "antisemitism" over "anti-Semitism" in contravention of the stipulations of WP:UCRN, WP:SHOWCASE and WP:CRITERIA in relation to consistency with other article title formats. These are significant areas of policy which I believe that editors are wilfully choosing to ignore. GregKaye 05:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

If editors sincerely want to consider p & g such as WP:UNDUE then please consider that article wording includes:

• "antisemit..." appears 54 times in notes, references and further reading and yet appears as article title and 305 times in the pervious article text.
• "anti-Semit..." appears 98 times in notes, references and further reading yet does not appear as article title and only appears 40 times in the article text.

As far as I can see there is a ridiculous POV push within article titling in regard to a use of a terminology that fails to make direct reference to the commonly recognised name of a the group of people concerned in the same manner as almost every parallel prejudice related designation. The only other example that I know of in regard to discrepancy of designation relates to, arguably, a similar disconnect in subject matter in Anti-Zionism. GregKaye 07:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you GregKaye for putting more light on the background of the three words "anti-Semitism", "antisemitism", and "Judeophobia". I agree with your last edit and removing "anti-semitism". Khestwol (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Start a RFC proposing the change then. I suspect it'll go along the same lines as Talk:Islam_and_antisemitism#Requested_move_25_May_2015 has. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE. This was discussed ad nauseum not long ago, and the consensus was not for Greg's proposed changes. VQuakr (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Please. You know the context. My argument to this is that, if the horse is to be judged to be dead, the clearest explanation is that a clan of editors have WP:Tenditiously strangled it. I would agree though that it was discussed (though with little justification from p & g) ad nauseum starting in Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 33#Requested move with your preposterous "you must be" etc. appeals all refuted in my 06:21, 22 August 2014 edit which was then followed by the equally tendentious discussion hatting stunt.

Following this move with "6 or 7 supporters and 3 opposers" and immediate further comment that "regardless of the numbers the arguments of the supporters are also stronger." A similar discussion was started on 10:19, 28 August 2014 related to the RM of various daughter articles at Talk:3D Test of Antisemitism#Requested moves which was rejected, I believe, largely on the basis of tendentious contribution. Also, despite the existence of the second RM, an (I believe) pointless move review was put in place, ironically, on a justification that "some people feel that they must create big waves". The move review was written in a style and with a content / presentation that I have never seen before or since and, even though related discussions were hatted with links to the move review, there were stunts to remove/demote references to the then currently running RM discussion and to the guidance contents Wikipedia:Move review#What this process is not and Wikipedia:Move review#Instructions.

All I ask is that editors play fair but I feel that, in the light of very clear policy contents, guidelines are either dis-guarded or manipulated for tendentious ends.

Britannica still and I think both rightly and neutrally (and as written by the "scholar, professor, rabbi, writer, and filmmaker" Michael Berenbaum of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum) presents: "anti-Semitism" and I think that it is only due to misguided editor bias that we do not do the same. In my view all that we do instead is prop up a misleading misnomer that is selectively used in various arenas and which interferes with the development of clear, direct, non fractured understandings of this topic in the same way as is achieved in the analysis of many other forms of prejudice. I do not believe that this is a way in which an encyclopedia should behave. GregKaye 10:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Greg, you have a clear ideological reason for supporting the hyphenated spelling. You've said so yourself. It's because you want to highlight the word "Semitic". WP:COMMONNAME is just a tool in your ideological war. To be fair the same could be said of some of your opponents. The spelling "Antisemitism" was proposed precisely to de-emphasise "Semitic". Personally, I think both sides in this are being utterly silly. The presence or absence of a hyphen changes neither the meaning nor the etymology. All it does is add another inane cause for conflict. I wish the anti-hyphen crowd had never come up with their dumb-ass idea in the first place, but they did. So now we're stuck in another asinine conflict which would have been avoided by just leaving the damn word alone. Most of us don't give a flying fig whether it has a hyphen or not. But we do get tired of this endless, witless talk-page bloating war over nothing. BTW, I see nothing on this page about the lower-case "anti-semitism" spelling. Paul B (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO

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

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

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

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

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

Did you look at what you just reverted as a "minor" edit before you reverted it?Scientus (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

In what way does that answer the copyvio question? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Needs to be removed or explained in depth.

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

If discrimination against a national group is same as ethnic or religious group then this must be clarified in the article. The nation of Israel may be recognized as a Jewish state but the group in that nation are not all Jewish.

If anti semetism is recognized by national group then the definition of anti semetism must redefined as, ethnic: "Jewish, Arab and other minorety", religious: "Jewish, Muslim, Christian and other minorety", groups. Gosale (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

We do not define words; we report the definition per reliable sources. However, I do not see the word "national" in either of the sources provided in the lede, and it does seem like opposition to a Jewish nation would more fall under Anti-Zionism. I am removing the word to see if there is any opposition to the idea. VQuakr (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Judaism vs Anti-Semitism

Hi, the definition of Anti-Semitism as hatred of Jews only is obviously wrong. Semitic people are more than just Jews, as explained on Wikipedia itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people It would be good to widen the definition accordingly, and then to add in a sub-section that Anti-Semitism is often wrongly interpreted as hatred of Jews, or even more wrongly as hatred of the current state of Israel. Good luck... :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afluegel (talk • contribs)

Antisemitism is not defined as "hatred of Semitic people", even though at a glance it would seem a logical construction. More broadly, maybe we should add a FAQ section at the top of this page, since it seems this is a common point of confusion? VQuakr (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Until somebody drafts a FAQ, would a banner like the pink one at the top of Talk:Islam and antisemitism help? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That's probably better unless anyone can think of at least two other answers to add to a FAQ. Adding the template now. VQuakr (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

"Antisemitism is widely considered to be a form of racism."

White opposition to Semites is certainly racism, and the way that Nazis classified Jews, Judenhass isn't necessarily racism, as religion is a choice (and this is part of Judaism as the Bar Mitzvoh and Bat Mitzvoh). The quote I provided from a Zionist (Leon Pinsker) makes this lack on consensus on Judenhass being racism clear. "Judeophobia is a variety of demonopathy with the distinction that it is not peculiar to particular races but is common to the whole of mankind."Scientus (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a thinly veiled attempt to get a neologism highlighted in the lead again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Will you respond to the allegation that Judenhass is not necessarily racism?Scientus (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is titled Antisemitism, not yet another obscure word. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Is antisemitism always racism?Scientus (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You can read the details in the body where they belong. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You are playing word games. antisemitism cannot be racism unless it is against a race. Judaism is not a race, but a religion. Judeophobia can be taken to the point that it becomes racism through guilt by association, where that association is birth records provided by the Catholic church, but that doesn't make antisemitism or Judeophobia racism. Leon Pinsker's quote makes this view that Jew hatred is not limited to racism, while the part of the article you link to just links a bazillion ways to be an asshole.Scientus (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not think others looking at what you're trying to do would accuse me of playing games. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Please back off Scientus. One of the first rules of social justice and being a good ally is that you let groups define themselves. Many Jews DO define Jewishness as a racial, ethnic or national identity therefore it would be racism. Period. Even many geneticists agree on it. see http://forward.com/culture/155742/jews-are-a-race-genes-reveal/

http://newobserveronline.com/race-or-religion-jewish-genes-identified/. Some people consider Jews a race, even more consider Jews an ethnicity and very few Jews saying Jewishness is ONLY a religion. Back off you are emabarassing yourself because you are trying to delegitimize a form of hatred that has been practiced for 4000 years. If you believe is fine to be antisemitic then fine be antisemitic but that's what you'll be antisemitic. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

My great-grantfather fled the pograms in Ukraine. If Judaism than it is a race that is a race that Israel gets to set the definition of. I have read IBM and the Holocaust. And you should go around calling people racist because they are offended at asserting that Judaism cant be bold a race and a religion. FUCK YOU for calling me racist you insensitive piece of shit. Go fuck yourself! Scientus (talk) 05:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

unneccessarily big words

"units" (obscure usage), "conjunction", and no mention of the meaning of the word Semite. (which has repeatedly come up in conversations. I prefer, in the lead: While literally and grammatically anti·semit·ism indicates negativity against all Semitic people (itself literally the descendants of the biblical Shem), the term was popularized in Germany in 1873 as a scientific-sounding term for Judenhass (Jew-hatred),Scientus (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

"Units" does not seem like a particularly big word. Your proposed wording is incorrect and therefore unusuable - antisemitism does means hatred of Semitic people neither grammatically nor literally. See the big banner at the top of this page if you have questions about the definition of "Antisemitism". Kindly drop the stick. VQuakr (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

grammar, [2]. I had never heard of "units" used this way until I read this article.Scientus (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected; I see our article on grammar mentions that it encompasses morphology. I change my objection from "it is wrong" to "it is unclear." "Literally" is still inaccurate. VQuakr (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

If *antisemitism* is racism, that what race is it racist against?Scientus (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Linking grammar is as pointless as linking any arbitrary word. The term grammar may be used for the analysis of a word, but it has no effect on its meaning. It's a word. "i literally fell about laughing when I heard this" means I actually did fall down: that I am not using the word figuratively or hyperbolically. Your use of "literally" is simply wrong. Paul B (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Racism is a term that is not used to refer only to "biological" races, since, biological races don't really exist. It can be used to refer to ethnicities. Paul B (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Then which ethnicity?Scientus (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you being intentionally obtuse? As has been said literally a billion times - Jews. Paul B (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, looking at the ethnic group article, that word means basically anything and everything. No wonder I always found anthropology obtuse.Scientus (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is why literally is right, if I am against (anti) Semites, then I literally hate all Semites, which "anti-Semitism" has a different meaning based on history in Europe.Scientus (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, then how about "While grammatically anti·semit·ism indicates negativity against all Semitic people (itself literally the descendants of the biblical Shem), the term was popularized in Germany in 1873 as a scientific-sounding term for Judenhass (Jew-hatred)"Scientus (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

"Unit" is used in its primary definition sense: "a part of something larger." In this usage it is a more recognizable synonym of "morpheme", which is appropriate for the lede section (which is supposed to be more approachable to the reader than the body, particularly since this is not a linguistics article). VQuakr (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

What do the sources say? Anyways, non sequitur. VQuakr (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)