Jump to content

Talk:Antisemitism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 154.20.131.164 (talk) at 16:29, 16 January 2009 (→‎solution). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured article candidateAntisemitism is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 12, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
October 13, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Vichy regime

What about France and it's collaboration with Nazi Germany by getting rid of their own Jewish citizens? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.107.198 (talk) 09:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Inappropriate Use of Stop Template"

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

Australia

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

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

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

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

"Christian" anti-Semitism and Christian Zionism

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

Hyphen

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

I concur. I have 4 dictionaries at hand, the OED, the Oxford American, the American Heritage Dictionary, and Wiktionary. All four use the spelling
anti-Semitism
and none show the word conjoined as
antisemitism
Also, all four capitalize the S in Semitism.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone object to correcting the spellling?
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correcting? You mean altering the spelling? Please look into the talk page archives to see why this is spelled the way it is. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
With 27 archives, can you be more specific? Thank you. As far as I can tell, anti-Semitism is incorrectly spelled throughout Wikipedia.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Good advice, Malcolm. Thanks.
In researching this, I've looked at a number of on-line dictionaries, such as yourdictionary.com, freedictionary.com, websters.com, and so on. Here is a sample from http://www.onelook.com/
  1. anti-Semitism : Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition [home, info]
  2. anti-Semitism : Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition [home, info]
  3. anti-semitism : Cambridge International Dictionary of English [home, info]
  4. Anti-semitism : Wiktionary [home, info]
  5. anti-Semitism : The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language [home, info]
  6. anti-Semitism : Infoplease Dictionary [home, info]
  7. anti-Semitism : Dictionary.com [home, info]
  8. anti-Semitism : Online Etymology Dictionary [home, info]
  9. anti-Semitism : UltraLingua English Dictionary [home, info]
  10. anti-semitism : Cambridge Dictionary of American English [home, info]
  11. Anti-Semitism : Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia [home, info]
  12. anti-semitism : Rhymezone [home, info]
  13. anti-Semitism : Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition [home, info]
  14. anti-Semitism : The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy [home, info]
  15. Anti-Semitism : Encarta® Online Encyclopedia, North American Edition [home, info]
  16. Anti-Semitism : 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica [home, info]
  17. anti-semitism : Free Dictionary [home, info]
  18. anti-semitism : WordNet 1.7 Vocabulary Helper [home, info]
  19. anti-Semitism : LookWAYup Translating Dictionary/Thesaurus [home, info]
  20. anti-Semitism : Dictionary/thesaurus [home, info]
The Cambridge redirects antisemitism (as does Wiktionary), but the only reference I've turned up so far without the hyphen is the Stammtisch Beau Fleuve Glossary which doesn't seem to be a serious reference at all.
My conclusion is that anti-Semitism is incorrectly spelled throughout Wikipedia and that the opening paragraph of the article listing anti-Semitism as an alternate spelling is incorrect.
Other viewpoints? Other thoughts? Other references?
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both terms are pretty common: "anti-Semitism" alone gets 3.36 million ghits, "antisemitism" alone gets 1.89 million ghits. The two together get .6 million ghits. Scholars of antisemitism prefer "antisemitism"; see this, this, this (end of 48 and start of 49), this (footnote 14). The article was moved as a result of a discussion here. Jayjg (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jay. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg, if Shmuel Almog in your first ref is correct, and there is no genetic link between Jews ("What unites them is a tradition, culture, history , destiny maybe, but not genetics."), how is it that there are a number of illnesses that seemingly have a specific "Jewish" component or gene? Breast and ovarian cancer, Tay-Sachs and others? [1]  ? Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There may be some genetic characteristics to be found, but Judaism is a religion and any non-Jew (no matter what that person's genetic heritage) who so chooses can become a Jew through conversion -- after which that person will be just as Jewish as a Jew who claims to be directly descended from King David [2]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about so-called "secular" Jews? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stalin's Purge

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

Arabs

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

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

Hyphen (continued from above)

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

  • Much of the debate in the original decision depends on circular reasoning: The Wikipedia article says the reason is scholarly, so we must keep it the way it is. In the spelling survey, it appears many people gave their reasoning as 'scholarly' without having read the actual (non-scholarly) reference.
  • Jayjg points out the non-hyphenated version gets about half the hits of the hyphenated version, not an insignificant amount, but with Wikipedia showing at the top of the non-hyphenated Google list, one has to ask how many web sites has Wikipedia influenced with its variant spelling? (Google itself asks: Did you mean: anti semitism?)
  • Scholarly arguments are diverse and deserve to be read on their own. I'll comment on a couple of points that trouble me.
  • The use of anti-Semetic in German is called into question to influence use in English.
  • English scholars in every dictionary and thesaurus I can put my hands on plus a couple of encyclopedias (24 references so far, 21 listed above). Not one lists the non-hyphenated version even as a variant. Every computer spell-checker I've tested rejects the non-hyphenated version (MS Word, OpenOffice/NeoOffice, Lotus Symphony, GnuOffice AbiWord, Nisus, TextEdit). That's over 30 English references siding against Wikipedia.

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

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

  • Some critics of the hyphen express opposition to German agitator Wilhelm Marr who (a) coined the word and (b) hyphenated it.
  • Yehuda Bauer, who is a scholar, identifies antisemite as a German spelling, acknowledging that the hyphenated form is English. However, he writes that using the hyphen "gives the antisemites a victory right off the mark." Two other references Jayjg provided express similar views as well as discuss further distinctions (or lack thereof).
  • Yehuda Bauer also weighed in on the Wikipedia survey, saying the hyphenated version "causes a lot of confusion", presumably to English speakers. The argument is anti-Semetic is, well, anti-semantic.

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

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

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

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

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

solution

However,

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

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

No, I think it is even easier. All Wikipedia articles should observe proper English rules of spelling and grammar. There is no other argument. In this particular circumstance, the current spelling reflects a POV, which is against policy. The title should be changed and the article may, if needed, explain some of this POV that seems so cherished that it has turned proper spelling on its ear! --StormRider 05:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is obviously nothing improper about the spelling "antisemitism". English words are spelled the way people agree that they're spelled. The current version is the result of a long-term consensus which I support. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, what is difficult about your comment is that it is not correct. Spelling is not a reflection of desires of a group of people. Were this actually true then Ebonics would have been accepted as a way of spelling and speaking English. Also, if all was needed was a group of people to say proper spelling for "two" is "too", then second graders would be setting new highs on spelling tests. The masses, and second grade students, are directed by dictionaries. In this instance, proper spelling is anti-Semitism.
I have to admit that I am not familiar with the political and social reasons, if there are any, for using a specific spelling. If there are any then the article may need to clearly define those issues for readers because the common reader, or editor such as myself, is generally ignorant of them.
The question for me is should spelling follow the parameters found in English dictionaries or the whims of individuals? I will always vote to write proper English and use the dictionary. What is the argument to ignore dictionaries? --StormRider 18:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The argument for ignoring dictionaries is the same as for all the other dumb-ass terms invented by special interest groups advancing a cause. They're looking for something trademark-able. Other examples are "Religion of Peace", "neocon", "War on Terror", "Global Warming", etc, terms that makes absolutely no sense at all. The "antisemitism" movement is a special interest, self-righteous Jewish defense cult with its own trademark. When you see the word in action, you know that a PR flack for the Jewish defense cult is close by. Is there any other reason to use a term originated a hundred years ago by an obscure German writer? The rest of use clear and specific terms like "Jew hatred" to make the message unambiguous, that we're talking about specific evil attitudes, not angling for political-correct elbow room in an academic debate. DD 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antisemitism&oldid=264485076"