Talk:Antisemitism

Incorrect reference to year 1873 in intro for the popularization of the term in Germany

The introduction to this article is currently locked, so I can't make this correction. (Maybe it will be shortly unlocked, I'll check back.) The intro incorrrectly states that "the term was popularized in Germany in 1873" -- it should be 1879. The error was evidently picked up from Jerome Chanes (2004), who inaccurately states the date of publication of Marr's pamphlet Der Sieg des Judenthums as 1873 (see p. 60, and in timeline, p. 104). The date of publication is otherwise well-known to be 1879, including in the several other sources cited in this intro passage. The most precise information about the publication of that pamphlet is given by Bein (1990), p. 595. Bein states that the first edition came out in March 1879, and 12 more "editions" followed in the same year (in German the term for edition, "Auflage," is also used to refer to unchanged reprintings, which is the case here). Chanes discusses the economic crisis of 1873 as marking an "authoritarian right turn" and rise in attacks on Jews and liberals, but aside from that incorrrect publication date he does not make any assertions about 1873 as marking the popularization of the term 'antisemitism' (which is what is at issue here). Lutzv (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S. To be clear, Marr's 1879 pamphlet does not, in any case, anywhere actually use the term 'antisemitism' but it does use the term 'semitism' (Semitismus), in a way that invites opposition (as the article goes on to explain); and appears to have inspired the founding of the 'Antisemitenliga' (League of Anti-Semites) in late 1879, which Bein indicates as the "first official use" of the term in this sense that he could determine, while noting that the term was also then used by Treitschke in the same year, in an article dated November 1879; Bein (1990), p. 595. Lutzv (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and made this correction, giving Bein as a reference. Through some glitch it seems that the intro to the article is locked in the desktop version but I was able to make the correction by accessing the page via mobile device. Lutzv (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Haphazard lists of antisemitic incidents

Haphazard lists of recent incidents are not appropriate for Wikipedia as discussed at [1]. I am going ahead and removing these incidents. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Group hate

It is not uncommon for a antisemite to have Jewish friends or actually to be Jewish. Here is a section from a Speech by Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler before senior SS officers in Poznan, October 4 and 6, 1943. from the Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals - Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1949-1953, Vol. XIII, p. 323, and Himmler, Reichsfuehrer-SS - P. Padfield, Henry Holt and Co, NY, 1990, p. 469:

"And then they come, 80 million worthy Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. Of course the others are vermin, but this one is an A-1 Jew"

BernardZ (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Even before you changed it, the article was clear that "antisemitism is prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as a ... group." The difference is that the definition is supported by reliable sources and your addition was not. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Please where does it state this. The closest I can see is is "Racial antisemitism is prejudice against Jews as a racial/ethnic group, rather than Judaism as a religion". Two issues here, some forms of antisemitism are not racial and Judaism is not Jews as individuals. Now what am I missing?

BernardZ (talk)

The source is poor and the addition is unnecessary. There is no one who believes that hating your neighbor because of his loud dog or your coworker who doesn't hold up her end of projects is antisemitism if they're Jewish, and the article did not give this impression. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not agree with you that *no one believes it*, often I hear of an anti-semite who states he is not an antisemite as he has Jewish friends, his wife, or he is a Jew.

If it is stated only as an impression that you get which by the way I do not out of this article. I cannot see any problem why it should not be clearly stated. So please revert it. The source by the way is considered quite good and acceptable in the wikipedia.

BernardZ (talk)

BernardZ, you asked where the article says what I quoted. In the very first sentence (the one you changed).

As far as your addition to the article, American Thinker is not a reliable source for facts. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It does not say that at all in the first line, if it did why are you complaining about me putting it in and if you check the wiki you will find that American Thinker is quoted on many pages. BernardZ (talk)

Regardless, the addition isn't necessary; there's no rule saying a bigot has to be consistent, nor is there anything special about anti-Jewish bigots in this regard. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

BernardZ, you are mistaken. The first sentence of this article most definitely says "antisemitism is prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as a ... group."

As far as American Thinker is concerned, it may be a reliable source for an author's opinion but it cannot be cited as a reliable source for facts. Nor can Daily Kos or National Review or The Nation. If you disagree, please bring the matter to WP:RS/N. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

So if I add another source do you have any object to me putting it in explicitly!

Also where does it say in the wikipedia that the American Thinker is not a reliable source of fact??? Please specify?

BernardZ (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@MShabazz: Answer the objections, I am still waiting for an answer to my questions above and not revert other people without a valid reason. This definition you reverted is the principal one in use in the world today. BernardZ (talk)

BernardZ, what "objections"?

If you're asking again about American Thinker, I recommend that you read WP:Identifying reliable sources. I linked to it in my first two replies to you. It says (in part):

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

If you want a valid explanation for my most recent revert, please read my edit summary: "new material doesn't belong in the WP:LEAD, which is a summary of the article".

If you have other "objections", please explain them carefully and I will try to reply to them. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

A blind is not an answer, its an evasion, you know it too.

BernardZ (talk)