Jump to content

Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

general ranting space

why?! Who cares? What percentage do Jews occupy in the world's population? What about anti-Sino-ism? Sinophobia is the illness American "elites" are now contracting. Why should there be so much space allocated to the non-issue issue, and yes, all disclamers notwithstanding the Jews don't have a monopoly on Semitic race.

Besides, if there is anti-Semitism, then there should be Semitism (analogy to fascism/antifascism, communism/anticommunism), so what is that Semitism thing?

1.Who cares? Jews care. Human rights groups (should) care.Small population doesn;t mean they don;t count any more than anybody else. Plus, history of anti-Semitism has scholarly interest.
2.There is no such thing as "Semitic Race". Anti-Semitism is NOT an antonym of "Semitism". In that way the term can be misleading. In on itself, anti-Aemitism doesn't mean anything, but for various historical reasons it has become to mean hatred for Jews. All this is explained in the article so please read it.Hkelkar 15:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semite and Anti-Semitism have been mis-used to describe anti-Jews sentiment! In fact, as it is described in the article, Semites are nowaday mainly the Monotheist Abraham’s descents -- Arab Muslims, Christians, Jews, non-Arab Jews and Christians, as well as some other non-Monotheists (Assyrians, etc)! Anti-Jews should not be described as anti-Semite because there are Semites who are anti-Jews!

Well, for the Nth time on this question, if you don't like the way English works, perhaps you should start your own language. Gzuckier 15:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Zionists want to label all Jews as some kind of endangered species to be protected from any criticism.

Gee, whyever would they be so sensitive to attacks? Gzuckier
With all the critics about this article, I think there should be a warning about its accuracy displayed on top of the page

K.

I think Mel Gibson should be mentioned.

Underlying causes

It would be helpful if the article attempted to explain the underyling reasons for anti-semitism. Why have jews been persecuted in so many different places and at different times? Surely there must be some established theories for this.

I'll break them down for you.
1) Religious: a Jew, by accepting the preconditions of his faith, essentially asserts that the basic tenets of Christianity are false. Most religious dogmas negate the philosophies of the others, but Judaism is in direct disagreement with Christianity's most fundamental attributes (Christ). In some faiths, Jews have it "wrong" and similarly, they are the enemy. Each says they have the answers and right way of life. As the self-assumed "Chosen", elected by God to be his representatives, Jews make a statement - intended or not. Also, as most religions look for converts, Judaism is somewhat expansionist and like others, aggressive (Christianity, Islam) where aspects of good and evil, part of the "law of God" trumps what we would universal humanitarianism (for example, there are some very interesting words in the Torah about what should be done to the polytheistic, "unworthy" of life).
2)Cultural: The "answers" of Jewish faith include laws and practices that others may disagree with, or vice versa. For example, the Germans and the Jews had very different views about livestock ("holiness" of pigs, in particular) and debt - not to give the impression that the two groups were completely at odds, but things like this certainly contribute, especially when livestyles remain the same over time and "identity nationalism" later surfaces.
3)Unrooted status: Likewise, the Jew's formerly unrooted status as a culture without a homeland deserves attention - not only because immigrants of all types have had it rough, but the Jew, especially at such early times in history, stands out. They relied on one another, stuck to themselves, maintained their Jewish lifestyle and their success made people suspicious. Historically, they never completely "assimilated", a great detail that many of us would never be able to understand having lived now. Being of minority status, and with suspicions already in place, makes one more likely to be a scapegoat - especially if they look incredibly "foreign", especially in an era where "migration" was more likely to be an barbarous excursion (ie the Huns). In other words, it didn't happen often.
4)Success: Jealously explains a lot (some Jewish authors dissecting anti-Semitism can get presumptuous on this one). Their value system and way of life HAS yielded success in living standards, and a number of successful, world-contributing individuals were Jews. The "pulled ourselves up by our own bootstraps" view is not without it flaws though - it certainly doesn't hurt that one job particularly available to early European Jews involved money (because it was a taboo in the Christian world to touch) which gave them a good start, especially since they aim to help one another which has led to relative success as a group. And coincidently, its been a double edged sword, a blessing and a burden that enhanced suspicions, aided animosity due to 1 thru 3, and of course, came into play with conspiracy theories.
This is just a start, but if you're new to this, hope that helps. There are a large variety of sources that cover such material. All four of these factors working together at different times pretty much explains anti-Semitism.--Hohns3 05:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
That seems useful, why not edit this into the article and see if it sticks.
The interesting thing about all those statements, are that they are all debatable. On anti-Semitism, and everyone, even experts in the field, seem to have their own theories. Masterhomer 03:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
This posting is somewhat uninformed. Some corrections :
1. Expansionist and aggressive? Judaism is one of the only religions that never sent out missionaries to gain converts from other religions. The fact that after 3000 years of existence there are still so few of them (18,000,000 in the entire world I believe) attests to this.
2. Holiness of pigs? Where does that come from? Both cultures treat pigs as filthy animals, except that dietary laws prohibit Jews from eating them (no hoofs).
3. Jews assimilate in record numbers, which is another reason why their numbers remain so low. The majority, at least in the West, is lost to mixed marriages.
4. True about the success, but the reason was that Jews were traditionally forbidden from owning land and so could not farm and were forced to become merchants and bankers.

Jimmy1988 13:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Judaism is one religion that does not seek convert but instead, actively dissuades people from converting as they believe that one need not be a jew to be righteous, thus their stand. Also, the no. 1 point about conflicting theological points such as Christ, the roots of Christianity and Islam came from Judaism. If there is to be one asserting the tenets of another religion as false it would to religions that was created later. Last but not least people should respect the religious beliefs of other people, therefore there is no reason why Christians and Muslims should persecute the Jews throughout history even if they may share different religious beliefs.

Kev_the_Sage 04:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Misuse?

Should this page make a note of the misuse of the term? What I mean is that any criticism of Israel, it's actions and policies can be and is oft labeled as anti-semitic - in an attempt to quell criticism - or the use of the term as a "weapon" against (political) opponents who might've made a fleeting non-positive comment about Israel?

Examples: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/20/news/spain.php, http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=132&fArticleId=284155, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1744960,00.html

I also found this and this which are pretty interesting reading considering the misuse of the term. -G3, 02:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Most Jewish organizations equate anti-Zionism (in the sense: "against a Jewish state"), to anti-Semitism ("against Jews"). Poltical criticism of Israeli policies, specifically with treatment of Arab populations, is rarely seen as anti-Semitism, even by proliferate organisations like ADL Masterhomer 06:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not what I implied, I merely pointed out that one de facto use of the term is as a political weapon instead of a legitimate term and as such the misuse should be noted under the article because it exists and is relatively common, partly because of the misconception and partly because of easy political or media gain offered by cheap (as in easy to make, hard to dissolve) accusations. This article, in my opinion, presents a good opportunity to differentiate legitimate criticism for the often controversial policies advocated or actions committed by state of Israel from antisemitism. Then there's the apparent hyperbolic vector in North American media also (eg. http://torsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Coren_Michael/2006/08/12/1750501.html ). - G3, 23:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"Individual Hatred" is not Racism

Anti-Semitism (alternatively spelled antisemitism) is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group, which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution.

There is a serious logical problem with this definition--throwing in actions not indicative to generalized hostilities against an entire race. While "individual hatred" should be left out as a propositional function, "institutionalized, violent persecution" should be revised to omit the armed militias of the world.

If a person (like Adolf Hitler) is going to be hostile against an entire race (the Jews), "individual hatred" at this point is irrelevant--Hitler did not "individually" hate any Jew--on the contrary, according to officialdom, he hated all of them.

Regarding the apparent hostility toward equivocation of antisemitism with "racism against the Jews," I specifically know that this hostility results from a fundamental flaw in human "egalitarian" principles of universality: where are the special terms for racism against the Africans--the Indians--the Chinese, etc?

As such, I can find many reasons to hate "any individual person"-- even if I should choose to be a nasty person like Hitler, Stalin, etc.--but none of those "individual" likes or dislikes are going to resemble the type of fanatic hatred exhibited in the racism of Stalin or Hitler. Racism is "universal hatred" not "individual hatred." --Juliusdedekind 14:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it must be group hatred, and the person as an individual would have to represent the group. Hating an individual, even if jewish, does not represent anti-semitism. Lashing out at a single individual because of his group, or traditions again, would fall into the scope of the article greroja aug 15, 2006

I think 'individual hatred' refers to the person hating, not the person being hated. With other words, you can have individuals who dislike jews without being part of a larger group, religion or political organisation. Perhaps it needs to be re-worded, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the contents itself. --WVH 00:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean if a Jew does something to offend me (or maybe even a group of Jews), and I hate him/them back, does that make me an anti-semite. Can someone clarify to me why "hostility to Jews" is anti-semitic when they have offended me. Can something be done about removing the "hostlity to Jews" from the article? 210.49.121.211 12:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with WVH that the distinction between individual hatred versus institutional hatred is with the identity of the hater - anti-Semitism can take the form of an individual persecuting someone - even in some cases in the process violating the law - and it can take the form of systematic, institutionalized persecution such as laws discriminating against Jews. But, I would add that anti-Semitism can as it often does manifest itself in the form of hatred of a particular person. Hating someone who happens to be Jewish is no more antisemitic than hating someone who happens to have black hair, or blue eyes, or speak a different language is (or could be) racist. I do think that it matters how one identifies the object of one's hatred. If I hate someone named Mary and I say, "I hate mary," well, I just hate mary. If I say "Typical bitch" I am probably sexist or misogynist. If there is a guy named Joe and he happens to be Jewish and I say "I hate Joe," well, I just hate Joe. But if I say "I hate theat Jew" - if I see him not as an individual or a human being but as a Jew, especially in my hatred, I am probably an anti-Semite. Sartre's essay, Anti-Semite and Jew provides a much more sophisticated reflection on this kind of question. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
You have not answered my question. If a Jew (or group of Jews) does something to offend me (the emphasis is on offence), and I hate them back ("hostility to Jews"), am I anti-semitic? Please give me a straight forward answer.210.49.121.211 04:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Why doyou hate them? And, why does it matter to you that they are Jews?Slrubenstein | Talk 12:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


Stalin was not a racist. He may have been a mass-murderer, but he was not a racist. Get your facts straight.
I would like to note that even a group of Jews can be targeted without it being anti-semitic. For example, in the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth the majority of traders were Jewish. When Ukrainian and Belorussian minorities rebelled against polish opression in mid-17 century, such Jewish traders came under attack as well. So, were those traders killed becuase they were Jewish, or because they were rightfully viewed as opressors and aides to polish opressors? I'm sure they opressed the peasants not because of they (the traders) were Jewish, but because they could. So what do YOU think, do such economically or politically motivated events require to be labeled with anti-semitism? Wiyh respect, Ko Soi IX 14:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC) PS. to the unsigned - I believe that if you hate the Jews as a group, for being Jewish that is anti-semitism (much like hating Russians would turn you into a russophobe and hatred towards the USA would make you an honest, desent and clever man who is worried about the lack of future for humankind). It doesn't matter why you hate them (even if such hatred is fully justified, although I doubt it), I matters whether you do or not.


As the black man said "don't hate me because I am black, get to know me. You will find many other reasons"


Another reason is long whiny paranoid articles in wiki.

The official chronology of the Norwegian parliament for 1851 can be found at http://www.stortinget.no/om_stortinget/Jodepara/Kronologi_1851.html It can provide a citation for the correct claim in the text that the prohibition of Jews in the country was lifted in 1851, but it is in Norwegian, and so, I don't know if it is appropriate to link. Some more experienced editors may have a look at it, I suppose.

I can understand a bit Norwegian and as far as I can tell it's under the entry for "13. juni" (June 13). The part "Jøder ere fremdeles udelukkede fra Adgang til Riget" (Jews are henceforth locked out from access to the kingdom" (I think)). It was cut with a 93 against 10 votes. // Liftarn
That is correct. There were also various other legal proceedings to facilitate the change, and the other dates on the same page refer to these. The final royal sanctioning of the changes happened on 24 September, 1851. By then, BTW, Sephardi Jews had been admitted free rights of travel, settlement and work for about 6 years already.... -- Olve 15:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Consitency with NAS

So, the NAS section of this page is almost entirely devoted to a long quote by Martin Luther King. That's nice, but MLK is not even mentioned on the NAS page itself, and our description of NAS is little more than "MLK was against it." I am wondering if there would be support for (1) moving the quote over to the NAS page, and (2) presenting a brief synopsis of that page in place of the quote. Ethan Mitchell 01:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


Please do help; what is this??:

The Crusades

The Crusades were a series of several military campaigns sanctioned by the Papacy that took place during the 11th through 13th centuries. They began as Catholic endeavors to recapture Jerusalem from the Muslims but developed into territorial wars.

A mob of mainly untrained and uncontrolled civilians, known as the People's Crusade accompanying the first Crusade attacked the Jewish communities in Germany, France, and England, and put many Jews to death. Entire communities, like those of Treves, Speyer, Worms, Mayence, and Cologne, were slain during the first Crusade by a mob army. About 12,000 Jews are said to have perished in the Rhenish cities alone between May and July, 1096. Before the Crusades the Jews had practically a monopoly of trade in Eastern products, but the closer connection between Europe and the East brought about by the Crusades raised up a class of merchant traders among the Christians, and from this time onward restrictions on the sale of goods by Jews became frequent. The religious zeal fomented by the Crusades at times burned as fiercely against the Jews as against the Muslims, though attempts were made by bishops during the First crusade and the papacy during the Second Crusade to stop Jews from being attacked. Both economically and socially the Crusades were disastrous for European Jews. They prepared the way for the anti-Jewish legislation of Pope Innocent III, and formed the turning-point in the medieval history of the Jews.


This really does need a reference:

"...perished in the Rhenish cities..."

Needs a clear who|what|where,...

Rhenish

Rhen

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/Rhenish >;

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/Rhen >.

Please. Thank You.

Hopiakuta 22:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Regarding the comment preceeding mine:

What's "nas"?

I do not find that, nor Dr. King, anywhere?

What does that comment refer to?

Thank You.

Hopiakuta 22:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, NAS = New Anti-Semitism. We have a section on this page, and a whole page elsewhere. The section here is (was) mostly about Martin Luther King. I'm changing it now. Ethan Mitchell 00:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Page style

If Anti-Semetism is the father (or mother article) of anti-semitism, shouldn't it be a bit more balanced with regards to current vs historical, and by country, again current vs historical. Also since the Islam and anti-semitism is daughter/son article, and I may never get to it... shouldnt it again have some real data inside of it... that is relevant. Also anti-semetism by country has only western nations... I cannot see how this is a fair & balanced article regarding anti-semitism if we are missing half + of the world.
Also did anyone note that Christianity and anti-semitism is quite detailed for having a main article and yet the islam on is one section.
Suggestions
•Etymology and usage
••Defintion
••Anti-Zionism vs Anti-semitism
•Historical anti-semitism
••Religious
•••Christianity (in brief - it already has an article)
•••Islam (in brief - it already has an article)</
••Country
•••List of countries, an overview please...if it is longer make another article
•Current anti-semitism
••Countries (religions at one time were very unified pan-nationalist entities, today that would be less so - also to keep the 'fair & balance' in mind - by country is more relevant, as this keeps any current religious POV out of (or at least minimize) the arena

If we can do something like this, then it would actually be useful as a reference.
Keep the historical as a minimum, because it is essentially root material for any current situations that might occur.

Obviously a lot of work done here, and just my opinion, that we could make it more relevant with a little structural rework.

My mantra : If a person could only read ONE article on anti-semitism... what would this article inform them about?
Note, article is 112 vs the preferred 32 size, so based upon this about 3/4 of the article should be moved, redefined, or cut.
Greroja 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Begun changes

Will do my best to list all changes made. Slowly but surely. Now at 110KB.... lol.
•three broad forms of anti-semitism; cultural/religious, racial, and political(anti-zion). Greroja 21:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the proper way to shorten the article is to offload content into subarticles leaving here only summaries and vitally important content. So far I find your changes ungrammatical and unclear, but I am willing to give you a chance to succeed. Do not be surprised if they get reverted, though. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you find unclear in the changes BTW? Somebody change them to something clearer then! Be humble, be bold!Greroja 22:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed Racial Anti-Semetism, but we need a short paragraph to expand upon the poorly crafted :D definition at the start of the article. Greroja 22:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Many humble and bold people worked hard (and used spellchecker, something you would benefit from) on the article for years. Sure, it could use a set of fresh eyes and improvements are always welcome, but please proceed with caution. BTW, size is just a general recommendation and not a hard limitation. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
1. Yes I know the file size is a guideline. But anybody can see that an article which is duplicated/clarified in at least thee other articles, needn't be this long. I thought that a reminder of the file size might encourage a person or two to do something.
2. Yes I forgot to spell check, it happens. But as a fan of wit and sarcasm, I am happy to see that I am not the only one who uses it regularly (unlike the spell check).
3. A lot of people spend a lot of time doing... well nothing much. I think I work with a lot of them myself. Time does not equal quality, or even effort as you reminded me three times.
Greroja 22:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Way too big

This article is getting waaay too big. There is a tonne of stuff we could get rid of.220.239.134.188 04:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Removed 15% approx before you checked it out. Will keep working on it, by moving data to other areas, and keep relevant material on hand. Need a few hours at a time free before I can do more... that way I can spellcheck too :D Greroja 17:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

ReOrganization

First of all I didnt remove edit or reword anything. I simply moved the majority of the work into three major sections as defined in the first part.
The anti-semetism christianity section is huge and over-represented, and non-representational of what is happening currently in the world. Please create new articles and move the info away, or if its already duped in another article please make a link.
The Anti-Semetism Islam section, as well as racial could be better summarized and light in info. Please add.
Moved ALL the countries and anti-semetism to a new article under construction call Anti-semitism around the world.
Greroja 21:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

why d'you say that it is non-representational? There still are antisemitic incidents in Christian communities in Lebanon, East-Europe, Greece, Cyprus, Spain and others. Just that antisemitism in USA has gone down, but USA is hardly representative of Christians.Shiva's Trident 10:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism in Pakistan

I have frequently seen in blogs that Pakistani media frequently stereotypes Jews as "Kanjoos-Makkichoos", which is a pejorative phrase in Urdu meaning "Miserly and of low breeding". However, I have not found anything to support this specific claim beyond blog entries. If anyone has any information from a reliable source regarding this then please contribute. Thanks.Shiva's Trident 10:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"kanjoos makhichoos" is a general expression used by people of all creeds all over south asia. Which literally translates as "miserly and flylicker" and it was originally formulated for the Hindu banyas and anyone who is very tight fisted. Jeiwsh stereotype of this perjorative association is more a characteristic of Europe than South Asia. You will find references to many other ethnicities and castes in Pakistan all over. I will rewrite the section of antisemitism in Pakistan where in general non muslim minorities have not fared bad as compared to minority muslim sects apart from the 1947 partition. Not to mention the Indian Jews themselves lived in muslim neighbourhoods where non-abrahmic peoples considered them a sect of Islam and their synagogues were referred to as mosques.Omerlives

Don't see your argument here.I never debated the historical origins of "Kanjoos Makkichoos", merely that Pakistani media refer to Jewish people in this way. The concept of miserliness existed in Europe long before the Jews were ethnically cleansed from Eretz israel and into Europe (for the most part anyways). However, the long history of European antisemitism led to the characterization of the Jewish people as misers. A similar thing has taken place in Pakistan. Miserliness attributed to the Banias, then from there to the Jews. If Jews as a people are collectively characterized as misers then it is antisemitism, irrespective of the etymology of the phrase.
The rest is irrelevant to the discussion at hand and merely serves to color the issue. This article is about antisemitic attitudes, not about Jew-Gentile relations in Pakistan in general.Shiva's Trident 23:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The expression is unformal and jovial and absolutely no where in Pakistan media is has the expression ever been used to describe jewish or any other people. Infact in Pakistan atleast it is a term of endearment at times which a wife might use for her husband or a freinds might use for each other. TYhe origins of the term itself is based on a light hearted humored folklore about a miserly shopkeeper. This in turn puts the entire refernce given here suspect. After i get done with my stuff, i'll remiove the antisemitic piece in this article which obviously references a very suspect website without any historical references. Omerlives
That would be a violation of WP:OR and WP:AGF.Shiva's Trident 07:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

lol, well certainly not by me. Don't worry.Omerlives

Hitler's Cross Incident

Does the "Hitler's Cross" business in Mumbai count as an anti-semitic incident? I say that it doesn't for 3 reasons:
  • The proprietor, Puneet Sablok, was unaware of the magnitude of offense that this would cause the Mumbai Jews.
  • Upon dialogue with Mumbai Jews, Sablok changed the name.
  • Jewish advocacy groups have expressed satisfaction with the resolution.

Now, anti-semitism is defined (in TFA) as 'prejudice or hostility towards Jews'. Sablok did not have any prejudice or hostility (none was discovered or reported) but his naming the restaurant was largely due to ignorance which, when corrected, caused the name change. Does an incident established as borne out of ignorance count as anti-semitic by the article's definition of the term?Shiva's Trident 12:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Surnames

I notice that the surname \"Judefeind\" still exists in Germany. Are there any other anti-semitic surnames in Europe? --Slashme 08:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, far too many to list. Mostly Dutch and German. Ry0d0x 13:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


"New Anti-semitism"

This reference in the opening section is, in my opinion, just a slur on the left and I am very surprised at the way it has been presented as undisputed fact here - I am going to make an edit and see how it flys. --SandyDancer 22:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is; that's the whole point of it. It doesn't even have the basic honesty to admit that the very existence of "new anti-semitism" is a highly disputed ideological claim. Palmiro | Talk 22:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Please don't insult me, Palmiro. The "whole point" of the edit was not to make a "slur on the left." (Why would I care about doing that?) The "whole point" of the edit was to include this new concept in the list. And I made it clear it is a concept, not an established phenomenon; and also that part of the concept is that it comes simultaneously from the left, far right, and Islamism. If you feel it's a slur, why pick out the left? Or don't you care about alleged slurs on anyone else? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite get where the far right is coming in. I thought "new" refers to hatred of Israel pretending not to be hatred of Jews. The left is far more pronounced in its Israel hatred (human rights orgs, NGOs, etc.) than that right as far as I understand. I think to not dilute the meaning of "new" we should not include the "far right" in it.


Just to simplify matters - In what areas is it alright to ctiricise Israel and not be antisemtic. After reading the article, it appears that there is very little space for debate.

Definition is in contradiction with categorization criteria

This definition is in contradiction with contradiction with the categorization definition being proposed on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. SighSighSigh 04:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Whilst this page does prominently link to the Holocaust denial page, it seems as if my concerns are more aptly put there. SighSighSigh 06:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Bans on kosher slaughter

Please provide references for any current ban in Germany, France, or Belgium. To the best of my Knowledge, the German high court issued a special ordinance permitting ritual slaughter by way of exception as long as it was covered by religious obligations in 1997 [|1]. Also I believe there is a lot of misinformation going around; for example: [|2]. Jimmy1988 16:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


I am fairly sure that kosher slaughter is still baned in some countries such as switzerland but am not sure...

I don't think the Swedish ban on kosher slaughter has anything to do with antisemitism. Firstly, the ban also concerns muslim methods of slaughter, dhabiha, as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhabi%C4%A5a . Secondly, I haven't heard of anyone arguing for the ban on kosher slaughter with anti-semitic arguments in Sweden. I am also sure that no one from any of the estabilished parties would do that.

This seems to me to be a case of unverified paranoia. Unless proofs that these bans have anything to do with antisemitism are presented, I'd argue this should be removed.

Moreover, what happened in 1930 ha nothing to do with what the level of antisemitism is today. People in Scandinavia have an entirely different view of these things today.

Settembrini 20:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there are people who have claimed the ban on ritual slaughter is based on anti-Semitism rather than animal welfare concerns. There was a simmilar case in the US about the ritual slaugher of animals in Santería, see Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. // Liftarn

Yes, there certainly are people who claim that the ban on ritual slaughter is based on anti-semitism, islamophobia or whatever. But people make lots of crazy claims and that some people have made certain claims is not automatically a reason for presenting those claims more or less as well-estabilished facts, as is done in this article.

Unless someone can find compelling evidence that anti-semitism is the reason that Sweden and other countries have bans on ritual slaughter, this part of the article should be removed. Anti-semitism is a very emotional term, and one shouldn't accuse people of being anti-semitic unless one has very good reasons to do that. Certainly not in a wikipedia article.

Settembrini 00:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Decsribe kosher slaughter so we can have some idea of what it is. It may be a cruel method or it may be humane - haven't the slightest idea.

Religious anti-Semitism is the concept of a Chosen people?

Someone has added this sentence to the definition of "Religious anti-Semitism":

The concept that Jews believe themselves to be the Chosen People which can be found offensive and lead to anti-semitism.

This doesn't appear to be the definition of Religious anti-Semitism at all, but rather an unsourced justification for anti-Semitism. Can someone please source this? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the "chosen" concept is most offensive when it is used pro-semitically to justify anything goes forever as long as it is the "chosen" doing it. Is there any Biblical references that state that the "chosenness" is perpetual? Any references for its eventual end?

Tighten vs Change in meaning

I changed

In recent years some scholars of history, psychology, religion, and representatives of Jewish groups, have noted what they describe as the new anti-Semitism. Proponents of the term often associate it with the Left rather than the Right, and argue that the language of anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel are used to attack the Jews more broadly.

to

In recent years some scholars of history, psychology, religion, and representatives of Jewish groups, have noted what they describe as the new anti-Semitism, which they often associate with the Left rather than the Right, and argue that the language of anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel are used to attack the Jews more broadly.

in order to tighten up the text, but User:SandyDancer reverted me with the comment "that wasn't a "tighten" - it changed the meaning". I'm baffled; how did that change the meaning in any way? Jayjg (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I sometimes wonder if people read things differently based on very minor edits. Your compression of "proponents of the term" into "they" has made no actual contextual change. However, the bigger issue is that the sentence teeters on the cliff of weasel wordage -- which is a more difficult problem to fix.--LeflymanTalk 01:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

too long

this article is too long. Except for a few sentences, all of the material of the section Anti-Semitism and the Christian World needs to either be moved to an article of its own or moved into articles that are referenced in this article. The material need not be repeated twice--in the referenced article and here. Thanks Hmains 04:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move Duja 08:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism → Antisemitism — The article itself points out that "many scholars now favor the unhyphenated term" to emphasize that Antisemitism is NOT an antonym or opposition to "Semitism", which does not actually exist. Since multiple editors have apparently been confused on this point as well (enough to add a warning box at the top), a page-move might help avoid such confusion in future. Arvedui 02:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

  • Support for reasons listed above. (Assuming I get to vote!) --Arvedui 02:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose While these scholars may have a point, the hypenated version has been in use for over a century now and is the de-facto name of the phenomenon. If we start down this road, where will it end? Make this move and there will be those who’d argue that we should call it a different name alltogether because not all Jews are Semites and not all Semites are Jews. I say leave it alone. Jimmy1988 12:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe the slippery-slope argument is a valid one here, especially since it's been well established that antisemitism is and always has been simply a synonym for anti-Jew, regardless of ethnic background. -- Arvedui 04:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose General use favors the hyphen -- a quick google test shows about a 7-1 lead for the hyphenated version. People who choose to make the point about "semites" will do so regardless of the existance of the hyphen. It works as is. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I checked Google as well before making the proposal, but I don't think the test is reliable in this case since the first few pages of results contain both "antisemitism" and "anti-Semitism" as highlighted terms (matches). There's no way to know what exactly it's counting when it gives the higher number. In any case, the wider usage isn't always the correct one. -- Arvedui 04:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
To get the numbers, try comparing the results from antisemitism -"anti-semitism" and -antisemitism "anti-semitism". That's where I got the 7-1. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, that seemed to work a bit better, though if you check, the ratio is actually closer to 4:1. Nevertheless... -- Arvedui 09:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, general use and arguments of proponent are not at all convincing. Furthermore, not only does Semitism exist, but it is a disambiguation page on Wikipedia because of the different meanings it has, and omission of a hyphen as in antitoxin doesn't mean this prefix has a different meaning than it would have if it were written anti-toxin. Gene Nygaard 01:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to be unclear, I wasn't saying that a Semitism page doesn't exist in Wikipedia, but that it doesn't exist as something to be opposed to, in the sense that one could pair fascism/anti-fascism, communism/anti-communism, Catholicism/anti-Catholicism, etc. In the words of Yehuda Bauer (quoted in the main article), "Antisemitism, especially in its hyphenated spelling, is inane nonsense, because there is no Semitism that you can be anti to." The disambig page seems to bear this out, as two of the links are Semitism in the sense of being Semitic, while the only one with even a faint claim on the term "Semitism" is apparently a non-Jewish phenomenon (it would be like calling a native Londoner an "Anglophile") which anti-Semitism is not directly opposed to. Omission of the hyphen simply emphasizes the fact that "antisemitism" should correctly be read as a single unified word which means "anti-Jew", and not as a meaningful root-word with an opposing prefix attached. -- Arvedui 09:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
You are just babbling nonsense as far as the English language goes. Like I said, an anti-toxin isn't any different from antitoxin. And "anti-Semite" redirects to "anti-Semitism". Furthermore, "anti-Americanism" doesn't mean that the people are opposed to "Americanism" or even "Americanisms" (the first meaning on the disambiguation page would take an s in plural, the second would not); it means they are against America and/or Americans. Nor does "anti-Hellenism" describe some group that is against "Hellenism". That's the argument you are making, and to me I've never seen anything sillier. Gene Nygaard 22:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
In fact, you are precisely making my argument for me, demonstrating exactly the kind of confusion the hyphenated term tends to lead to. Anti-Americanism *is* the state of being anti-American, while anti-Hellenism *is* opposition or hatred of Hellenic culture (and appears to be mostly founded on an urban legend in any event, but that's beside the point). Antisemitism however has nothing whatsoever to do with being against Semites, except insofar as some Semites happen to be Jews. As my previous note said, omitting the hyphen is not meant to "change the meaning" but merely to emphasize the essential unity of the term. I don't know how I could be any clearer. Naturally, I'm not holding my breath for you to change your vote, but thank you for helping me illustrate the problem to others. --Arvedui 23:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This will eliminate political incorrectionism? Crud3w4re 21:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, per nomination--NPswimdude500 01:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not an article about what 'it' should be called, but about what it is. Although it may be a problematic term, anti-semitism is the correct one and the way it has been used for many years. --(this unsigned comment was posted by 85.64.221.101 on 18:33, 22 October 2006 )
As Humus sapiens (as well as the article itself) pointed out, both terms are "correct". However, I (as well as various prominent scholars in the field) think the unhyphenated term is at least marginally less "problematic" than the other, thus my proposal to use it here. --Arvedui 20:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom -- Orpras 02:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia should follow best usage in scholarly work and serious reportage, not the most popular. But use redirects. Lumos3 10:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is not the place for battles over neologistic nomenclature to be fought. When use of the non-hyphenated term becomes widespread and accepted, wikipedia should consider changing. Until then, the widespread and accepted term should be used. Drjon 14:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Google shows nearly 2 million hits for the unhyphenated term (not "widespread" enough?), and as I've said a few times now, both terms are "accepted", though one is clearly preferred by many of the most prominent academics studying the field (for what I think are quite good reasons). As Wikipedia policy itself points out, the wider-used term is not always the correct one. --Arvedui 20:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Drjon, "antisemitism" is not a neologism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments: The proposal, though I am sure well-intentioned, is trivial. What is important is that people can enter Antisemitism and they are re-directed to the proper article. I see nothing that would lead to any confusion or difficulties for readers or editors of Wikipedia, so i see no reason to change the name. If we did, we would just be reversing the redirect (i.e. we would still have to have a link for Anti-Semitism because many spell it this way, we would just add the automatic redirect to the same article without the hyphen). I do not see that it is worth the effort. Let's talk about ways to improve the contents or clarity of the article instead, shall we? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

With respect, I don't agree that arguing for this change is any more trivial than arguing over whether to use AD or CE, for example. What is important isn't the existence of a functioning redirect, but the attempt to emphasize that antisemitism has nothing conceptually to do with "Semitism", an increasingly wide-spread misconception the talk section directly below this one conveniently demonstrates (yet again). Yes we would be reversing the redirect but that happens all the time, and I don't understand why that would be a meaningful objection. The effort involved is probably the best argument against (given the extended size of the article), but even that would be relatively simple given the search/replace command in any decent text editor... I recognize from the way the voting is going that it appears I'm going to lose this battle, but I still thought it was a point worth raising, and I maintain that it would be a worthwhile thing to do even if it only slightly helps to undermine the recurring yet entirely spurious argument below. -- Arvedui 09:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New anti-Semitism

It would seem that, from the arguments presented here, that most of the proponents would logically insist that new anti-Semitism ["anti-Semitism has expanded from hatred of Jews (classical anti-Semitism) to hatred of Jewish national aspirations (new anti-Semitism)"] would have to retain its hyphen and capital letter. I won't hold my breath for that to happen, however. Gene Nygaard 13:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning at all here. Could you please explain more clearly? --Arvedui 23:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to move the category

Don't forget to move the main category and other categories. Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 14:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Category:Antisemitism" currently redirects to "Category:Anti-Semitism", including from the bottom of this article. None of the article (and there are many) that are categorized as belonging to "Category:Anti-Semitism" have been changed to link to the new, improved category. I hope that those who insisted on the name change will also take on the extra work associated with the name change, and correct these resultant problems. --SFDan 12:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_2#Category:Antisemitism. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Political Correctionism

As a politically incorrect individual, I can't help but to point out that the Nazis weren't anti-semitics, they were anti-jew, there's a difference. Semitics can be considered a Jew or an Arab, the Nazis happened to have great relations with Arabs, so I do find this to be quite incorrect.

Even so, not ALL nazis loathed jews, it's more complex than that, that's the simple answer, but that's a different discussion entirely! Crud3w4re 07:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The term "anti-semitism" or "antisemitism" historically refers specifically to prejudice against Jews, not against "Semitics" in the ethnic pseudoscience sense. Your argument is comparable to saying that the name of "Mongolia" is evil because not all of the (formerly so-called) "Mongoloid" peoples live there. --FOo 07:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that they are jews, semitics refer to arabs and jews, therefore it is incorrect. Nazis and Arabs worked together on many issues. I know it goes against years of propaganda, but I'm just voicing the true meaning of the word, I think Anti-Zionism would refer to Arabs on Jew violence. Crud3w4re 08:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

See big red box at the top. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I know. I was just discussing how it's the wrong way to word it, but OK. Crud3w4re 09:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. The box explains why. The word "sincere" literally means "without wax" but that does not mean that the word sincere refers to people without wax. Sometimes, breaking down a word into its components and looking for literal translations takes us farther away from their actual meaning, not closer. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
My point exactly. :) --Arvedui 23:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
"You are wrong." Is that what you say to everybody whose opinion differs from yours?--Lairor 03:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What about people that hate Arabs? What can you call them? Crud3w4re 19:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Arab, I guess. There's not a standard word for it that I know of; some people like "Arabophobia", but that speaks of fear, not hate. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
See Anti-Arabism. Jayjg (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Read this. Crud3w4re 03:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Why? Nothing there that's not been expressed before, much of it rubbish. I happen to prefer "Jew-hater" to "anti-Semite", but the generally accepted term is what it is. It's not Wikipedia's job to establish or change usage -- just to record it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Also to correct in the form of politica incorrectionism. I agree that you can't just pretend noone has used "anti-semitism" or "antisemitism" when they meant anti-jew, but it's good to record that some people have a bone to pick with it. Crud3w4re 04:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"misunderstanding" a word is not "having a bone to pick with the word." You just need to accept that you misunderstood, and accept the fact that there are plenty of perfectly acceptable ways to use the English language properly to say what you want to say. Also, I question the motives of anyone who wastes time arguing about the meaning of anti-Semitism "because Arabs are Semites too." Yes, there has been descrimination against Arabs, and if that is what is really motivating someone instead of trying to chang ethe official deminition of a term concerning Jews, why not join or contribute to the Anti-Arab Defamation league, or work on an article here about the AADL or about persecution (or hatred) of Arabs? No one denies that this exists and in certain countries (e.g. Israel) is a real civil-rights issue. That said, I have one last point: in the post 9/11 world, I personally think prejudice against Muslims is far worse than prejudice against Arabs, and there has been much more written on attacks against Muslims, and I wonder of there is growing research on hatred of Muslims - these are areas someone researching an article on "hatred of Muslims" could investigage and they would really be helping Wikipedia. Of course, the vast majority of Muslims are not "semites" by any definition or stretch of the imagination, and squabbling about the meaning of "anti-Semitism" only takes energy away that could be spent researching this area. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not of Arab descent, I'm of Italian descent, OK? Maybe some Arab down down the line, but that's besides the point, so I won't be joining any organization like that. I just think anti-jew/anti-zionism are better choices, I know it goes against popular opinion, but that's how some people see it. Is there ant "anti jew" article on wiki? Crud3w4re 19:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, while we redefine antisemitism so it makes sense, I'm going to get my car where it's parked in the driveway and drive it on the parkway to buy some pajamas that are inflammable, because I don't want them to be flammable. Gzuckier 17:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment on the original post... Had the Nazis reached Arab lands, they would likely have genocided the Arab population as well. It was enough for you to have a drop of Jewish blood in your veins to get you sent to the showers. Being Semites, Arabs inevitably were considered by the Nazis to qualify this all-important definition (due to their relationship with Ishmael). Thus, even taking into account that 'semites' include Arabs, the statement is still coherent and rational. But that said, 'Antisemitism' is not and has never in the English vernacular included Anti-Arabism. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 12:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You might wish to read the Nazi ties and activities during World War II section in the Mohammad Amin al-Husayni article. --SFDan 13:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The wonders of politics and the thinking "enemy of my enemy". Also Avraham Stern of Lehi tried to work together with the nazis, see Lehi (group)#Contact with Nazi authorities. Also the IRA co-operated with the nazis against their common enemy. // Liftarn
The Germans have reached Arab lands (at some point they were in control of half of Egypt, as well as most of North Africa), but there were never any plans to send Arabs to concentration camps. By the way, in North Africa the Germans were already in the process of requesting the local authorities to supply them with lists of Jewish residents by the time Rommel was defeated. They most certainly distinguished Jews from Arabs, and "Semitism" had nothing to do with it. Jimmy1988 13:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
??? Do da name Rommel ring a bell? I'm reading an article right now about Arabs in the Nazi army, and an article or section of an article will shortly appear.Gzuckier 17:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Arabs in the Nazi army, Ukranians... even some Jews. It gets odder every day.

Etymology and usage

Semite refers broadly to speakers of a language group which includes both Arabs and Jews. However anti-Semitism is specifically in reference to Jews and many anti-Semites are pro-Arab.

This seems to me to be circular reasoning. Can it be reworked? Here's a proposal:

Semite refers broadly to speakers of a language group which includes both Arabs and Jews. However, the term anti-Semitism is specifically used in reference to attitudes held towards Jews. Many anti-Semites are pro-Arab.

Comments? Drjon 14:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 14:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why the last clause has to be there at all; it's pretty much irrelevant. Also, rather than "specifically used in reference to", why not the more accurate "defined as"? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why the "many anti-Semites are pro-Arab" sentence is there either. It's unsourced gratuitous POV-pushing. Jayjg (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
More relevantly, what does it mean to be "pro-Arab"? Does that mean belief that Arabs have a right to exist or to live? If so, then I am "pro-Arab", but I am also "pro-Israel". So perhaps "pro-Arab" should be replaced by something more appropriate, such as "opposed to the existence of Israel"? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the phrase should just be deleted. It's unsourced opinion, POV-pushing, and doesn't add anything. Jayjg (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Back to the first sentence -- the "language group" doesn't include Arabs and Jews; the language group includes Arabic and Hebrew. Further, is "broadly" correct? It seems to be that "semite" refers specifically to speakers of the language family, not broadly; broadly it refers to Jews and Arabs in general, regardless of what they speak. I'd even venture that most Jews, at the time "antisemitismus" was coined, spoke no Semitic language at all (unless Yiddish counts)... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess it's about peoples whose ancestors spoke Semitic languages. Jayjg (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, keep in mind when the term was coined Jews still widely used Hebrew in their prayer books, religious texts, responsa, etc. Jayjg (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

A question

I have what may sound like a stupid question, but it's a sincere concern: Is it possible to be against Judaic religion/tradition and at the same time be non-antisemitic? I'm asking this because on the one hand, I am clearly opposed to certain elements of Jewish tradition (ok, to be honest, really only one: Brit Milah) but on the other, I do not bare any negative sentiment towards Jewish individuals or the Jewish people. Personally, I believe such an arguably rational criticism of a tradition can be separated from much less rational criticism of followers of that religion. 84.44.171.230 03:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You are refering to religious anti-semitism. That is also a version of anti-semitism. // Liftarn
I think you also need to be careful about distinguishing between disagreement and opposition. It is one thing to say "I myself would not be circumsized nor have my child circumsized" versus "Jews should not be allowed to circumcize themselves." Slrubenstein | Talk 11:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Disagreement with certain elements of the Jewish religion should not automatically label someone an anti-Semite (there are opposing views amongst Jews themselves. In fact, you’d find it much easier to get Reform Jews and Protestants to agree on most things than you would Reform Jews and Orthodox Jews). However, the way this disagreement plays out is what determines anti-Semitism: if you try to reform the community from within (like Martin Luther), or avoid practicing certain elements, you are at worst a dissenter. If, on the other hand, you call for restrictions to be imposed on a Jewish community, you are practicing anti-Semitism. Jimmy1988 13:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, "Jews should not be allowed to circumcize themselves." is one thing, but what about "Jews should not be allowed to circumcize their kids."? That has been called anti-Semitic. But that's another issue. If you are against Judaism you are an anti-Semite. // Liftarn
Thank you for your replies. Liftarn, I think you sum it up quite well. I am not opposed to Judaism, or against anyone circumcizing themselves. But I am indeed against anyone (up to and including the legality of) circumcising a child under any circumstances other than acute medical necessity. That obviously does include all people who do it for religious reasons, like the Jewish people. On the other hand, I am not politically active in any way, so I'm in "silent opposition". But, if I were to vote for or against a law that bans circumcisions (other than strictly, medically necessary ones), I'd vote for that law. So is that Antisemitism? 87.78.178.225 21:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a form of Antisemitism, yes. It's no different from voting for a law banning the kosher slaughter of animals, a law making it illegal to wear a kipah in public, a law banning fasting on Yom Kippur or a law that compels Jews to work in Saturday while allowing Christians to take off on Sunday. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 22:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I see. Then strike that remark about that vote, I do not want to be an Antisemite! Let me instead say, I hope that Judaism is going to abandon circumcision of children at some point in the future. 87.78.151.166 00:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a non sequitur. By the same (twisted) reasoning, half of Western world would be considered anti-Islamic because they oppose the capital punishment, which is encoded in Sharia law. Duja► 10:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite agree. After all, I was asking my initial question for the very reason of finding out how Jewish people feel if someone is against circumcision. I received comprehensive and precise answers that faced me with a simple decision: To act against circumcision AND therefore to be regarded antisemitic - OR to not do so AND not to be regarded antisemitic. I prefer the latter of those very fair alternatives. Judging about the "twistedness" of the reasoning of the very people I asked would in fact be kind of twisted: Like asking someone, "does this position of mine offend you?" - and to react upon a clear "yes" by saying "you're weird (I don't care for your opinion)"... 84.44.171.253 12:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Talking about twistedness, are you honestly comparing circumcision with capital punishment? 87.78.177.85 13:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I’m Jewish (and was circumcised) but don’t not like the idea of circumcision. I’ll probably not circumcise my son. However, I will never try to impose this on the Jewish community as a whole. Male circumcision is NOT a barbaric practice – it does not take away anything from the circumcised, and is considered by many even today to have significant health benefits (though nowadays, with increased awareness of hygiene, it is not as important as it used to be). I only oppose it for the same reason I oppose tongue studs and the such -- because it is an unnecessary tribal mark. But to have a law passed that would ban it outright (or tongue studs for that matter) would be not only anti-Semitic but also anti democratic. Jimmy1988 13:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm merely debating against the logic "a person opposes tradition foo" → "the person is an anti-culture-that-advocates-foo". According to Kari's words, you, Jimmy, are anti-semitic because you oppose the circumcision as a tribal mark. The French government, having passed the law of banning religious symbols in schools, would thus count as anti-semitic for banning kippah (although they banned the crosses and veils)? No. For that, they can be reasonably qualified as "ultra-secularist", "anti-religious" or even "anti-democratic", but that doesn't make them anti-christian, anti-semitic or anti-islamic per se. What is decisive in classifying someone as "anti-fooian" is their motive for doing so—are they against foos because of irrational hate and/or selfish interest of exterminating foos, or because of they happen to have another agenda which happens to contradict the one of foos only in a certain aspect? See Reductio ad Hitlerum for an illustration. Duja► 13:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, there is a differece between doing something to oneself and doing something to another. Would making murder illegal be discrimination against Thuggees? No, ofcourse not. There are some gray areas like the ban on ritual slaughter. It may be for anti-religious reasons or for animal wellfare concerns. Or a ban on infant (male or female) circumcision. It may very well be for child wellfare concerns. Ok, I'll get of my soapbox now. // Liftarn
I don't think the ban on ritual slaughter is really a grey area. Besides making the consumption of meat illegal, the premise is completely Antisemitic or Anti-Islamic, and there's plenty of studies showing that kashrut slaughter is the most humane method. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 19:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Forcing secular culture on other people requires them to abdicate their own culture. I don't have a problem with secular culture, but the minute you start telling people that they're wrong for not being secular, you've crossed the line. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 19:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Jimmy1988, so there is at least one exception to the rule -- I guess this topic is really difficult, but that's why I asked.
  • Duja, I get your point (I did before). But if there is anyone "twisted", it's me, because I just decided (totally irrationally) to not start a logical debate about circumcision (I would have done so on that article's talk page), and not about Judaism or its (self) definition (I could have done that on that article's talk page). I did ask for people's personal opinions - mainly for orientation purposes.
  • Kari, I get your point, too. But wouldn't you agree that capital punishment provides a serious point in regard to what you're saying? -- As opposed to my opinion on circumcision, my opinion on capital punishment is totally non-negiotiable. Just for the sake of the point concerning "secularity fascism", I'll go so far as to declare that any culture and any person who is not clearly opposed to capital punishment is intolerable to me. That includes (some) Muslims, as well as (some) Chinese, and (some) US Americans. I would never ask if my very strong opinion on capital punishment (namely, that it should be totally outlawed and all performers killed on the spot) was OK with anyone. If you are for capital punishment, you will simply be discriminated by me, no matter if you have a (in this case) lame excuse like religion. With that in mind, I make my point overly clear and hereby tell anyone who is not opposed to capital punishment, that s/he is wrong for not being secular in regard to capital punishment. What line exactly have I crossed now?

84.44.168.177 22:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to acknowledge two points, and these two points resolve almost all confusion or conflict over this issue. (1) there is a difference between opposing something even "in principle" and forcing others to share your opposition. I have no problem with anyone being against circumcision in principle, as long as they do not therefore argue that Jews are bad for doing it. NB: this would be different if many Jews opposed circumcision. If this were the case, you could be in solidarity with those Jews who are trying to get their community to abandon the practice. (2) there is a difference between opposing a practice and opposing a regime. One can oppose capital punishment while respecting another country where the vast majority of people support it. But this does not mean you have to respect all countries that support it. I think any decent person should be opposed to Nazis, not because they employed capital punishment but because they way the employed capital punishment was abhorrent to most people around the world, and in fact was a way of crushing dissent and waging a war against those they considered non-Germans. This is a different kind of opposition. By the way, I am not comparing Jewish halachah or Muslim Sharia to the Nazis. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Name

I'm not going to start a move vote, but I am concerned about the votes to move often saying a variant of "Antisemitism seems to be the term preferred by scholars." This is unproven and I think probably incorrect. On Google Scholar "Anti-Semitism" -antisemitism gets 21,000 hits while "antisemitism" itself gets around 9200. At the University of Oxford's site "Anti-semitism" -antisemitism gets 16 pages, but "antisemitism" itself gets only six pages. However the B'nai B'rith does prefer the non-hyphenated word as Anti-Semitism receives 39 responses with Antisemitism receiving 52 at their site. The Simon Wiesenthal Center also does. If the reason is the preference among thise victimized by this I'm fine with that. I just wish that had been more clearly stated earlier so I wouldn't have been arguing on incorrect premises.--T. Anthony 05:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

While both spellings are acceptable, the unhyphenized version is a little less confusing. From what I've seen, it is indeed the preferred version among the victimized group. And as we can see, some groups on the other end have shown interest in mudding the matter. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comparison with Roma

It does seem strange that the Antisemitism has dozens of articles (including a comprehensive "Antisemitism in Japan" article ..) when there is only a three sentence Antigypsyism article (Antiziganism), and that was only created a couple of weeks ago. What is the reason? A similar situation occurs with the 'Porajmos' and 'The Holocaust' articles. (Why is Holocaust afforded a 'The', but not Porajmos?). Yours, Rimbul.

Basically, because more Jews edit here than Roma, and more antisemites than antizigans. The good news is that if you wish to edit/contribute such articles, you won't be tied up arguing with a bunch of dorks. Gzuckier 17:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antisemitism/Archive_23&oldid=1146349303"