Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

"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)

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)

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, [1]. 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)

Baloney. 'Literal' usage refers to the meaning of the word. not its etymology. If I am literally hysterical, I am experiencing the medical condition of hysteria (rather than hyerbolically saying I'm very emotional). It does not mean that my womb is moving, which is the etymology. Paul B (talk) 09:22, 25 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)

"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)

" trying to delegitimize a form of hatred that has been practiced for 4000 years" this is logical fallacy known as appeal to tradition.Scientus (talk) 06:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't call you a racist. You've been fighting on this page saying that antisemitism isn't racism because Jews aren't a racial/ethnic group. You are contradicting yourself. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Problems with the article

• mis-quoting US government report
• scare quotes around "Judeophobia", and falsely attributing the term.
• Do not use antisemitism to refer to Leon Pinsker's Judeophobia, which is "not peculiar to particular races".
• There are a bunch of very similar articles, include links to all three, instead of just one.

[2]Scientus (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• • You trying to push Judeophobia wherever you can stick it? [3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not discussing that here. What is the point of having a discussion if the edits are not discussed?Scientus (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• What is the alleged misquote of the US Govt report?
• Where are scare quotes used?
• Why not? No one else seems to have an issue with using the current-era term for the concept.
• Criticism of Judaism is not relevant enough to this topic to merit a hat link. It should go in the see also section if it is not linked in the body of the article. I don't have any objection to having both anti-Judaism and Religious antisemitism linked in a "see also" hat. VQuakr (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• The diff indicates that you moved the inverted commas, creating a misquotation yourself. Disingenuous or what?
• They are not "scare quotes", any more than the ones I just used are. They indicate the fact that it is the term he used - as in 'Rosenberg called Jackson Pollock's style "action painting", while Greenberg preferred "abstract expressionism".'
• We don't switch around terminology all the time in an article, as it serves no purpose.
• Adding "Criticism of Judaism" in that way has the effect of implying that antisemitism somehow follows from or is linked to reasonable criticism of Judaism. It serves to legitimate it. Paul B (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

True Torah Jews

I reverted an edit adding the view of this group (per BRD) but it has been re added without discussion, so I thought i would start a discussion here. The edit in question is [4]. is this group's opinion on what antisemitism is important at all? Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a significant anti-Zionist Jewish organization that files brief in Supreme Court [5] and handles top news items [6] participates in protests [7] and does press conferences [8]. This video rejecting military support for Israel has 200,000 views [9] Here they are talking on Al Jazeera [10] Scientus (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

What makes them a reliable source on the subject of antisemitism and, more importantly, what does the sentence you added to the article have to do with antisemitism (you know, the subject of this article)? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

PS: Editors may find this interesting: WP:Articles for deletion/True Torah Jews. And this: evidently this "significant" organization is cited in just two articles in Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Open your eyes. Everything they do is fighting anti-Semitism, and not anti-Semitism of decades ago, but anti-Semitism right now. Here is their interview on Al Jazeera. [11] But clearly you already know that, and just don't want to hear it.Scientus (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this POV is unambiguously not relevant enough to include in the article. VQuakr (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Open your eyes: wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And the stuff you're trying to add is obvious nonsequitur. --JBL (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a fringe group and not unusually, Scientus relies on primary sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of who they are, their statement doesn't belong where it was added. It serves absolutely no purpose there. With development and expansion, maybe something similar could be added under Cultural antisemitism, but not just as a random quote. Expand upon the idea of religious Jews discriminating against non-religious Jews; don't just insert a random quote of how one group defines Judaism. Goalie1998 (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

True Torah Jews is as significant as the Westboro Baptist Church. Fringe group that knows how to get attention. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Listen Scientus, I'm growing tired of your games. If you want to talk about True Torah Jews there are two great articles to do so. Who is a Jew? would be a great place to put how they define a Jew and Anti-Zionism under the subsection Jewish Anti-Zionism would be a great place to put their political opinions. They are not involved in truly fighting anti-semitism. As a matter a fact they state that the Holocaust, Inquisition and Crusades are "God's will". If anything they are filled with Internalized Anti-Semitism. Now I don't agree with you. I think you are trying to damage the Jewish people but I'm throwing you a bone. Who is a Jew? and Anti-Zionism is perfect for you to add your statements. That being said if you continue to harass this page I will get administrator help.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. Please don't encourage additions to other articles without proper secondary sourcing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, I do agree with you but I also don't think its completely necessarily impossible for Scientus to get secondary sources. And I do think it will lead to less of a fight here. Whether or not they can find secondary sources this is NOT the appropriate article for the information.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Trouble archiving links on the article

Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

• http://books.google.com.au/books?id=0HDeEPouQm0C&pg=PA18
• http://books.google.com/?id=PFnRwWXzypgC&pg=PA30
• http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/40258.htm

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Antisemitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071109204641/http://www.archive.org:80/details/DerSiegdesJudenthumsueberdasGermanenthum%7CDer to https://archive.org/details/DerSiegdesJudenthumsueberdasGermanenthum%7CDer

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2015

Please change " Jews" to "a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs" because a semite is not defined as a Jew. A semite is one who speaks a language that originated in Asia Minor (Middle East). So an Antisemite is one who is against people that speak a middle eastern language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages Pverstandig (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Pinny Verstandig

 Not done please see the pink infobox at the top of this page for why. This is clearly explained in the second paragraph of the article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Pov issue : is anti-Judaism a form of antisemitism ?

This source makes the distinction: Elshtain, Jean Bethke (2004-05-18). "Anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism?". Christian Century. Retrieved 2007-02-01.. The lead should be nuanced given it equals both.

There is also another point. It sounds obvious that rejection of a religion is not necessarely a rejection of the people who practice this. Else, that would make racists of atheists or laics. The same issue is true for Islam.

It is obvious that we can expect that huge majority if not all antisemites reject Judaism and Jews. And it is also true that some forms of antisemitism take their roots in anti-Judaism (the famous credo that "Jews killed God/Jesus"). But all people rejecting Judaism are not antisemites. (As the source states referring to Annah Arendt.)

Editors of this article should work for more nuances.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Merriam Webster, Encyclopedia Britannica, the ADL, the US State Department, the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia, and the Oxford dictionary, to name a few, all include religion or religious based persecution in their definitions of antisemitism. Just because a subset of antisemitism may have a second name doesn't mean it isn't antisemitism. Arendt seems to be an outlier. Mentioning her is appropriate in Anti-Judaism, but the prevalent opinion is that discrimination against Jews due to their religion is a form of antisemitism, and that is how the lede should remain. It would be a POV violation to give a singular source equal weight to the vast prevalent opinion, I believe. -- Avi (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

AD what ? ;-) Pluto2012 (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

True, not everyone who rejects Judaism is an anti-semite. Pretty much every Christian I know does not believe in Judaism but are not anti-Semitic, any more than not everyone who rejects Christianity is anti-Christian. However, people who discriminate against Jews, or persecute Jews, because of those Jews' adherence to Judaism are antisemites. -- Avi (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you but that's not what I understand from the lead :

"Antisemitism (...) is prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as an ethnic, religious, or racial group"

As it is written, it means that discrimination against Jews as a religious group means antisemitism.

More, reading this, I am a little surprised to see a "racial concept" in the definition of a "racist behaviour". I mean : antisemitism is a form of racism. It postulated wrongly that Jews are a racial group that should be discriminated or hated.

I would have written something such as this :

Antisemitism is any form of prejudice, hatred or discrimination against Jews, based on cultural, religious or ethnic grounds.

And I would even not be shocked to see political added. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Discrimination against Jews a religious group is one of the types of antisemitism per the list of sources brought above, which reflect a widespread, if not global, acceptance for that definition; certainly in English-speaking countries. Acting on our own opinions, even if accurate, would fall into WP:OR. Jews are an interesting category, as an ethno-religious group, it is all-but-impossible to separate the ethnicity from the religion, and most anti-semites, for that matter, don't differentiate either (at least per the sources above). As regards racism, the fact that Jews may not by virtue of DNA form their own race has not stopped antisemites for many years of calling them a degenerate race (typical Nazi propoganda, for example), so whilst not scientific, it is still an accurate depiction of antisemitism. Perhaps if anti-semites were more genealogically savvy, they may realize that some of their statements do not adhere to accepted scientific theory. Then again, said Nazis were very scientifically and technologically advanced, and it didn't stop them either. My point, Pluto2012, is that it is neither our job nor even our privilege, to define anti-semitism as it should be, but what it is. And it is—according to Merriam Webster, Encyclopedia Britannica, the Anti Defamation League, the Simon Weisenthal Center, the US State Department, the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia, and the Oxford dictionary—discrimination against Jews as a race, religio, or ethnicity. -- Avi (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I know what is WP:OR.

But when you write "Jews is a [...] category" you make an antisemite statement.

And when you write "it is all-but-impossible to separate the ethnicity from the religion [for Jews]", you make a very dangerous pov that 70% of Jews of the world would reject.

Regarding the definition: Merriam Webser may be false and that the one that is taken. Anti Defamation League and Simon wiesenthal Center are nothing else but fanatic people. Please, don't refer to that. I don't know what is EMC on R&X but the word "monitoring" is enough not to try to find.

Oxford dictonnary is wp:rs :-) but it doesn't states so. Here it is what is states. Quite Funny. Exactly my first sentences :-) And I brought the US State Department source. It doesn't state what is written regarding religion.

Merriam Webser was chosen. It is a minoritary pov on the issue and as stated, racist one. I am sure that my proposal fits better the wp:rs definitions.

When I have time, I'll check. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit)

• Nearly mine : "Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." --Working Definition of Anti-Semitism by the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia"
• it is free...
• as Oxford (and me)
• USHMM, same as me
• same as me

Pluto2012 (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure anyone would consider the Simon Wiesenthal Center as fanatics; I find that statement somewhat surprising. Regardless, I brought English-language sources spanning many elements that all agree that discrimination against Jews as a religion, ethnicity, or race are all considered antisemitism. You have countered with your opinion and understanding of what Jews are, which, regardless of its accuracy is not acceptable for Wikipedia. Even if you were a published scholar, one opinion would fall under the weight of the multiplicity of sources I brought, even if you have personal issues with the ADL or Simon Wiesenthal Center. As for the EU quote, how do you understand "and religious facilities"? That Jews are being discriminated against as an ethnicity but that the target is their religious buildings or items? Do you think that is logical? Furthermore, read the entirety of the definition. It includes sentences like "Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion", and "…classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel)", and "Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews." All of which are rather clear that discrimination against Jews as a religious group. As for the Oxford dictionary, please read the second example they give: "In Europe in the nineteenth century this religious anti-Semitism turned racial". It boils down to something rather simple: can you show a list of English-language sources of comparable length, gravitas, and authority that defines antisemitism as excluding discrimination of Jews as a religious group? The evidence is clearly on the side of inclusion for now. -- Avi (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Specific rebuttals:

• http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anti-Semitism <-- first definition includes Judaism
• European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EU): see text above for details
• Oxford: see text above for details
• Reference.com: Does not qualify the type hatred, so cannot be used to exclude any type.
• USHMM: Just says "hatred of Jews" without specific qualifiers, which includes hatred of Jews for all reasons. Reading the text indicates that antisemites added political overtones to existing hatred of Jews, which was clearly for their religion (as the text says regarding blood libels and pogroms)
• Learners dictionary 1) does not qualify the hatred, which implies for any and all reasons and 2) is a "simplified" version of Merriam-Webster and Britannica (just look at the site) so the "unsimplified" version would take precedence, the way that an English Wikipedia article is more precise than a Simple English Wikipedia article.

None of the examples you bring indicate that antisemitism specifically excludes hatred of Jews as a religious group, and many are to the contrary. There is only one source we have seen to that effect, the writings of Hannah Arendt, which are given mention in the lede in Anti-Judaism, but are far outweighed here, and does not belong in the lede (NPOV, UNDUE weight violation). -- Avi (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Avi,

There may be a problem of English but you write both these sentences :

"(...) discrimination against Jews as a religion, ethnicity, or race are all considered antisemitism."

and

"True, not everyone who rejects Judaism is an anti-semite. (...). However, people who discriminate against Jews, or persecute Jews, because of those Jews' adherence to Judaism are antisemites."

They don't say the same. Which one reflects what you think or what the WP:RS says according to you ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Pluto2012. I think they are the same. If you discriminate against Jews as members of a religious group, you ipso facto are discriminating against Jews because of their connection to Judaism. Discriminating against non-observant Jews because they are connected to the Jewish religion, even though those Jews may not practice Judaism, is still persecution of Jews as a religion. -- Avi (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Avraham,

For me, the 1st sentence means that people who would discriminate against Jews as practicers of the Jewish religion are automatically antisemite and the 2nd one means the contrary is it not automatic.

If somebody would refuse to discuss with you or would refuse to meet you because you believe in Judaism may not be antisemite. This is anti-Judaism.

By the way most definitions do not make the link.

I keep insisting that only 1 source dare to talk about "Jews as a race", which is a racist perspective. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Pluto2012, while you are entitled to your opinion, Wikipedia requires reliable and verifiable sources, not opinions. I believe I have shown many sources which do not follow your personal understanding of the difference, with only one person's opinion to the contrary (Arendt). As such, making Arendt's view the default opinion, or even giving it equal weight in the lede, would be a violation of WP:NPOV. You have not demonstrated that not to be the case. -- Avi (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm here late and probably won't stay, but wouldn't it be an improvement to write "antipathy against Jews on account of their perceived religious beliefs" instead of "antipathy against the perceived religious beliefs of Jews"? A quick look above seems to confirm that everyone believes antisemitism is antipathy against people for whatever reason. Zero^talk 05:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

In summary:

• What we agree on : Sources must be the References
• What can be read : all definitions precise that antisemitism is hostility againt Jews. There is not issue this. All start that way.
• Interesting piont : there is a "working definition" that doesn't seem to be contested given both contributors in the discussion refer to this. Perfect, let's quote this then. It is the longer one.
• After, some and just some sources (we don't agree on the number) consider antisemitism = anti-Judaism. Nearly none make the step (we don't agree on the number). Others even contest this analogy. So whatever the alleged beliefs or opinions, this issue is clearly controversed and therefore should come after the consensus to bring nuance.

Lead was modified in taking into account these points to comply with NPoV. It is sad that it was not done before.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the changes as I don't see a consensus for the change. I see one editor who has a problem with the article and who also place the NPOV tag, and nobody else who has a problem. The tag ought to be removed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be better if you could give at least some arguments. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be better if you didn't edit war. Please get consensus for changes. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit war means reverting an article without giving arugments in the talk page, ie what *you* did.

If you read the discussion, read the sources, agree understanding the issues and agree orking on a solution, you are welcome.

I would be happy to understand why the "edge" point of view, that can be found in some sources only, is stated to be the main (and only one) in the article.

On my side, I decided to be banned if this our principles cannot be respected. I am tired losing my time with bad faith people on wikipedia. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Zero0000, good point; change made. -- Avi (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Difference between Racism and Antisemitism

See this pdf for reference. The section in question is on page five, towards the bottom. The person interviewed in said pdf is Stephan Grigat, about whom there is an article in the German WP. Kind regards Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Have you read the section in the article entitled 'racial antisemitism', and the racial antisemitism article itself? They cite numerous sources discussing the relationship between racism and antisemitism - which would suggest that your edit suggesting that antisemitism "is also distinct from racism in some key points" [12] is open to question, and certainly not something we should be asserting unequivocally in the lede. As for your source, Grigat says that "This ["biologizing capitalism as international Jewry"] is one point where anti-Semitism differs fundamentally from other forms of racism". Which isn't an assertion that antisemitism is 'distinct from' racism - instead, it is a particular form of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The main difference between Antisemitism and (most) other types of group based hatred is that the hated group is imagined as strong. (Jews control x and the likes). In most forms of racism on the other hand the "other" is thought of as "weak". Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

As a generalisation that might possibly be true - but that doesn't alter the fact that we have multiple sources (including Grigat) equating antisemitism with racism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Misnomer

The term is a misnomer, i presume most of you know that, yet i suggest to include the fact in the article. Semites is a linguistic classification, that encompasses more people than the Israelis, namely the Arabs. In public Arabs are occasionally - paradoxically - labeled "antisemitic", which is of course absurd.

ATB Wikirictor (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

OK - sorry for bothering YOU with outdated issues. Yet the etymology section needs re-editing.

ATB Wikirictor (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

jews are not the only semites in the world

jewish people are no the only semites, there are other groups that are semites and they have all faced persecution and discrimination. this page should cover all of them, and until it does, it is racist and violates Wikipedia's guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:80A9:DA20:A59B:1C3D:2318:70D0 (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

See banner at top of this page and scores of discussions in archives. This is the proper meaning of the term as it was created and as it has been used since its creation over 100 years ago. -- Avi (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

One day I'll get around to making that edit notice. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Dang it Avi. (A) Don't feed the trolls. (B) Did you just admit that the whole ongoing fork between anti-Judaism and "religious antisemitism" is a lie? :p -- Kendrick7^talk 07:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Justification

I don't see anything in this article which details any justification for antisemitism. Are we to believe that Jewish ethnocentricism for example has played no part in negative feelings towards the Jews? Respectfully I'd suggest that there should be a section on reasons for antisemitism in this article. It could be fair and balanced and detail both sides of the argument.31.49.176.126 (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You are suggesting then that we have a bit that says antisemitism is justified? That's not going to happen. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I was suggesting we add some of the things Jews may have done which caused or inflamed antisemitism, though I'm certainly not an expert. Perhaps the Jews never did anything wrong and have been persecuted for no reason whatsoever. Any input appreciated...31.49.176.126 (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Just briefly. There is no ethical reasonable basis for Antisemitism. Arguments are as invalid and ad-hoc as those for racism. Wikirictor (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

31.49.176.126—you have presented no source supporting that there is a "justification" for antisemitism. Bus stop (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

21st-century Arab antisemitism

Muslim-majority countries outside the Middle East held similarly negative views, with 4% of Turks and 9% of Indonesians viewing Jews favorably.

The definitions of the Middle East usually include Turkey. Could this statement be changed or at least clarified somehow, especially since it conflicts with other Wikipedia articles? FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  15:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree: Turkey is not "outside the Middle East". Khestwol (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

U.S. governmental report

That antisemitism is 'considered' "hatred toward Jews—individually and as a group—that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity", is a point well made in the opening paragraph.

This paragraph deals with apparent misnomer. Galerita (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

English translation of Marr's book

I've added a link to a version of Marr's " Sieg des Judenthums..." purporting to be an English translation. If the translation is faithful to the original this is important for scholarship reasons. The translation was linked here: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Marr.html Which appears to be a scholarly summary of Marr's work.

Can someone please check the translation and also consider linking to the summary page (http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Marr.html). I'm not an authority on Marr and don't have sufficient German skills to verify the translation.

Also, the link to the archived German version is dead.

Galerita (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galerita (talk • contribs) 09:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

"scientific-sounding"

I've removed "scientific-sounding" from the lede and replaced it with "alternative". While I suspect the reason for introducing the term is that Judenhass has a certain vulgarity, while antisemitism - initially at least - allowed "scholarly" discussion of the topic, as well as being more flexible grammatically.

"Scientific-sounding" sounds trite, and even if claimed by a modern author, how could could they know the motivations of the people who introduced the neologism.

Galerita (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galerita (talk • contribs) 09:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

"Sounds trite" sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Too bad you didn't look at the many sources used for that sentence, most of which make the point that "antisemitism" was chosen as a scientific alternative to Judenhass. Glad you know better than the experts. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, accepted; "Sounds trite" sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is disrespectful to the 'experts'. I used shorthand as this is a talk page rather than the article itself. But experts also have WP:PPOV, or would you dispute this?

My claims are three-fold:

1) It is difficult even for an expert to claim knowledge of the opinions and motivations of a deceased person, when such a person - or someone associated with the introduction of the terminology - has not expressed such opinions. For example, I don't find in Marr's book - at least the English translation I have access to - his reasons for using the phrase Semistim/Semitismus. Remember an appeal to an 'expert' is fundamentally an argument from authority. The expert needs to be demonstrate academic rigour. If you can show the expert cites credible material from the period I accept your argument. It is possible, as the pseudoscience of eugenics was growing at the time. Was that the motivation of the day? From his work, Marr's antisemitism was motivated by a perceived erosion of German culture, sovereignty and identity. But why did he choose the name Semitismus? I note from further down in the antisemitism article it is claimed Marr in his pamphlet uses 'the word Semitismus interchangeably with the word Judentum to denote both "Jewry" (the Jews as a collective) and "jewishness" (the quality of being Jewish, or the Jewish spirit).' This is not referenced in antisemitism, but is consistent with my reading of the English translation of Marr's pamphlet.

2) Stating the historical circumstance that "the term [antisemitism] was popularized in Germany in 1873 as an alternative to the term Judenhass", requires only an examination of history, not an attribution of motives. The burden of proof is on those who would attribute motives.

3) As a scientist myself, "scientific-sounding" seems to confuse or conflate science on the one hand and language & scholarship on the other. For example, Wikipedia is intended to be a work of scholarship, not science. Hence my emotions got the better of me and I used the word 'trite'. My apologies. See http://www.cas.uio.no/Publications/Seminar/Confluence_Ostreng.pdf

I'm happy to be corrected.

Galerita (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

From the sources in the article (footnotes 6 and 7):

1. Chanes, Jerome A. (2004). Antisemitism: a Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. p. 150.

Wilhelm Marr, the radically antisemitic nineteenth-century German nationalist, coined the word antisemitism to replace Judenhass ("Jew-hatred"). The new term, sounding scientifically neutral, was a way of secularizing traditional Judeophobia.

2. Rattansi, Ali. (2007) Racism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. pp. 4–5.

The term 'anti-Semitism' only came into being in the late 1870s, when the German Wilhelm Marr used it to characterize his anti-Jewish movement, the Anti-Semitic League, and he used it specifically to differentiate his project from earlier, more diffuse forms of Christian anti-Judaism, more popularly known as Judenhass, or 'Jew-hatred'. His was a self-conscious racism that required that Jews be defined as a distinct race. And 'Anti-Semitism' had the advantage of sounding like a new, scientific concept separate from simple religious bigotry.

3. Rubenstein, Richard L.; Roth, John K. (2003). Approaches to Auschwitz: The Holocaust and Its Legacy. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 30.

Uses of the term "antisemitism" are now so frequent that one might suppose them to be of long standing. In fact, the term was first popularized in the late 1870s by a German racist ideologue and journalist named Wilhelm Marr. He employed it in speaking about the largely secular anti-Jewish political campaigns that were widespread in Europe at the time. ... He might have used the conventional German Judenhass, but that way of referring to Jew-hatred carried religious connotations that Marr wanted to de-emphasize in favor of racial ones. Apparently more "scientific," the term Antisemitismus caught on and eventually became a way of speaking about all the forms of hostility experienced by the Jews throughout history.

To delete "scientific-sounding term" and replace it with the vanilla "alternative", as you did, does not accurately summarize what the sources say about the popularization of the word antisemitism. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Galerita: citing WP:PPOV is ill considered. First, you are citing an essay about arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion. Strange choice, since you cited the parallel essay about discussions in general in the same post. More importantly, cited sources are the exact opposite of a personal POV. By saying "But experts also have WP:PPOV, or would you dispute this?" you are digressing from the argument actually in the essay and creating a new one that is explicitly contrary to our policy on neutral point of view: WP:POV instructs us to proportionately present "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." VQuakr (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Since Galerita hasn't responded, would someone please restore the phrase "scientific-sounding", which she/he removed. Thank you. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

agreed, gimme a sec..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Dbrodbeck. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Haphazard lists of antisemitic incidents

Haphazard lists of recent incidents are not appropriate for Wikipedia as discussed at [13]. I am going ahead and removing these incidents. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

Possible COPY:VIO

No copyright violation identified.

This lengthy quote appears to be COPY:VIO, so I propose to delete it. Gustavo Perednik has argued that what he terms "Judeophobia" has a number of unique traits which set it apart from other forms of racism, including permanence, depth, obsessiveness, irrationality, endurance, ubiquity, and danger. He also wrote in his book Spain Derailed that "The Jews were accused by the nationalists of being the creators of Communism; by the Communists of ruling Capitalism. If they live in non-Jewish countries, they are accused of double-loyalties; if they live in the Jewish country, of being racists. When they spend their money, they are reproached for being ostentatious; when they don't spend their money, of being avaricious. They are called rootless cosmopolitans or hardened chauvinists. If they assimilate, they are accused of fifth-columnists, if they don't, of shutting themselves away."Guns of brixham (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC) If that's the case, why not doing something more constructive? Like paraphrasing. Articles in Wikipedia are full of blockquotes, which is not copywrite violations since they are properly attributed and referenced. Try to improve the content instead of being WP:destructive.--Fikolitetroup (talk) 06:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC) That's not a very helpful reply is it? If you think this material should be retained, then why don't you paraphrase it? This bit [Gustavo Perednik]] has argued that what he terms "Judeophobia" has a number of unique traits which set it apart from other forms of racism, including permanence, depth, obsessiveness, irrationality, endurance, ubiquity, and danger. seems useful, but the lengthy quote doesn't seem to add much to an article on antisemitism. I don't see that the quote gives anything that is not covered already. ps copy:vio says this is what to do when you suspect copy:vio Handling of suspected violations of copyright policy depends on the particulars of a given case. If you suspect a copyright violation but are uncertain if the content is copyrighted or whether the external site is copying from Wikipedia, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page, if it is active. In that case, please tag the page , unless your concerns are swiftly resolved. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text. You may also make a note of your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. So I have acted correctly so far.Guns of brixham (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC) Check WP:QUOTE I think that the quote is far too long to qualify for the block quote exemption.Guns of brixham (talk) 06:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC) I'm familiar with WP:QUOTE and don't see a problem. Why do you think this cited, 86-word quote represents a copyvio? Why did you mention the rest of the paragraph at all? VQuakr (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC) I don't see a problem either. Specifics of how this is copyvio please. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC) It fails WP:IC in that there is no specific page number given. COPY:VIO is an accusation made against me, so I have been looking it up. Here are the details. On Wikipedia, an inline citation refers to a citation in a page's text placed by any method that allows the reader to associate a given bit of material with specific reliable source(s) that support it. The most common methods are numbered footnotes and parenthetical citations within the text, but other forms are also used on occasion. Inline citations are often placed at the end of a sentence or paragraph. Inline citations may refer to electronic and print references such as books, magazines, encyclopedias, dictionaries and Internet pages. Regardless of what types of sources are used, they should be reliable; that is, credible published materials with a reliable publication process whose authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Verifiable source citations render the information in an article credible to researchers. The opposite of an inline citation is what the English Wikipedia calls a general reference. This is a bibliographic citation, often placed at or near the end of an article, that is unconnected to any particular bit of material in an article, but which might support some or all of it. It is called a "general reference" because it supports the article "in general", rather than supporting specific sentences or paragraphs.Guns of brixham (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) We know what inline citations are. You didn't answer either of my questions. VQuakr (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Guns of brixham, not providing a page number does not mean the quote is a copyright violation. We clearly attribute the quote to the author and work - that is enough. You were warned about copyvio because you copied material which was not a quote into an article. --NeilN talk to me 07:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Thanks NeilN. Still no evidence there is copyvio. It's attributed and not too long. If you are right, the editor is trying to make a WP:POINT which is rarely a good idea, particularly when the person trying to make the point is just demonstrating their lack of understanding of our copyvio policy. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC) I don't see how the reference can be called anything other than general without a page number. Is someone supposed to read the whole book to see if the quote is correct? Surely not. This is not a WP:POINT, as is indicated by my first post, 'This lengthy quote appears to be COPY:VIO, so I propose to delete it' That's called a suggestion. People could be a bit more friendly on here, they really could. Almost all RS seem to have a page number so not including one for a quote surely makes this a general reference. Is the book actually published in an English translation? The RS given is for a Spanish edition, so how on earth can it be checked? Am I entitled to ask for proof of the English version. PS Anyone got any idea of what constitutes lengthy on here?Guns of brixham (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC) It's also in his other book "Judeophobia" (in Spanish, page 26). If you want, add a tag for the page number, but the quote is correct and appropriate for Perednik's opinion.--Fikolitetroup (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC) I was beaten to the update. The only problem is that there is no way of knowing whether this is also COPY:VIO since the source is in Spansih. How do we know it is not word for word from the source, adn not a paraphrase. It certainly looks like the terms permanence, depth, obsessiveness, irrationality, endurance, ubiquity, and danger are a direct quote. Gustavo Perednik has argued that what he terms "Judeophobia" has a number of unique traits which set it apart from other forms of racism, including permanence, depth, obsessiveness, irrationality, endurance, ubiquity, and danger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guns of brixham (talk • contribs) 17:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Stop splitting the hair. WP:Quotes are allowed in Wikipedia. The content is pertinent, supported by sources and attributed. COPY:VIO has nothing to do with this.--Fikolitetroup (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC) References

No one is denying that quotes are allowed. I see you do not answer my point that without an English language source it is impossible to check a source, so this comes back to whether an English language source can be asked for. Would you like to answer that question, and direct me to where that information can be found, rather than ignoring the question?Guns of brixham (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Sock puppet comments struck out

Wikipedia policy states quite clearly that "Citations to non-English sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia". You can request a translation of the relevant portion of the source; but the fact that a work has not been translated to English is no bar to its use and citation here. RolandR (talk) 00:25, 24 September 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)

Okay you want me to spell it out, the first point is the amendment I offered you agreed is implicit here, if so, it does not need a reference.

The second point which is the blind you are throwing about the American Thinker does not matter but this is common with blinds is that its not an accept source for the wikipedia for such a comment. I have been in the wikipedia for a long time and never heard anything like that. So where do you get to say it is not a valid source. I think you are making it up.

The third point is the definition that was deleted is the common one used for antisemitism. Do a search on the internet!

Another point about this page is misleading about Wilhelm Marr the inventor of the term "antisemitism". He was a German journalist, who had a complex relationship with Jews, having married one. He believed there was such a thing a "Semitism", which today we'd probably call "Jewish chauvinism", and so the counter-movement was antiSemitism.

So antisemitism originally meant pretty much the same thing as anti- Zionism today. Marr himself lived long enough to regret what he had helped to spark, and wasn't in any sense a monster.

The point is that his term was taken up by much nastier people, partly to distinguish antisemitism from theological Christian blaming of the Jews for rejecting Jesus, partly because describing oneself as a "Jew-hater" sounded kind of silly, whilst "antisemitic" had a sort of scientific ring to it.

What you have done in this article is ignored the fact that words change over time. BernardZ (talk)

1. Implicit or not, your proposed change needs a reliable source. See WP:Verifiability.
2. I will not repeat myself concerning American Thinker. Take the matter to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you think it's a reliable source for facts.
3. If your proposed change is the common definition of antisemitism, as you claim, it should be easy for you to find reliable sources to support it.
4. With respect to your last point, please provide reliable sources that support your claims and we can discuss adding it to the article. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

1 was done and you arbitrarily stated that my source was not reliable and never backed up that claim by arguing that its implicit, and you also claimed good faith, although I have not seen any good faith by you at all.

2 it is your claim about this publication, not mind to justify. What you are doing is trying to justify your position with a blind see my above notes.

3 this was done and again deleted in so-called good faith, which is nonsense as there is no good faith by you at all.

4 I could do that, I am an expert on the guy as I wrote an essay partly on him, but I feel thanks to you any intelligent discussion is a waste of time on this page. BernardZ (talk)

1. Your change to the article (with the edit summary "Its a group hate") added the phrase "but not necessarily Jews as individuals" to the first sentence of the article, which says "Antisemitism ... is prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as an ethnic, religious, or racial group". I reverted your edit because, as I wrote in my edit summary, "the article already said that, much more elegantly".
2. The other reason I reverted your edit was that the source was shitty. I'm not the only editor who has told you so. I won't discuss it further. Visit WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you'd like to continue arguing American Thinker is a reliable source for facts.
3. I won't return your personal attacks. Keep it up, though, and you will find yourself blocked from editing.
4. See #3 above. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Blinds clearly by your comments you know know nothing about Marr, which makes your editing of this page *vandalism* as Marr is the creator in the development of the term and what he thinks is important. I actually doubt that you know anything about this subject except for the brief reading. Just for the record, I have formally studied it. BernardZ (talk) 08:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Bernard's shitty source was an article by Andrew Pessin who is notable by wikipedia definition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Pessin

A google search on the wikipedia shows that the American Thinker is often quoted for facts and views.

and mine source was the US State Department http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/fs/2010/122352.htm

now what is this ignorant lunatic talking about even putting aside his rudeness???

Now about Marr there is much on this page and Marr page that needs correcting.

Here is a review of a book, clearly we cannot quote this review but its a start on Marr which basically confirms your comments Bernard.

http://www.amazon.com/Wilhelm-Marr-Patriarch-Anti-Semitism-Studies/product-reviews/0195040058/ref=cm_cr_dp_text?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=helpful#R3V4F6WCB3YFSU

This book is the biography of the German revolutionary Wilhelm Marr. Marr was a radical revolutionary left wing intellectual who based his philosophy on that of the Left Hegelian Ludwig Feuerbach, advocating atheism and maintaining an anti-Christian and antiSemitic belief system. He became known as a journalist and editor of the paper _Mephistopheles_ during the nineteenth century. He became known for his antiSemitism (and may have originated the term "antiSemitism") despite the fact that he was to have a series of Jewish wives after writing a book entitled _The Jewish Mirror_ (_Der Judenspiegel_). He also involved himself in business deals in America where he may have participated in the slave trade and the ensuing debate over slavery. After having met the Italian liberal nationalist intellectual and founder of the "Young Europe" movement, Giuseppe Mazzini, Marr became enamored of this individual and earned for himself the title of "The German Mazzini". Subsequently, Marr would write another infamous antiSemitic text, _The Victory of Judaism Over Germanism_. During this period, Marr's political alignments began to shift so that he became favored in certain reactionary circles. Marr also became involved with the Anti-Semitic League at this time. Later in his life after having several failed business dealings, Marr would come to criticize antiSemitism. He argued that antiSemites were fostering an environment harmful to the poor worker in the same manner that the Jews themselves were. At this point, Marr renounced his antiSemitism as well as his previous reactionary leanings and returned to his original revolutionary beliefs. Marr died in relative obscurity, penniless. However, he had made a name for himself as the instigator of antiSemitism and perhaps as the man who coined that very term. Marr generally comes across as a rather despicable individual despite the fact that he would later come to at least partially repent of some of his antiSemitic beliefs (though never of his atheism and anti-Christian beliefs). He played some role as a prophet who foretold the coming of the Third Reich and the horrendous evils of the twentieth century, although he would be rejected by the actual intellectuals of the Third Reich, as would the term he coined - antiSemitism. Marr's place is among the antiSemitic left wing revolutionary intellectuals such as the musician Richard Wagner in Germany in the century before the coming of the World Wars. This book provides a good biography of an obscure figure who played some role in predicting the coming events in the German nation in the twentieth century. It is to be recommended despite the fact that its central figure is certainly less than savory. Macquaire (talk)

Macquaire/BernardZ, I've already warned you once. Stop sockpuppeting to support yourself in discussions or content disputes, or I will file an SPI. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Macquaire, the issue isn't whether the author of the American Thinker piece is notable. The issue is that American Thinker is not a reliable source for facts. If it's significant, the opinion expressed by Professor Pessin should be attributed to him. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You can read much of the book here free

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=tYW013SjKM4C&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=marr+antiSemitism+wivies&source=bl&ots=IrH7NL-Fbk&sig=BPYOSBn0SWxKERQMC_4V6BldgBo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD5vDsr-3KAhXKppQKHTpaDMgQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=marr%20antiSemitism%20wivies&f=false BernardZ (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Differing views as to the etymologically accurate definition of antisemitism. Consensus is that anti-Semitism is exclusively Jewish-centric yet there are no cited historical references that define antisemitism as exclusively referring to Jewry therefore etymological accuracy should dictate that the definition be generalized according to the etymological root--being Semitic--people.

I propose that the definition of anti-Semitism be change to include all Semitic people who are victims of non-Aryan prejudice and recommend that historical emphasis be placed upon the Jewish people immediately following this definition while simultaneously acknowledging the anti-semitic sentiments suffered by the Arab people and other Semitic races.

Etymology in lead

The 2nd paragraph of the lead consists of a single run-on sentence and an oddly placed dangling modifier, so I found it pretty hard to follow. For easy reference, it says, "While the conjunction of the units anti-, Semite, and -ism indicates antisemitism as being directed against all Semitic people, the term was popularized in Germany in 1879[6] as a scientific-sounding term for Judenhass (Jew-hatred),[7][8] although it had been used for at least two decades prior,[9] and that has been its common use since then.[10]." How do people feel about this revision?

The root word Semite gives the false impression that antisemitism refers to all people who speak one of the Semitic languages (such as Hebrew, Arabic, Amharic and Tigrinya). However, the compound word, antisemite, was popularized in Germany in 1879[14] as a euphemism for Judenhass, or Jew-hatred, which has continued to be its most common use since then.[15]

Thoughts? PermStrump(talk) 04:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Lazare

If we are to use Lazare, quote mainly by anti-Semites now it seems, there needs to be some critique/discussion. As I noted in my edit summary, he mentioned other non-Jewish causes, which were inexplicably left out.[16] This source[17] backs my statement about the use of him by Jew haters but also debunks some of his arguents. Bernard-Lazare: Antisemitism and the Problems of Jewish Identity in Late Nineteenth-Century France[18] calls it an "antisemitic delight" (p77) and discusses the book in some detail. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Bernard Lazare, one of the great minds of the 19th century, wrote a book named "Antisemitism: Its Origin and Causes" and is not worth ~mentioning in the adequate section of the adequate article? This is nonsense! Christianity, nationalism and economic modernization are not the general causes of Antisemitism given by Lazare, as his point is precisely to say that antisemtitism existed before the rise of nationalism, christianity and economic modernization and existed after. As he put it: "An opinion as general as antisemitism, which has flourished in all countries and in all ages, before and after the Christian era, at Alexandria, Rome, and Antiachia, in Arabia, and in Persia, in mediaeval and in modern Europe, in a word, in all parts of the world wherever there are or have been Jews such an opinion, it has seemed to me, could not spring from a mere whim or fancy, but must be the effect of deep and serious causes (...) As the enemies of the Jews belonged to the most diverse races; as they dwelled far apart from one another, were ruled by different laws and governed by opposite principles; as they had not the same customs and differed in spirit from one another, so that they could not possibly judge alike of any subject it must needs be that the general causes of antisemitism have always resided in Israel itself, and not in those who antagonized it." Blaue Max (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Please read our policy concerning the use of primary sources. Also take a look at our policy concerning undue weight. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I know these guidelines, thank you. This is no original researchs, my sentence is as close to the original source as possible and i'm precisely giving neutrality to this section by inserting another point of view. Blaue Max (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I see no consensus for the addition, per BRD I will revert it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You can't block the addition in this article of sourced mainstream informations without arguments... Blaue Max (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You can't add things without consensus, and, arguments have been given above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, you think his view is mainstream. Interesting. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop with your irony, please. Lazare is a great author of the 19th century. I can add informations from such quality sources without problem, but you can't dismiss sources without a reason. The use of Lazare's work by later antisemites is not an argument: Darwin was used by racists to justify their theories, does it mean we have to discard Darwinism ??? You should read Lazare's theory instead. It is an interesting one and it should be mentioned in any encyclopedia. Any real arguments against it? Blaue Max (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Difference between antisemitism and anti-Judaism - other definition

@Pluto2012: your change doesn't make any sense. What "ethnic, religious, or racial considerations" are those that people use as a "pretext" for hatred discrimination? Why is this an improvement on the wording "prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as an ethnic, religious, or racial group"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. User:Pluto2012's wording is needlessly more complex without adding anything to the definition. -- Avi (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Roscelese, Zero0000, and Nishidani:

I see two issues with the current wordings:

• the illegetimacy of 'antisemitism' is not underlined; the word 'pretext' reminds this;
• it makes think that any opposition to Judaism as a religion is antisemitism, which is not true. The nuance is that opposition to Judaism (anti-Judaism) has been used (and is still used) 'in some cases' as a 'pretext' to hide antisemitism. But you may be opposed to Judaism as a religion because you are atheist and in the Christian and Islamic world, there was/is a philosophical opposition to Judaism too and this cannot be mixed with antisemitsm.

Dictionnaires often lack nuances and are not in that sense wp:rs. Here is eg a wp:rs source that is 'cristal clear' on the nuance between both notions. According to Jeanne Favret-Saada, "The terms 'anti-Judaism' refers to "the Christian aversion toward the Jewish religion" and the term 'anti-Semitism' refers to "aversion toward the Jews as a racial group". She defines the words in order to study the "fuzzy distinction" between both notion. (Jeanne Favret-Saada, A fuzzy distinction - Anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism (An excerpt from Le Judaisme et ses Juifs), Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 2014.)

How to improve the current wording to take this into account ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The more one tends to make a definition complex, the more liable it is to fall to pieces, and this is an example. Pluto has a good point, though he may not have the right solution. Antisemitism is 'Theory, action, or practice directed against Jews. Hence anti-Semite, one who is hostile or opposed to the Jews' (OED 1989 vol.1 p.533). From this one gets: 'Antisemitism, hostility or prejudice against Jews'.

That simple definition is not challengeable.

Once you go beyond this, as we have done in the received text, you get into the political battles of our time, with definitions created by states that try to give a legal formulation subject to penal sanctions. You get high pressure to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, BDS with anti-Semitism. Antisemitism becomes what it never historically was, a broadbrush term that can be swung into battle to characterize any negative remark about a Jewish individual, or any one of several kinds of religious practices common among Jews, or indeed the state of Israel, and the First Amendment goes up in smoke.

Extended consideration.

The definition of Antisemitism we have, reflected in some sources, is that it is hatred of Jews in terms of their collectively embodying any one of 3 elements, religious, ethnic or racial identity. Ethnic and racial look, at first glance repetitive.I admit to a prejudice: I’ve never felt comfortable with the ethnic/racial distinction. Ethnic came into use after WW2 as a positive euphemism for the discredited term ‘race’, I dislike both terms since they essentially forms the same function, with the difference that(a) ‘race’ emphasizes characteristics linked to unifying notions of biological descent, whereas ‘ethnic’ assumed the colour of a collective set of cultural traits; (b) race is an exo-construct, imposed by others on an alien group whereas ethnos is an endo-construct, developed by the very people who define themselves as distinct from others; (c) ‘race’ was a political concept masked as scientifically grounded whereas ‘ethnicity’ was a post-war coinage designed to reformulate the notion of difference in race in ostensibly neutral terms; and finally (d) ‘race’ tends to be an ontological category whereas ‘ethnic’ tends to delineate a congeries of cohesive identitarian values subject to mutation, and therefore open to the inflections of change . In practice, speak of ‘ethnic’ Jews, Irishman, Armenians, etc . Chinese etc, and you are referring to what once was called ‘racial’ origins not to cultural roots. In usage, this ivory-tower equivocation frequently collapses back into the older prejudice of racial unease, dislike, antipathy.

What Pluto appears to be arguing is that as it stands, antisemitism subsumes anti-Judaism (antipathy to Jewish religious practices), rendering the latter category superfluous. It also insinuates a classification that scholarship frequently rebuffs: thus it means traditional Muslim prejudice against Jews or Judaism is 'antisemitic', something Bernard Lewis categorically dismissed, for good reasons. Antisemitism in the classic sense always has a hallucinated obsessive psychology to it, as opposed to other forms of ethnonationalist prejudice, which is universal, and which all social groups are prey to, no one excluded. If you dislike religious Jews, or the Jewish religion, you are antisemitic by definition. Well, that is possible, but not inevitable. Ideologically keen secularists who embrace Lucretius’s tantum religio potuit suadere malorum are all over the landscape, from Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens to Israel Shahak, none of whom were or are anti-Semites.If the antagonism, however, is to all forms of religion there is no problem, Judaism being like Buddhism, State Shinto, Islam or Christianity, objected to either because in the view of that kind of secularist, it is a residue of our irrationalism, or because its presence within states undermines the enlightenment principles of democracies. Obviously, if a Christian hated Judaism the suspicion would be strong that the sentiment was tinged with classic antisemitic feelings, because the antagonism is not against religion itself, but against one people’s expression of their religion.Nishidani (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with "prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as a group"? If someone thinks of a reason that isn't racial, religious or ethnic, we wouldn't exclude it would we? Zero^talk 11:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that sort of thing, only I think 'group' implies prejudice against an individual Jew because he is a Jew falls out of the denotation. On the other hand, it is true that you could find obstacles to admittance to the Ivy colleges, some Jews could get in- but there was a cap on their numbers. Technically, it was an anti-Semitic policy towards a group but not applied indiscriminately against all members of the group.Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think "prejudice against an individual Jew because he is a Jew" should be included, or even that it is a extant phenomenon. One can feel prejudice against a person because of the group they belong to, but that is prejudice against the group. The Ivy League example you mention is also prejudice against the group. Zero^talk 13:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• (a)prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as a group

I've no problem with (a) though I think the addition of 'as a group' unnecessary. Jews is a plural, which makes the qualifying 'as a group' pleonastic. One could tweak my OED definition by way of compromise

• (b)'Antisemitism is hostility, discrimination or prejudice against Jews'.Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The issue I am having with this is that while it is true that not all antisemitism is based on religion, all hatred of Jews based on their religion is antisemitism, in the way that the word is most often used today. One is a proper subset of the other (subsumes, if you wish) in its most common usage. Yes, there are some scholars who make some subtle differences, but for the lede to imply that hatred of Jews because of Judaism is not antisemitism but something else called anti-Judaism is misleading, in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I was rereading that old classic by Gordon W. Allport on Prejudice (1954) the other day, just to refresh my thoughts on this, and noted that (can't find the page at the moment) he said that hatred of Jews based on religion had greatly dwindled (as one would expect in a secularized world) being replaced by hatred based on the usual anti-Semitic tripe about money and power. I've met quite a few anti-Semites over a half century, and I've never come across anyone whose anti-Semitism consisted of the old odium theologicum. Perspectives will differ according to experience of course. The Protestant majority that hated us, the minority in our area, did so because we were 'Micks', Irish, not because of our religion. Nishidani (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Any discrimination against Jews -because they are Jews- is antisemitism, whether religious or racial. That's the reason why there is no need to specify the cause.

The definition of Oxford dictionnary reported by Nishidani is the simplest and consensual:

Antisemitism is hostility, discrimination or prejudice against Jews

It doesn't try to make categorizations on the causes. Not talking about religion avoid the problems that I talked about here above. It is also better not to talk about hate, which is a feeling but to focus on behaviours.

Any objection to use this instead of the current one ? Pluto2012 (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The Oxford version also has to do with "feelings" (like hostility and prejudice), not just behaviors, nor do I see why we should avoid feelings since that's part of antisemitism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that hostility and prejudice against are just feelings but they are expression of a feeling. Feelings and thoughts should be not be referred to because one cannot judge of feelings. We can only judge the expression of feelings.

Anyway, I understand that you do not have objection with the proposal of Nishidani and Zero0000 based on the Oxford definition and that you (just) disagree with my understanding of this. Is thir right ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I do think the specifications in the current version are better. Basically because it precludes sketchy arguments like yours - the whole "I think the Jews killed Jesus and should be outlawed, but I'm not racist" thing. You are, by the way, flagrantly misrepresenting your Favret-Saada source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You decided that I was racist and antisemite. Great. FYI and it should not matter: I am an atheist and I do not really believe in the historicity of Jesus. I don't think that anything that happened more than 100 years ago should matter in any way...

Trying to write an encyclopaedia with such comments will not be easy. You just attack me and reject good faith.

@Zero0000 and Nishidani: I think you provided sources and argued quietly with empathy. What would be your conclusion ? Pluto2012 (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

'Antisemitism is hostility, discrimination or prejudice against Jews as a group' is simple, well-grounded, and doesn't have the confusions Merriam Webster has.Nishidani (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't care what your personal beliefs are - the statement in quotes is exactly what Favret-Saada is talking about in the article you misrepresented, hatred of Jews rather than disagreement with elements of the Jewish faith. The entire article is about why that figleaf is dumb, and you should neither be using it nor misrepresenting a source in order to use it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

If you claim that I mispresented a source, which is false, you quote the content of this source and you compare with what I said about this and you argue.

According to Jeanne Favret-Saada, "The terms 'anti-Judaism' refers to "the Christian aversion toward the Jewish religion" and the term 'anti-Semitism' refers to "aversion toward the Jews as a racial group". She defines the words in order to study the "fuzzy distinction" between both notion. (Jeanne Favret-Saada, A fuzzy distinction - Anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism (An excerpt from Le Judaisme et ses Juifs), Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 2014.)

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

One should be very precise in documenting where an editor is believed to misrepresent a source ('flagrantly' or otherwise. We are dealing with definitions that must cover a long history. Anti-Judaism is relatively rare these days, but the distinction is thought very important historically: it's everywhere in the scholarship on the ancient world. To assert that anti-Judaism is a 'fig leaf' for anti-Semitism is to ignore a crucial hermeneutic distinction which arose to explain why Jews in early Christianity had it in for fellow Jews, who refused to apply the shared messiah tradition to one particular Jew, namely Jesus. We will never know the truth, all we have are hypotheses, but to retrodate our modern concept of anti-semnitism to cover all anti-Jewish polemics, even those made by Jews of a Christological persuasion against other Jews, is deceptive, and often reverse browbeating (Daniel Goldhagen comes to mind: calling for the rewriting of Christian sacred texts because he confused anti-Judaism with anti-Semitism).Nishidani (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Pluto cites the Favret-Saada source upthread to support his claim that philosophical disagreement with Judaism is being wrongly labeled anti-Semitism, when in fact Favret-Saada's entire article is about how most of what gets called "anti-Judaism" is anti-Semitic. That's pretty clear-cut misrepresentation, and his willingness to indulge in "it's not anti-Semitism, it's just religious disagreement" arguments only strengthens the case for retaining the list of "kinds of group" (ethnic, racial, religious) in the lede. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism self-evidently drew on, grew out of theological anti-Judaism. But that does not mean that one then can used the former to rewrite the latter, or conflate the two as interchangeable over 2 millenia (though this is frequently done in the face of hundreds of scholarly books on the history of both which discuss or use it as an important heuristic distinction in reading foundational Christian sources, and many Patristic texts. See Antisemitism and the New Testament which I am now editing, for just a few examples (there editors used any number of popular chat sources to get at Christianity as intrinsically anti-Semitic.). I hate conceptual substantives, which imply there is some timeless referential essence conserved in words. As Bernard Lewis insisted on distinguishing Muslim religious contempt from modern Islamic antisemitism, I think one must save distinctions here: Thomas Aquinas advising the Duchess of Brabant will sound harsh, but his anti-Judaism was rigorously conditioned by laws that imposed rights and obligations, this in the tradition of St Augustine. That sort of discourse. however opprobrious, did not necessarily led to pogroms or genocide: to the contrary. Anti-Judaism was strong in ecclesiastical Italy (and underwent a sea-change into clerical anti-Semitism after the French Revolution), but neither genocide nor pogroms were characteristic of its history from medieval times onwards. There is in any case, a conceptual split re Christians: the last 5 centuries witness a relative split between Eastern European Christianity and Christianity in European nationas states. The former’s anti-Judaism was antisemitic, and pogroms flourished. In the west, the rise of secular states, even where Christian anti-Judaism remained strong, meant the distinction still held some value. I don’t want to get intoan historical debate here, but I wish people would be more scrupulous about conceptual distinctions, which prevail, even if under challenge of course, in the best scholarship, but are lost in the politicized world of modernity. Seeing antisemitism everywhere in goyim discourse or history, as do a lot of writers who should know better, uneerily reminds me of antisemites who see Jews everywhere. Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I quote Favret-Saada word for word. The remaining is in your fantasm and imagination. Stop focusing on me because you hate the image you make of me. I juste quoted the definitions!

Nishidani and Zero0000 didn't refer to my comments in their proposals. They made two different proposal based on sources. Nishidani finally chose Zero0000's option as a consensus. I follow them both.

Your arguments are just that you disagree with my interpretation of what is proposed. That's no sense (to use your own words!)

(And regarding the question of what is anti-Judaism. Maybe this should cool your down: as Favret-Saada reminds, anti-Judaism refers to the aversion of Jews mainly in Christian cercles and mainly from the Middle Ages to mid of XIX. Antisemitism is the aversion of Jews based on racial grounds (quoted). Then she reminds that there is a fuzzy difference because numerous anti-Judaism thema would be considered today as pure antisemitism (what you say except that the "numerous" seems to become "all"). Her article focuses on how deep is the heritage from anti-Judaism to antisemitism in Christian culture. She points out that scholars disagree on this question or do not enter these considerations. [ And FYI: that's quite natural that she says so because some scholars see the birth fo antisemitism as a consequence of totalitarism and not just an evolution from Christian or religious anti-Judaism. Wiping totalitarism would eg "whitewash" the Hiedegger philisophy and the main roots of Nazism.]

Pluto2012 (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the status quo wording is superior. Pluto, maybe time to drop the stick? VQuakr (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Pluto raised a legitimate point. It's being discussed, usually with a rationale justifying one's preference. Please give one.Nishidani (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff. I prefer the status quo wording because it communicates the same effective definition more simply. VQuakr (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to clarify. We now have

• Antisemitism (also spelled anti-Semitism or anti-semitism) is prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as an ethnic, religious, or racial group.(Roscelese, Avi, VQuakr)-basis Merriam Webster.
• Antisemitism is hostility, discrimination or prejudice against Jews as a group (Pluto, Zero, Nishidani) Basis Oxford English Dictionary

I'm prejudiced, of course. I think the Poms have it over the Septics for concision.Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nishidani: yes, clarification is needed. Per the OP we are discussing this diff, no? Various other definitions have been thrown around in the extensive discussion above but none jumped out at me as a "this is what we're discussing now" transition (until your post immediately above, of course). VQuakr (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

It’s not so clear to me what the difference is when a local pastor holds up a cross to drive the devil from your mother. Which actually happened barely over a decade ago. When local Christians act in a creepy Philo-Semitism way and try to befriend your family probably with hidden motives while at the same time implying that you have secret knowledge of the scriptures.

This is really what it is like in a large part of American and I do feel that there is something anti-Semite about it because it quickly turns to something else when you do not convert. So I disagree with Nishidani and Pluto. Anti-Semitism in American at least has always had a more religious then racial flavor.Jonney2000 (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Antisemitism arose in the modern world as a response to the secularization of Jews, who abandoned their religion and assimilated. This was unforgiveable: the historic 'other' became indistinguishable from us. America is a weird place in its religious obsessions, for most of the outside world. I doubt very much that people who think like that think so for 'religious' reasons. Animosity towards Catholics has run far deeper in America than towards Jews, arguably, and though that was apparently on theological grounds, it had a deep ethnic undercurrent (Irish, Italians, Spanishs etc.) The historical experience of the USA is peculiarly riddled by race obsessions, because the nation's primary economy for 200 years was based on enslavement. Nishidani (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jonney2000:. Thank you for your input. I am not sure that you read the full discussion because you agree with what I said and partly with Nishidani.

One of my point is that 'any' discrminiation of Judaism (or any religion) is not automatically 'antisemitism' or 'racism'. ~'numerous' are but certainly not 'all' as you imply yourself with your exemple.

And in fact, with the definition currently in the article, what you have written against "local Christians" would be considered as 'antisemite' if you had written this about Jews. And with the current definition, the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy targeting Jews would have been antisemitism. Were these drawings racist ?

That's why my first proposal was:

antisemitism is prejudice or discrimination against Jews based on ethnic, religious, or racial grounds

Nishidani and Zero0000 suggests to get rid of the causes of the discrmination, which is good as well to clear the issues of the current definitions.

Pluto2012 (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

@Jonney2000, Avraham, Zero0000, Nishidani, and Roscelese:

I am sorry but I didn't see any real answer to the points raised (ad hominem accusations but no factual answer) as there was no real objection to the proposal of Zero0000 / Nishidani solving these issues in avoid ng to enter in the polemic not specifying the points that can be misunderstood and/or extrapolated. Unless there are real factual answers to the proposal and the points raised, we should change the current definition by the one they propose. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Gatestone Institute

I removed a dubious claim sourced only to the Gatestone Institute, and wrote in the edit summary that this was "a notoriously partisan and unreliable source". The claim was restored by Frotz, who asked "Noriously (sic) partisan according to whom?". Well, according to a consensus of Wikipedia editors, actually. See for instance here, here and here. Unless a better source is provided, I intend to remove this material again. RolandR (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The views of the person who is quoted, Mudar Zahran, are extremely controversial. Take a look at the talk page of his article or at his article's edit history. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it. Sorry Malik, too many 'b's in my edit summary. Doug Weller talk 17:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the United Kingdom

Hi, I noticed that a lot of the content on antisemitism in the United Kingdom is outdated and doesn't reflect the main Wikipedia article on antisemitism in the UK. I would like to update it to be a bit more structured, and updated with new data. Assuming nobody minds? I am fairly new to Wikipedia so wanted to check before doing anything. --Brian (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Reallyverybrilliantbrian: Sure, it should in fact be a summary of the main article, see WP:Summary style. If you follow that guideline I'd be surprised if anyone objected (but you never know). Doug Weller talk 18:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Just be careful not to add lists of recent incidents which are not clearly noteworthy (i.e. WP:NOTNP). Thanks in advance for your work. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dan Eisenberg: Thanks, will get started! Brian (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Antisemitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110125001633/http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf to http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.holocaustcenterpgh.net/2-3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205193654/https://www.ncsj.org/AuxPages/010505State_A-S.shtml to http://www.ncsj.org/AuxPages/010505State_A-S.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://intolerans.levandehistoria.se/article/article_docs/antisemitism_english.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130430102625/http://bostonreview.net/BR34.3/malhotra_margalit.php to http://bostonreview.net/BR34.3/malhotra_margalit.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041012090431/https://har2.huji.ac.il:83/ALEPH/ENG/SAS/BAS/BAS/START to http://har2.huji.ac.il:83/ALEPH/ENG/SAS/BAS/BAS/START
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050904114449/https://www.coe.int:80/T/E/human_rights/Ecri/1-ECRI/2-Country-by-country_approach/ to http://www.coe.int/t/E/human_rights/ecri/1-ECRI/2-Country-by-country_approach/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antisemitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5h7IXS0KL?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dawn.net%2Fwps%2Fwcm%2Fconnect%2FDawn%2520Content%2520Library%2Fdawn%2Fnews%2Fpakistan%2Fsurviving-gunmans-identity-established-as-pakistani-ss to http://www.dawn.net/wps/wcm/connect/Dawn%20Content%20Library/dawn/news/pakistan/surviving-gunmans-identity-established-as-pakistani-ss

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Etymology contd.

This is ridiculous, anti-Semitism is prejudice against Semitic people. Even though those of the Jewish ethnocultural identity are often the primary target, it's important to not dismiss the Arab people (etc.), especially given recent anti-Arab (anti-Semitic) sentiment. Because of this--anti-Semitism as an etymologically appropriate definition--would include Jews but not be exclusively Jewish-centric. Therefore, I am making a BOLD edit to mention this. Mryanbrown (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Read the top of this page. Warning in pink. El_C 22:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

And yet you still edited. The warning reads: We know that the Semites include Arabs. Please see Antisemitism#Etymology for the history of the use of "anti-Semitism" and "antisemitism" to exclusively mean anti-Jewish sentiment. El_C 22:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, consensus doesn't imply correctness. Anti-Semitism foremost is prejudice against non-Aryan races within historical context. Simply because Jews were the first and foremost recipients of this Prejudice doesn't make it exclusively a Jewish-centric sentiment, nor did it ever *exclusively* refer to Jewish people. Please rebut this with conviction and facts, not mob mentality. see [19] To deny that Arabs and other Semitic people are not recipients of anti-Semitism, that anti-Semitism is a Jewish-centric problem is in and of itself anti-Semitic. tl;dr anti-Semitism isn't just a Jewish problem (this goes well beyond simply admitting that Arabs are also Semitic) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mryanbrown (talk • contribs) 22:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It, actually, is up to you to gain consensus for your changes, first. The onus is also on you to read Antisemitism#Etymology. El_C 22:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, the warning, read it:

El_C 22:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The sources appear quite clear in stating that anti-Semitism foremost, historically included all Semitic people. The Jewish perspective was only singularly discussed as they were the central, non-Aryan peoples inhabiting nationalist societies, therefore they were the first Semitic people to suffer from anti-Semitism--not the sole people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mryanbrown (talk • contribs) 22:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Cite reliable sources and gain consensus for your changes (your 0/3). For my own part, I can only repeat: see Antisemitism#Etymology for the history of the use of "anti-Semitism" and "antisemitism" to exclusively mean anti-Jewish sentiment. But if you don't bother reading it, you are unlikely to get too far. El_C 22:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

El_C There is no historical context which defines anti-Semitism as exclusively Jewish. That's a value judgment assumed and imposed by readers.

Mryanbrown, you're only going to get yourself blocked if you don't follow El_C's advice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, thank you, I filed dispute and will cease until further notice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mryanbrown (talk • contribs)

I suggest being more responsive on the talk page and to avoid edit warring. El_C 23:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

There's only so much that can be discussed when one party attempts to discuss merits and the other repeats the same response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mryanbrown (talk • contribs) 23:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You have not cited reliable sources. Consensus is that Arabs (and others) may be Semites, but Anti-Arabism is not known as Antisemitism. El_C 23:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mryanbrown: this seems pretty straightforward. You have attempted to make changes to the lead that do not summarize the body of the article as required by WP:LEAD. The relevant section of the article appears adequately sourced as it currently exists, while you have presented no sources. The burden is on you to provide sources to support content you propose changing. VQuakr (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@VQuakr:You can't provide sources to rebuff a non-existent position. There are no historical definitions which define antisemitism as being exclusively Jewish. It is referred to within a Jewish-centric context, which is not the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mryanbrown (talk • contribs)

Two issues here. How is the word used today - except for anti-Semites, it's virtually always used to describe anti-Jewish. Secondly, how was it historically used in mainstream sources. You haven't bothered to show any despite being asked to more than once. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Orientialism by Edward Said is a good source for examples of anti-Semitic sentiment targeting non-Jews.

@Mryanbrown: your reply seems to contain an informal fallacy called begging the question, in which you presuppose the conclusion. The etymology section of this article appears to contain about a dozen sources as of this writing. Since we cover viewpoints relative to their degree of coverage in reliable sources, why would you expect us to give your proposal much consideration if you do not provide any support? VQuakr (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Because it's etymologically correct relative to the root word rather than common usage. I'm not proposing that anti-Semitic sentiment isn't primarily targeted towards Jews but rather that there is plainly visible evidence that Arabs as semitic people are also targeted explicitly as members of Semitic races. It appears asinine to have anti-Semitic refer exclusively to Jews while ascribing Arabs with anti-Arab. Would it then not logically make more sense etymologically to have both anti-Jew and anti-Arab or rather to lump both as Semitic races into antisemitism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mryanbrown (talk • contribs) 00:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you still don't understand. Content on Wikipedia is not dictated by what you think is right or makes sense. It's not dictated by what I think is right or makes sense. It is dictated by what reliable sources say about a subject. If you want this change, then you need to find sources that actually define antisemitism as hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Semitic people, using that specific phrasing, and show these sources are better than what we're using now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) :: How many times do you have to be told, by how many editors, to read the article, which deals in detail with the specious points you keep raising? There is no "Semitic race"; even if there was, most Jews would probably not be part of it; the term "antisemitism" was coined to describe anti-Jewish racism, and has always meant this. Yes, of course Arabs are subject to racism, and certainly - in Britain, at least - much of the hate language directed at them mirrors that directed a century ago at Jewish immigrants. But to expand the term beyond its historical usage, and to attempt to apply etymological logic and consistency to an essentially illogical phenomenon, is bereft of logic or reason, and indeed implicitly grants greater legitimacy to these racists than they deserve. Your repeated insistence that you alone are right, and that the sources, the experts, and the historical evidence are wrong is becoming disruptive, and I urge you to stop doing this and to find something more useful to do with your time here. RolandR (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

To editor Mryanbrown: It's overdue that you read WP:CONSENSUS and give up on your campaign here. Roland and others have explained the situation perfectly well, and both the facts and wikipedia policy are on their side and not yours. Zero^talk 06:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

To editor Zero0000:You're right, I concede. Why bother trying to present a rational argument to people who who are emotionally invested and fail to see their own bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mryanbrown (talk • contribs) 15:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mryanbrown: On Wikipedia, in all areas, you'll find that people will be disinterested in listening to your "rational arguments" if they're not backed up by reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

"As a group"

I still think that "as a group" is inappropriate. It doesn't add any new information or clarity (no one thinks it's antisemitic to hate your individual neighbor because he plays loud rock music all night, even if he's Jewish) and it implies that an act undertaken against an individual Jew, on the basis of his Jewishness, isn't antisemitic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I realized I was having a gut response because the wording we discussed the other time specifically exempted acts against individuals in a way that this wording doesn't, but it did make me realize - what happened to the "as an ethnic, racial, or religious group" wording? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom section: Neutrality.

The United Kingdom section gives excess weight to the output of the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), a relatively tiny organisation cobbled together by a few strongly pro-Israel activists. Invalid use is made of the website of the CAA as a reliable source. The claims made by the CAA are reported as facts when its polling was strongly criticised by more mainstream Jewish organisations in the UK.     ←   ZScarpia   13:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know a great deal about the Campaign Against Antisemitism, but (at a minimum) secondary sourcing would be a good idea. If their polling was criticized, you should link to an article or two about that so editors can judge whether to include their polls, exclude them, or include them with caveats. In the meantime, there seems to be excessive quotation from the group's chairman. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

From doing a quick Google search:

• The Jewish Chronicle - Michael Pinto Duschinsky - The CAA poll debate: These figures are not to be trusted, 22 January 2015.
• Haaretz - Anshel Pfeffer - U.K. anti-Semitism report highlights disturbing trend - among British Jews, 14 January 2015.
• To be minded or ignored as the reader sees fit, the Powerbase article on the Campaign Against Antisemitism]) (the 2015 Antisemitism polls section is of most relevance).

    ←   ZScarpia   09:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, ZScarpia. It appears the claims made by the Campaign Against Antisemitism are best taken with a large grain of salt. Its categorization of statements such as "Jews think they are better than other people" and "Jews talk about the Holocaust too much in order to get sympathy" as antisemitic is questionable (although its categorization of the statement "In business, Jews are not as honest as most people" as antisemitic is spot-on); evidently some or all of its polling is conducted using openly available online questionnaires, a widely (and justifiably) ridiculed practice and not one conducive to producing a "scientific" result.

It appears that both paragraphs about the Campaign Against Antisemitism were added by Reallyverybrilliantbrian, who made 45 related edits over five days last year and then vanished. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Antisemitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.facinghistory.org/campus/reslib.nsf/99ca830bb4f483948525717f005abfc7/2820f36c177cc758852571860065e8c2/%24FILE/complete_antisemitism.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628184616/http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2000-1/usa.htm to http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2000-1/usa.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604020743/http://www.adl.org/holocaust/theory.asp to http://www.adl.org/holocaust/theory.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213223723/http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history_community/Medieval/IntergroupTO/JewishMuslim/Almohads.htm to http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history_community/Medieval/IntergroupTO/JewishMuslim/Almohads.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dawn.net/wps/wcm/connect/Dawn%20Content%20Library/dawn/news/pakistan/surviving-gunmans-identity-established-as-pakistani-ss
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928005805/http://www.edume.org/reports/10/38.htm to http://www.edume.org/reports/10/38.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060823125127/http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/pdfdocs/KSAtextbooks06.pdf to http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/pdfdocs/KSAtextbooks06.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120411225535/http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article3584266.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article3584266.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006195736/http://www.thelocal.se/24632/20100127/ to http://www.thelocal.se/24632/20100127/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100325205944/http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/03/22/1011279/report-anti-semitic-attacks-in-rise-in-scandanavia to http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/03/22/1011279/report-anti-semitic-attacks-in-rise-in-scandanavia
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100401223344/http://www.thelocal.se/25210/20100225 to http://www.thelocal.se/25210/20100225/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Antisemitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514133732/http://middleeastinfo.org/library/lewis_antisemitism.html to http://middleeastinfo.org/library/lewis_antisemitism.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=2791
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120502145240/http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/15/10411964-chavez-allies-attack-new-opponent-capriles-as-jewish-gay?lite to http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/15/10411964-chavez-allies-attack-new-opponent-capriles-as-jewish-gay?lite

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2017

Asgardowec (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Huge role of increasing of anti-semitism in world in 21 century was a phrase told by main Director of "Paideia" Barbara Lerner Spectre which is director of studying jewish learning in Stockholm. Phrase is Next"I think there is a resurgence of anti-semitism because at this point in time Europe has not learned how to be multicultural.And i think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place.Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies thy once were in the last century.Jews would be in the centre of that.It's a huge transformation for Europe to make.They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews would be resented because of our leading role"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ That information was published by IBA News https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBA_News Israel Broadcast Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Broadcasting_Authority.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Izno (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Racial antisemitism

The page says that religious antisemitism isn't racial, a Jew is able to convert. So Antisemitism is generally considered to be a form of racism is controversial.Xx236 (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Under [3.9], the article touches upon figures that indicate few Muslim-majority countries have positive opinions of jews, with the (possible) implication that the people from these countries are anti-semite. It is important to note however, that not having positive opinions of jews, is not equivalent to being an antisemite. This is a category mistake.Hamood40 (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Antisemitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120729171012/http://warrenkinsella.com/oldsite/old/words_extremism_nas.htm to http://warrenkinsella.com/oldsite/old/words_extremism_nas.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512182655/http://archive.adl.org/Anti_semitism/adl_anti-semitism_presentation_february_2012.pdf to http://archive.adl.org/Anti_semitism/adl_anti-semitism_presentation_february_2012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Antisemitism Category

not being able to find an Antisemitism portal on Wikipedia, which i find strange, i am posting this here. recently i read some articles on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion

what i have noticed is a sub-Antisemitism category on these articles, but not Antisemitism category! i would like to add the Antisemitism category to all Antisemitism articles to have them all centralized https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Antisemitism i have done so on The protocols of Elders of Zion! But before doing it to all articles dealing with Antisemitism, would like to get some support for this idea. not interested in edit war!

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs) 18:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Igorberger. The way we categorize articles on Wikipedia is that we add them to the most specific subcategory in which they belong, but not to the "parent" categories. See WP:Subcategorization for details. Thus, for example, Adolf Hitler is a member of the subcategories "Racial antisemitism" and "Antisemitism in Europe", but not the general "Antisemitism" category.

Consider this: If every article in the encyclopedia were added to every applicable category, imagine how many articles would be in Category:People! Instead, we categorize people by where they come from, the years in which they were born and died, what their religious and political beliefs are, what their profession is, etc., all of which are subcategories of Category:People. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand the logic, but with Antisemitism is a bit different. How many Antisemitically related Articles on Wikipedia? i am guessing 100 to 200? so would it not be easier for someone wanting to know bout Antisemitism to click on link and see them all on one page? if they have to search every sub category they may get lost!Igor Berger (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Igorberger: antisemitism is not a special case; subcategorization is how the system is designed to work. You can use Special:CategoryTree to browse subcategories rapidly; if you expand all the subcategories you will have a list of all articles in the tree. VQuakr (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

so you saying Haavara agrement is not related to Antisemitism? how would one go about finding this article unless they are familiar with it? is this the hidden Wikipedia for the knowledgeable ones? Igor Berger (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that at all. Category:International response during the Holocaust rolls up (through several levels) to Category:Antisemitism; it is in that category "container" through the subcategory. See also Special:WhatLinksHere/Haavara Agreement for a list of articles that are Wikilinked to Haavara Agreement. VQuakr (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

the Haavara page has no Antisemitism category tag or any sub-category Antisemitism tag. but it has a Zionism category tag. The page itself looks Antisemitic based on the categories. here is supporting news paper article to Antisemitism http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/adolf-hitler-zionism-zionist-nazis-haavara-agreement-ken-livingstone-labour-antisemitism-row-a7009981.html please revert your edit on Haavara agreement, until over editors can input their opinion and we can come on consensus on this. thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

VQuakr if you not willing to revert your Haavara Agreement edit, and no other editor says anything about this, i will bring this to the portal of discrimination. thank you Igor Berger (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

If you care to ping me to Talk:Haavara Agreement I'd be happy to discuss. The portal of discrimination sounds like a bad place, but I am not sure exactly what forum you mean. VQuakr (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

just added another Antisemitism category tag to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement unless you know about that time of history, you would never find this article! So as you can see there are already like a 100 pages in the Antisemitism category. they may be in the sub categories as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Antisemitism Igor Berger (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

looks like our discussion is not going anywhere here. if you wish to comment more, please do it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#WikiProject_Antisemitism Template:Antisemitism thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Anti-semitism does NOT only apply to Jews as a group. Factually & Historically, it also always applies to Arabs. Someone needs to fix the definition. I am more than willing to do it myself, but for some reason, the page is “protected against vandalism” & so I can’t edit it. But it NEEDS to be corrected, because it currently isn’t correct. Jessiiroro29 (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jessiiroro29: Some of this is covered in the etymology section, the rest in the usage and definition section. It's possible that a few people use the term to mean Arabs, but that's not how the word is defined today. See for instance the Oxford Dictionary.[20] Doug Weller talk 13:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: The online Oxford Dictionary definition is literally only about Jews. I have a hardback 11th edition Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary that I received as a birthday gift in 2010 & it says the definition of a Semite is: a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs. That means anti-semitism must apply to those groups of people as well, regardless of how people are currently using it today. Leading people to think otherwise would be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessiiroro29 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Jessiiroro29, please read the section of the article titled "Usage". Because many people spell it as "anti-Semitism", some people think it means opposition to or hatred of Semites. It doesn't, and it never has. Antisemitism has always had one meaning: Jew-hatred. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

In the article below written by Emil Fackenheim https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Fackenheim there should be a distinction made between antisemitism & Anti-Semiticism (which includes Aramaic & Arabic peoples - as it states that the use of the word Semetic is obsolete as applied to Semitic people (or race) in the Wikipedia article about it shouldn't ---- (also spelled anti-Semitism or anti-semitism) ---- be removed, as this clearly has racist connotations.Personally I would reference the article below explaining the difference & also make people aware of the original meaning of semetic as well - the antisemetic article does not make any reference to any ambiguities in the use of the term, whereas Semitic language & Semitic people articles on Wikipedia do which does not seem to be clearly apolitical. http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/16-01.html Scratchy7929 08:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scratchy7929 (talk • contribs)

This is addressed in the article section linked from the big red banner at the top of this page. VQuakr (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Jobbik and Antisemitism

In the paragraph about Antisemitism in Hungary, right-wing political party Jobbik is depicted as one of the major representatives of Antisemitism, however this is not true. The party has several times rejected these claims and offered apology of the earlier, misleading remarks.

See the comment of the president of the party: http://www.atv.hu/belfold/20150910-vona-nem-akarok-mindenaron-miniszterelnok-lenni - For me, Jobbik has never been a far-right, fascistic, national socialist, racist or anti-Semitic party. If such people had joined us, it might have happened because of exaltation or mistake. In this, my responsibility, or the responsibility of the leaders of the party is that we just turned blind eye to these phenomena and thought that the time will solve the problem.

http://forward.com/news/world/362663/exclusive-in-first-talk-with-jewish-media-hungarys-far-right-leader-strikes/ - “Hungarian Jews have such serious trauma that it makes working together more difficult. This could change, perhaps in my generation or with young Jewish people now entering the active phase in their lives and getting into positions of responsibility. If we are able to extend hands to one another and understand each other, perhaps we can open a new chapter. If Jobbik comes to power, the Hungarian Jewish community can continue living its daily life as it has. We don’t want conflict with the Jewish community.”

Therefore I advise starting a discussion on the possible updates on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bidoistvan (talk • contribs) 09:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts to white-wash Jobbik throughout Wikipedia, but poor, misunderstood Jobbik doesn't get to write its own Wikipedia articles. We write based on what independent reliable sources say, not party spokesmen. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Antisemitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130615170744/http://www.fighthatred.com/recent-events/national-political-hate/884-rise-of-anti-semitism-in-the-ukraine-threatens-jewish-pilgrimages-to-uman to http://www.fighthatred.com/recent-events/national-political-hate/884-rise-of-anti-semitism-in-the-ukraine-threatens-jewish-pilgrimages-to-uman
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817134910/http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/ to http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070925205728/http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/download/SHOW/vsbericht_2003.pdf to http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/download/SHOW/vsbericht_2003.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120512005303/http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Semitism_International/AntiSemitic-Article-Venezuela-021712.htm to http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Semitism_International/AntiSemitic-Article-Venezuela-021712.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929083459/http://www.analitik.org.ua/author/46076f2011c07/ to http://www.analitik.org.ua/author/46076f2011c07/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015211323/http://yale.edu/yiisa/ to http://www.yale.edu/yiisa/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antisemitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110228220753/http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/jewsandmoney/default.asp to http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/jewsandmoney/default.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Causes

There's not much here on the underlying causes, which I am still trying to understand. Considering this has been going on for thousands of years there must be some rational explanation or understanding? Can anyone knowledgeable and non-biased try to explain and cite suitable research ? (From a very amateur reading -- it would seem to happen when a community is very tight and doesn't interact much with other communities around it; then when natural resources start to get low, the larger communities gang up on the small ones and take their resources? Is there any sane economic or political research on that, or parallels with other tight groups, that could be discussed ? It would seem to be important to understand this process if it would explain and diffuse other tensions around the world today.) Maybe like this article in the BMJ? http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/29/causes-anti-semitism

I agree. Social, psychological, cultural and anthropological factors must all be involved when one group of humans picks on another group of humans. Anti-semitism is something which is just one example in a catalogue of similar unpleasant human behaviour involving in-groups and out-groups or 'them and us'. A better understanding of the underlying causes would help. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.174.160 (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Dreyfus case

Article reads that a) 80% of French newspapers condemned Dreyfus, and b) this reflected the 'general consensus' of the French public. Unless some kind of poll was conducted, b) does not follow from a). The views of the press may, or may not, reflect public opinion. But other factors, such as the opinion/prejudice of the editors, owners etc are equally valid. Is there any evidence that the press reflected public opinion in this case? If not, I suggest amending this. Crawiki (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

That's why Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources. Crack open a book about the Dreyfus affair and read for yourself what the French public thought and whether the press was representative of public opinion. And help rewrite the section to eliminate the disconnect. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

19th c Muslim antisemitism

This section is extremely one-sided and inflammatory. Since many Jews emigrated to Palestine at this time, then under Ottoman control, some Muslims at least must have been pro-Jewish. Crawiki (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

"Must have" doesn't cut it: source the claim. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

doneCrawiki (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Antisemitism and anti-zionism

'holders of Israeli passports are not permitted entry to Saudi Arabia'. In what way is this information relevant to the topic? Not all Israeli passport holders are Jewish. We are not told the reason for the ban but possibly it has to do with anti-Zionism or Criticism of the Israeli government. Crawiki (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

C'mon, don't be an idiot, use your brain. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken please read WP: No personal attacks. Informed debate welcome, insults not. Seems to me there's a category error here. Non-Israeli Jews are permitted in the Kingdom. See History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia.Crawiki (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we should say Jews are banned from Saudi Arabia if that's the case, and remove the sentence if it is not. However, I would be careful about citing the history of the Jews in Arabia as evidence that Jews are welcome in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Jews lived in Arabia for almost 2000 years until the Saudis became the rulers. Since then, the remaining Jews were forced out, fled, or were taken out by Israel. Today, there are no Jews in Saudi Arabia. According to that article, which is very poorly sourced, Jews are not permitted in Saudi Arabia and foreign workers must sign an affidavit that they are not Jewish. Not Israeli, Jewish. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

You can't be fucking serious, Crawiki. You removed as a source an article from the BBC titled "Jews barred in Saudi tourist drive"?!? Did you bother to read the fucking source before you deleted it? First sentence, in bold letters: "Saudi Arabia is barring visits by Jews after launching a new visa scheme to try to attract more tourists." How much fucking clearer can it be? Damn! — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

have emailed the Saudi embassy for clarificationCrawiki (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Even if you get a response, it will not be usable as a source here, as your email cannot be verified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

And even if they published a response in a press release, it would be a primary source that might be usable in the article as a reference and short note but would not replace the analysis by secondary sources that the policy is antisemitic. VQuakr (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Antisemitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224193202/http://www.engageonline.org.uk/journal/index.php?journal_id=10 to http://www.engageonline.org.uk/journal/index.php?journal_id=10&article_id=33
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130204081959/http://www.unwatch.org/atf/cf/%7B6DEB65DA-BE5B-4CAE-8056-8BF0BEDF4D17%7D/UNW_THE_UN_AND_ANTI_SEMITISM_04_07_REPORT_CARD.PDF to http://www.unwatch.org/atf/cf/%7B6DEB65DA-BE5B-4CAE-8056-8BF0BEDF4D17%7D/UNW_THE_UN_AND_ANTI_SEMITISM_04_07_REPORT_CARD.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

German eliminationist antisemitism

In 1996, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's book 'Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust' was published, in which he proposed a type of antisemitism he considers was unique to Germany in the period up to the end of World War II, "Eliminationist Antisemitism". I would like to propose the inclusion, together with balanced critique, of this as a new section under "Antisemitism". Zerosprite (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

References

• I've read Goldhagen's book. What would be the content of the new section? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

In 1996, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans And The Holocaust, was first published. In his treatise, Goldhagen proposed that ordinary Germans during the Nazi period (1933-1945) were “possessed of racial demonological antisemitism” which took a particularly virulent form and he labelled as German eliminationist antisemitism. What made this unique in antisemitic terms is that Germans believed there was actually a solution to the so-called ‘Jewish Problem’ which was the complete destruction of all Jews. Goldhagen goes on to suggest it was this pervasive mindset which allowed Hitler in 1933 to set in motion the events begun with the removal of German Jewish citizenship rights and which culminated in the gas chambers of Chełmno, Bełżec, Sobibór, Treblinka and Auschwitz–Birkenau, Zerosprite (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

References

• If I recall correctly, and I could be wrong, historians in general roundly disagreed with Goldhagen's thesis, so I'm concerned with WP:WEIGHT. Do you have some evidence that Goldhagen's ideas were accepted by enough historians to be included in the article? I'm wiling to be convinced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Raul Hilberg, widely recognised as the preeminent scholar of the Holocaust, said of Goldhagen and his thesis "Goldhagen was totally wrong about everything. Totally wrong. Exceptionally wrong. In other words, this whole fury of his anti-Semitism was, at the root, that it was especially eliminationist anti-Semitism, was totally absurd. He talks about anti-Semitism among Germans, Estonians, Ukrainians, Latvians, and Lithuanians, but where did this unique eliminationist anti-Semitism come from? It is just totally absurd. I mean, totally off the wall, you know, and factually without any basis."[21] In a critical review, Hilberg wrote that "the growth of knowledge is slow and painful, and that it takes time, often decades, before detailed information is absorbed by a community of historians, let alone the wider public. In the meantime, Goldhagen will be quoted by ignorant generalists who are not even aware of the progress made with the opening of archives and the opportunities now beckoning to interested researchers. Thus the cloud that Goldhagen created will hover over the academic landscape. It will not soon disperse."[22]

Yehuda Bauer, the leading Israeli historian of the Holocaust, has written "I have yet to read of a single historian who has publicly expressed agreement [with Goldhagen's book]. Not one, and that is a very rare unanimity."[23] And elsewhere, he wrote "People don't like complicated explanations; they don't want differentiated analyses. They want simplicity, even mindless simplicity. And Goldhagen gave it to them".

So if we mention Golddhagen's thesis at all, we should make sure to note that the leading, and most respected, historians of the Holocaust reject it as useless. RolandR (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

References

• Thanks for the input. You are not wrong in your recall, I am aware of the controversy created by Goldhagen. I was prompted to read him as a result of finishing Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland by Christopher Browning. This is why I created it as a talking point rather than attempted to create it off the cuff myself. I do find Goldhagen's view interesting and challenging and I am in the midst of reading Hilberg (Student Eds), as well as others in order to see if there are any patterns or even justifications for Goldhagen's view. Maybe further research into original source material is required. Unfortunately, the best resources would include journal access which I don't have so I am using what I can. Zerosprite (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Source quality aside, I don't see that this would justify a new subsection, since "eliminationist" seems to refer to the lengths to which antisemites would take their antisemitism, while the other subsections generally refer to the bases of various antisemitisms - economic, racial, etc. (I'm not sure "Indology" should be its own subsection.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Source of anti semitism

I encourage to see: https://www.theyeshiva.net/jewish/5459 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adardesign (talk • contribs) 21:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The site you linked to appears to be an announcement of a public event, and does not seem to have any content. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

New Polish Law

This material is being contested:

In early 2018 the Polish parliament adopted an Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance criminalizing suggestions that Poles were collectively complicit in Holocaust-related or other war crimes. Appearing at the Munich Security Conference, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said that "it is not going to be seen as criminal to say, that there were Polish perpetrators, as there were Jewish perpetrators (...), not only German perpetrators.". Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called his Polish counterpart's comment "outrageous" for stating that Jews were among the perpetrators of the Holocaust.

References

Please discuss.--Malerooster (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of the content of the Polish law, and the controversy over it, including the vociferous (and I believe, for the most part, legitimate) complaints from the Israeli government. I simply don't see what it has to do with antisemitism. There's nothing in the section I removed that ascribes the law to antisemitic beliefs or motives, or which describes it as being an instrument of antisemitism. What, exactly, is the connection to antisemitism, and, if there is one, why is it not supported by citations by reliable neutral sources? All there is there is an expression of outrage by one leader.

If the Polish government is wrong to make it illegal to say that any Pole helped perpetrate the Holocaust (and it is), Netanyahu is similarly wrong -- and naive -- to state categorically that no Jewish person aided the Nazis. Human nature being what it is, it beggars belief to hold that not one single, solitary Jew put personal gain over the welfare of his fellow Jews. In any case, neither leader's comment appears to be to have anything to do with antisemitism, and an awful lot to do with nationalistic politics. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The removed paragraph already indicates why it's antisemitic (unless you need to be handheld through the "it's antisemitic to state that Jews perpetrated the Holocaust on the same level as the Germans or Poles" thing). If what's already there isn't enough for you, finding dozens more sources is as simple as a Google search. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

If you would like a civil discussion, I'm all for that, but it's rare to get one if you start off by insulting the other person. You might keep that in mind for the future.

I'm not a stupid person, in fact, I'm rather bright, but I don't accept the argument that anything negative said about a Jewish person is necessarily an example of antisemitism. Nor do I accept your argument -- which is, in fact, an example of false equivalence -- that saying there were Jewish perpetrators of the Holocaust is the same as saying that Jewish participation in the Holocaust (if it existed) was necessarily "at the same level as the Germans or Poles". Such a statement would be absolutely ludicrous in regard to the Germans, and just plain silly in regard to the Poles. I think Morawiecki's statement was stupid and extremely insensitive, but he most certainly did not say what you are accusing him of saying. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Uh, you need to read the statement again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, I did. I see nothing in the paragraph above, the one removed from the article, that falsifies anything I said in my last statement. If you believe I've missed something, why not just come out and say what it is, that would be most helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The fact that he sees "there were some German perpetrators", "there were some Polish perpetrators," and "there were some Jewish perpetrators" as equivalent? I'm not sure how to explain this to you because I genuinely do not understand what you're missing here. Anyway, so far you seem to be the only person who doesn't want to add this, so let's wait and see if anyone else joins the discussion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, you're not going to be able to explain it, because your interpretation of what he said is a serious misreading of the statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

If I can refocus the discussion on this article, may I suggest that the war of words between the prime ministers of Poland and Israel is not of sufficient historical importance by any measure to be included in a broad survey article about antisemitism around the world throughout history. Wikipedia already has three or four articles about the Polish law. We don't need to include a paragraph about it here too. In a global-historical survey of this nature, it's nothing more than a pissing match between two morons. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: would you therefore support discussing the law here, and/or the way it fits into modern antisemitism in Poland, without worrying about the specific statements of various politicos? cf. [24], etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the purpose of the law as being in any way antisemitiic, I see it as an unnecessary attempt to quell a rather paranoid feeling among some Poles that they're broadly being portrayed as Nazi collaborators -- so, I would disagree that it's germane to this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

"the way it fits into modern antisemitism in Poland"? Come again? Unlike the proposed "regulation" of kashrut, the law in question is not per se antisemitic. Are antisemitic things being said in defense of it? Without a question. Are Jewish (primarily Israeli) leaders giving it much more attention than it warrants, fueling a nationalist narrative that the Polish nation is under attack and the law is a necessary self-defense measure? Absolutely. What exactly would you add to this article about it? That Polish Jews, who have tried to stay out of the debate, are concerned about the negative effect the law will have on their lives? Most of them are more concerned that Israeli vitriol toward their countrymen and -women will have a negative effect on their lives. Nobody is afraid of being prosecuted under the new law; they're afraid that Netanyahu, who has no regard for Jews in the diaspora, will make their lives worse. So what's antisemitic, and who's causing a rise in antisemitism in Poland? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

"Are antisemitic things being said in defense of it? Without a question." - That's what I'm talking about though. Whether or not the law itself is antisemitic, there is certainly broader discussion of issues of antisemitism in modern Poland surrounding it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

It may be a better fit in History of the Jews in Poland as it's a quite marginal issue if you view it on a global scale during the entire history. However Wikipedians in Poland may have the law in mind when editing. // Liftarn (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Article needs to decide what it is about

In the article etymology section, we mention that the term anti-semitism arose in the 19th century, in the context of then emerging "scientific" racist theories, regarding differences between Indo-European (or "Aryan" as called in those texts) and Semitic (including Jewish) civilisations. Meanwhile, in the introduction, where we mention a long laundry list of supposed major anti-semitic incidents, the only one of these which can really apply to the above racist definition is anti-semitism in Nazi Germany and maybe elements of the Dreyfus affair.

Why are we retroactively applying the term "anti-semitism" to the Middle Ages and even classical antiquity, where these are simply manifestations of Anti-Judaism, not racial theories? Most of the Middle Ages section and stuff relating to Spain especially, is a one sided sectarian Jewish polemic against Catholicism (partly linking into the Protestant-sponsored Black Legend). Tomás de Torquemada, for example, was of Jewish descent (as are a significant number of Catholics in Spain and Portugal especially). To claim he was "anti-semitic" (a term with racial connotations), rather than an opponent of Judaism as a religious ideology, doesn't make much sense.

Equally, the political slight of hand where we try to present opposition to reactionary Jewish ultra-nationalism and Zionism in the Soviet Union as "anti-semitism" is also farcical. The Soviet Union completely rejected racial chauvinism and never had a supposed "official anti-Jewish policy". Was Lazar Kaganovich anti-semitic? We have a one sided polemic based on American Cold War propaganda here. Similarly, to describe the Arab world's backlash against Zionism and subsequent anger caused by Israeli actions as "anti-semitism" (a theory based on scientific racism) is also dubious.

We need to decide in the article what anti-semitism is. Is it a racial theory from the 19th century which states that Jews as "semites" have certain undesirable characteristics when compared to "Aryans", or is it a term rolled out to support a Jewish ultra-nationalist POV in any incident involving conflict between Jews and non-Jews ever to take place? Claíomh Solais (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, "we" don't need to decide anything. We summarize what reliable sources describe as antisemitism. And the phrase is "sleight of hand", not "slight of hand". — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You're avoiding the central problem with the article here; we use reliable sources in the etymology section to describe where the term antisemitism came from (a 19th century racial theory) and what it means, then apply it to a number of things which fall well outside of that definition. Everything from anachronistically applying it to Christians existing in medieval Spain, to Arabs opposing their own ethnic cleansing from Palestine, to Leon Trotsky waking up on the wrong side of the bed (we don't clarify if it was antisemitic for the Rabbis to excommunicate him and Zinoviev from Judaism, though, or if Trotsky was an antisemite for going along with the suppression of Judaism and Zionist groups in the USSR under Lenin). Perhaps addressing how we fix these glaring inconsistencies in basic definitions in the article, rather than playing Grammar Nazi might be more helpful. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You need to read (or re-read) WP:No original research. "We" Wikipedia editors don't need to do any of the things you want "us" to do; we merely summarize what reliable sources say, and if you don't like the way the sources define antisemitism or the way they describe people or things as antisemitic, that's your problem, not "ours". — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• ..."Why are we retroactively applying the term "anti-semitism" to the Middle Ages"...not sure who you mean with "we". What I do know is that for scholars of the Middle Ages the term "antisemitic", with or without hyphen, is par for the course. How about The Nun's Priest's Tale? [25], [26], [27], [28]. I don't know what you know, Claíomh Solais, but I know these medievalists know what they're doing. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• • @Claíomh Solais: you really need to clarify what you meant by "is it a term rolled out to support a Jewish ultra-nationalist POV in any incident involving conflict between Jews and non-Jews". Is that how you'd describe, to pick one example out of a multitude, the massacres of Jews in London and York in the 12th century? See History of the Jews in England#Persecution and expulsion which uses the term anti-semitism. Doug Weller talk 10:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    • And further, you seem to be missing the point. The fact that the term was invented in the nineteenth century, in an attempt to legitimise anti-Jewish racism, does not mean that the phenomenon did not exist previously. You would not (I hope) argue that gravity did not exist before Newton. RolandR (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I don’t really understand

I’ll admit I do not know a lot about this subject, so I’ll apologize offhand if I get something wrong or am offensive in some manner. “Anti-Semitic” basically means “anti-people who speak a certain group of languages that originated in a certain part of the world” (in this case the Levant and Arabia) So how did the term come to mean only anti-Jew? Also, I read who first used the term, but how did the term become popularized? Solri89 (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Read the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Manifestations: editing needed for npov

The following sentence towards the end of the first subsection appears to be reported as an undisputed statement offact, rather than - as would be appropriate - as an example of one of the arguments provided by Ruth Wisse in the cited source.

One example she gives is the antisemitism within the United Nations, which functioned historically as a coalition-building technique between Soviet and Arab states during the Cold War, but now functions as a coalition among states opposed to the type of human-rights ideology for which the UN was created.

I suggest something like:

One example she gives is the perceived antisemitism within the United Nations, which in her view functioned historically as a coalition-building technique between Soviet and Arab states during the Cold War, but now functions as a coalition among states opposed to the type of human-rights ideology for which the UN was created.

Cheers, 86.144.125.187 (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I've made an edit to make it clear that it's Wisse's view. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thamk you! 86.144.125.187 (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)