Talk:Three Ds of antisemitism

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

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (This article does not intend to advertise or promote any company, person or product. The aim of this article is to share the theory of 'Antisemitism in 3D', which became quite prominent in Jewish national thought, and is supported by many Jewish communities and research centers around the world.) --ScottyNolan (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined the speedy-deletion nomination, but if the article is to be kept you will need to show WP:Notability, which requires references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." JohnCD (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have added category of anti-Zionism, this test is almost exclusively confined to use in testing the prejudicial nature of criticism of Israel as a nation.Cpsoper (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves[edit]

Related move review requested: See Wikipedia:Move review#Anti-Semitism, pertaining to Anti-Semitism#Requested move. IZAK (talk) 08:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note: Wikipedia:Move review#What this process is not and Wikipedia:Move review#Instructions. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus in 17 days, tending towards "reject". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– Follows successful move of “Antisemitism” → “Anti-Semitism” on 27 August 2014. Gregkaye (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three criteria are cited to support these moves as follows:

WP:COMMONNAME “Use commonly recognizable names”  “...Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural...”
WP:CRITERIA: “Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles”
WP:NOTPROMOTION: “Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise.” This ruling applies to all article content in all directions.

This move request is made in the context of a creation of the "Anti-Semitism" article on 8 October 2001 (as indicated at the article's information page,) its subsequent move to "Antisemitism" on 26 October 2006 and its recent return to "Anti-Semitism" on 27 August 2014.

WP:COMMONNAME – Relevant Google searches are as follows:

I have also contended that the spelling: Anti-Semitism is also more recognisable than Antisemitism on simple grounds of readability. Squint and look at the two spellings. The capital S, (the launch point into the word Semitic) remains clearer for longer in poorer reading conditions in comparison to its lower case counterpart. Anti-Semitism also has the same verbal shape as titles of similar subjects:

WP:CRITERIA - “The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles”
A listing relevant terminologies in Wikipedia is as follows: Anti-Arabism, Anti-Armenianism, Anti-Australian sentiment, Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia, Anti-Bihari sentiment, Anti-British sentiment, Anti-Canadianism, Anti-Catalanism, Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Chilean sentiment, Anti-Christian sentiment, Anti-Europeanism, Anti-Filipino sentiment, Anti-German sentiment, Antihaitianismo, Anti-Hinduism, Anti-Igbo sentiment, Anti-India sentiment, Anti-Iranian sentiment, Anti-Italianism, Anti-Japanese sentiment, Anti-Korean sentiment, Anti-Malay sentiment, Anti-Mexican sentiment, Anti Middle Eastern sentiment, Anti-Pakistan sentiment, Anti-Pashtun sentiment, Anti-Polish sentiment, Anti-Quebec sentiment, Anti-Qing sentiment, Anti-Romanian discrimination, Anti-Scottish sentiment, Anti-Serb sentiment, Antisemitism, Anti-Slavic sentiment, Antiziganism, Anti-Zionism, Anti-Western sentiment. Items on the list were not cherry picked but displays content as it came to hand.
Other relevant terminologies include: Anti-Jewish laws and similar, Persecution of Jews, Anti-Judaism, Philo-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Neo-Zionism, Non-Zionism, Post-Zionism, Proto-Zionism and, present time re-direct page, Anti-Jewish sentiment.
Current title style usage lacks consistency.

The common trend in Wikipedia is to identify names of prejudice by way of a direct reference to the name of the group of people concerned. Anti-Semitism is a rare and perhaps unique exception to this trend. To state the obvious, the word Semite relates to the Semitic peoples who, according to the Wikipedia definition, are speakers of Semitic languages. "This family includes the ancient and modern forms of Ahlamu, Akkadian, Amharic, Ammonite, Amorite, Arabic, Aramaic/Syriac, Canaanite (Phoenician/Carthaginian/Hebrew), Chaldean, Eblaite, Edomite, Ge'ez, Old South Arabian, Modern South Arabian, Maltese, Mandaic, Moabite, Sutean, Tigre and Tigrinya, and Ugaritic, among others."[1]
Again, to state the obvious, no one group can claim ownership of 'Semitic' terminologies. The current section of Anti-Semitism entitled “Etymology” indicates anti-Semitic terminologies to have a mixture of Jewish and non-Jewish origins. The French writer Ernest Renan used Semite, the Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider used antisemitische Vorurteile (anti-Semitic prejudices), the German journalist Wilhelm Marr is widely credited with coining Antisemitismus and yet German Wikipedia currently uses Judenfeindlichkeit ~Judeophobia. The German equivalent of anti-Semitic prejudices was first used in relation in a fair indication of 'false ideas about how "Semitic races" were inferior to "Aryan races"' in 'derogation of the "Semites" as a race'. In my POV, as is relevantly presented on this talk page, a continued advocacy of the use of Anti-Semitic terminologies exclusively for the Jews constitutes identity theft, not in the sense of taking but in the sense of continued possession.

There is no reason for Wikipedia to remove capitalisation from Semitic terminologies and no reason to removal of separation from an attached prefix when all other demonyms are afforded hyphens. The adjectival demonym “Jewish” is the term that has common usage in description of the Jewish people. If the Consistency criteria were considered in isolation then the current subject would be titled as something like Anti-Jewish sentiment. Such terminology features internal use of COMMONNAME and would better enable analysis of issues involved.
As far as consistency is concerned in the current context the overwhelming use of the hyphenated and capitalised format should not be ignored. I personally do not think that any group should be set apart with special treatment. Any apparent disassociation of one form of prejudice from other forms of prejudice is, I believe, detrimental. Issues surrounding prejudice should be as transparent as is practically possible. Whenever there are issues discovered involving any form of prejudice those issues need to be addressed.

WP:NOTPROMOTION: “Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise.”
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's remit is to present its readers with a comprehensive summary of information on topics.
Gregkaye (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC) Gregkaye (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no opinion on most of these moves, fine with me either way. However, the Journal for the Study of Antisemitism is a proper name and should absolutely not be moved. The same, I think, might apply to the London Declaration. So Neutral for most, but Oppose for those two exceptions. --Randykitty (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doh, thanks for pointing that out. I have requested advice on the best way to remove the journal from the list. Gregkaye (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and had I seen the proposed move of the original page I would have opposed that too. The term antisemitism is the preferred term for most of the academics and activists working in this field, and there are strong grounds to oppose the hyphenation.[2][3] RolandR (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have seen no evidence that the unhyphenated version is "the preferred term for most of the academics and activists working in this field". However, I guess that may depend on how one chooses to define the "field". At any rate, all articles should be titled consistently. I object to ideologically motivated decisions regarding spelling, as it opens a door to fruitless conflict (it's a pity that the proposer also sullied his argument with irrelevant ideological agendas). It may be true that the current wording of WP:COMMONNAME does not explicitly cover decisions regarding spelling, but its principles still apply. Paul B (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Barlow: You say "its principles still apply." I don't think they do. There is no issue of "recognizability". Therefore WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply at all. You can note the 20 examples that WP:COMMONNAME provides. And you can note that that section heading reads: "Use commonly recognizable names". We are attempting in this discussion to distinguish between two essentially equally recognizable terms. Gregkaye additionally argues that one form is easier to read. He says: "I have also contended that the spelling: Anti-Semitism is also more recognisable than Antisemitism on simple grounds of readability. Squint and look at the two spellings. The capital S, (the launch point into the word Semitic) remains clearer for longer in poorer reading conditions in comparison to its lower case counterpart." That is all very nice and well but it has nothing to do with WP:COMMONNAME. Bus stop (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Antisemitism is the common term, and anti-Semitism is favored by people who want to pretend that the word means prejudice against Semites, rather than Jew-hatred. I agree with RolandR's arguments. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Antisemitism is the common term". No it isn't. There is simply zero evidence of that. "anti-Semitism is favored by people who want to pretend that the word means prejudice against Semites, rather than Jew-hatred." No it isn't. There is simply zero evidence of that. See below for an example. This is a fantasy that has created an ideological dispute that never existed. How can anyone reasonably argue that the absence of the hyphen somehow magically changes the meaning of "anti" and "semitism". Anti-Americanism is exactly the same thing as antiamericanism. The word means the same thing however it is spelled. And it means Jew-hatred. Paul B (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that every body which actually deals with, studies or combats this phenomenon uses the unhyphenated form. Thus the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, the Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism, the Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism, the Journal for the Study of Antisemitism, the Berlin International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, the Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism, the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism, the Yale Program for the Study of Antisemitism, the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism, and countless more. In fact, I haven't yet managed to find an expert body or academic journal which uses the hyphenated term. Although apparently more prevalent in common usage, the hyphenated form has been increasingly rejected by experts. I cite two explanatory essays above; there are many more on the same lines, by those who study the issue, explaining why the hyphen is at best misleading, and conveys an incorrect message. RolandR (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum which is hardly a lightweight entity says "The word antisemitism means prejudice against or hatred of Jews." By the way the page on which that is found has the title "ANTISEMITISM". Bus stop (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And every political decision made by the US establishment is right yes? I'm sure that organisations as you have mentioned have their own motivations for departing from the normal conventions of the English language but Wikipedia's stance is WP:NOTPROMOTION. It promotes WP:Neutrality and, as an encyclopaedia, it is here to present "a comprehensive summary of information". It's core aim is to be encyclopaedic.
  • Encyclopædia Britannica: anti-Semitism, "anti-Semitism, hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group. ..."
  • Jewish Encyclopedia: "ANTI-SEMITISM, A modern word expressing antagonism to the political and social equality of Jews.  The term "Anti-Semitism" has its origin in the ethnological theory that the Jews, as Semites, are entirely different from the Aryan, or Indo-European, populations and can never be amalgamated with them. ..."
Gregkaye (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gregkaye is being disingenuous. Both of his encyclopaedic sources are old. As RolandR pointed out, all modern scholarly literature spells it without a hyphen. The change to the main article went through without any concensus, and with far too few editors involved. I think it should be changed back promptly and this move request closed. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lisa: Re:disingenuous @RolandR: Re:all modern scholarly literature spells it without a hyphen
Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The encyclopaedic sources cited are the ones that I thought of and the ones that came to hand. You mention "old" but cite no dates. The Britannica article states: Last Updated 6-10-2014. The Jewish Encyclopedia article states: ©2002-2011.
Are you honestly saying that all scholarly references to “anti-Semitism” are old? (edit: this is not what RolandR actually said) Gregkaye (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To cite one example: Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History
Gregkaye (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One problem with the close is that @DrKiernan: does not address distinctions between sources based on quality. The same thing is taking place in this discussion as n-grams and Google searches are being introduced. These things (n-grams and Google searches) play a role in reaching a decision between "hyphenated" and "unhyphenated". But these are not the only factors to be taken into consideration. N-grams and Google searches dredge up every hit indiscriminately. Are we not concerned with quality of sources? There has been the feeblest attempt to show good quality sources using a hyphenated version. Most of the best sources use an unhyphenated version of the term we are discussing. Is this distinction being taken into account? Bus stop (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bus stop: Re: quality.  The Israeli Press is thought to represent quality.
Haaretz
The Jerusalem Post
Gregkaye (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Gregkaye: You talk about "normal conventions". What are normal conventions? We are discussing two words that are just about identical in every respect. The only policy applicable here is WP:CONSENSUS. You are dragging inapplicable policies into this discussion. Forget about WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CRITERIA, and WP:NOTPROMOTION. They are 100% inapplicable. What are we left with? We have "n-grams" and "Google results". They support the hyphenated version of the word. But we know that buried within those voluminous n-gram and Google results are mere passing mentions that in most cases are not found in the best quality sources. How do we know this? Because we can bring our sources into this discussion. We know that the "Berlin International Center for the Study of Antisemitism" uses the unhyphenated version. Multitudinous such sources exist. That is the title of the organization. It is you who is arguing for an abnormal convention. You write "I'm sure that organisations as you have mentioned have their own motivations for departing from the normal conventions of the English language…" In fact they establish for us normality. They show the precedent which we should be following. We should be relying on the usage of the best quality sources we can find—such as the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. The onus is on you to explain why Wikipedia should depart from the normality that is established by such an august organization as the U.S. Holocaust Museum. Sources such as this should set the norm for our usage. We should not be following thousands of bundled together and anonymous uses found by means of n-grams and Google searches. Many of these are passing mentions that we would not even consider reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bus stop:, seriously, you must have read Talk:Anti-Semitism#Requested move and that includes its closing statements. If not, you would do well to do so. You should be aware of the actual contents of WP:CONSENSUS "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines..." That was Wikipedia:Goals and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Other relevant previously quoted content includes: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, Wikipedia:IS NOT A DEMOCRACY and Wikipedia:I just don't like it. We all have to work with and within the same boundaries. That's how things work. Gregkaye (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Gregkaye: As concerns consensus I am in agreement that WP:CONSENSUS is an applicable policy. But I am not in agreement that the other policies you mention are applicable. For instance WP:COMMONNAME is not applicable to anything we are discussing. It is a policy that concerns "recognizability". But we know the unhyphenated version of the word is just as "recognizable" as the hyphenated version. WP:CRITERIA is no more applicable. WP:CRITERIA contains the urging that titles be "recognizable". We have already been over that: the unhyphenated version is just as recognizable as the hyphenated version. And WP:NOTPROMOTION is no more applicable than the previous two policies, or at least you have presented no argument in support of its applicability to this question. You have merely presented us with the policy of WP:NOTPROMOTION in the absence of any supporting argument. Can you please repeat for me what you have said in support of the applicability of WP:NOTPROMOTION to the discussion on the table? What have you said in support of your contention that we have a violation of WP:NOTPROMOTION by using an unhyphenated version of a word? You have not even attempted to present an argument supporting the applicability of the policy that you are citing, to the issue we are discussing. You write: "WP:NOTPROMOTION: 'Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise.' This ruling applies to all article content in all directions." You have not tried to show us that an unhyphenated word represents "advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment". All that you really did was quote a string of policy language. I think it is incumbent on you to explain how your cited policy language applies to whether we should use the "Antisemitism" version or the "Anti-Semitism" version of the word. You write at the top of this thread that "Three criteria are cited to support these moves as follows". My contention is that none of those 3 criteria support this move. Bus stop (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Gregkaye: You can't just pick policy out of a hat. Here, in the previous "Requested move", you are arguing that the unhyphenated word is in violation of WP:SOAPBOX. And once again you are not presenting any arguments in your own words. You are merely quoting policy to us. You write: "WP:SOAPBOX: Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise." So what? Anyone can quote policy. How is it applicable to a discussion underway? Is the unhyphenated version of "Antisemitism" in violation of WP:SOAPBOX? If you believe that it is then please explain. If you are going to argue that in this case the absence of the hyphen constitutes a violation of WP:SOAPBOX then please argue your case. How is the "Antisemitism" version a violation of WP:SOAPBOX? Bus stop (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bus stop: Following your first major indent above you quoted "normal conventions" you raised the relevant question, What are normal conventions?
My personal view is that they are fairly evident. Please consider the content of the quoted list:
Anti-Arabism, Anti-Armenianism, Anti-Australian sentiment, Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia, Anti-Bihari sentiment, Anti-British sentiment, Anti-Canadianism, Anti-Catalanism, Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Chilean sentiment, Anti-Christian sentiment, Anti-Europeanism, Anti-Filipino sentiment, Anti-German sentiment, Antihaitianismo, Anti-Hinduism, Anti-Igbo sentiment, Anti-India sentiment, Anti-Iranian sentiment, Anti-Italianism, Anti-Japanese sentiment, Anti-Korean sentiment, Anti-Malay sentiment, Anti-Mexican sentiment, Anti Middle Eastern sentiment, Anti-Pakistan sentiment, Anti-Pashtun sentiment, Anti-Polish sentiment, Anti-Quebec sentiment, Anti-Qing sentiment, Anti-Romanian discrimination, Anti-Scottish sentiment, Anti-Serb sentiment, Antisemitism, Anti-Slavic sentiment, Antiziganism, Anti-Zionism, Anti-Western sentiment.
As far as I can see the normal naming convention is that, when a prefix is applied into a people related term, a hyphen is applied.
See also searches within Wikipedia on:

Readers are welcome to conduct their own research, here or elsewhere, into relevant subject areas which potentially include: Capitalisation, Hyphen, Orthography and Syllabification.

Use in dictionaries also has relevance:
Major English dictionaries in their online versions, at whatever date they were last published, use “anti-Semitism”.

My personal opinion is that one possible reason for the absence of reference to “antisemitism” in the sources mentioned is that fails the linguistic standards of the lexicographer's concerned.

I cited WP:SOAPBOX in the last discussion in the context of a listing of a Cherry picked list of references that included references presented here. These references included a couple of secular publications and I responded as follows:

And yet, Re: The New Republic:
([4][5][6][7][8]: "did not match").  Re: The Guardian:
WP:COMMONNAME applies.  WP:SOAPBOX applies.  Anti-Semitism is the term with far greater currency! 

The contents of the list are all pertain to “good quality sources” and you are well aware of their presence.

We read in:
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
...
Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, as well as articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:
Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.

In the current context application of Wikipedia's WP:NOTPROMOTION includes, at minimum, the issues of advocacy and showcasing. Wikipedia is not here to either advocate of showcase a use of any particular presentation of a subject. Wikipedia has clear guidelines such regarding WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA. It is here to be WP:Neutral. It is here to be wikt:Encyclopedic.
Gregkaye (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. WP:COMMONNAME provides examples:

The following are examples of the application of the concept of commonly used names in support of recognizability:
You can't extrapolate from big differences to little differences. "Recognizability" matters here. Does anybody not recognize the term "antisemitism"? Then WP:COMMONNAME is not strongly applicable to the question of whether we should use the unhyphenated or the hyphenated spelling. Bus stop (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: I think the best quality sources use the unhyphenated version. Included in "n-gram" results and "Google" search results are mere mentions in sources of unknown quality. Yale University uses the unhyphenated version in their Yale Program for the Study of Antisemitism. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is not an unidentified mention buried in "n-gram" and "Google" results. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is clearly a source of exceedingly good quality. On a page called "ANTISEMITISM" (no hyphen) the very first sentence reads: "The word antisemitism means prejudice against or hatred of Jews.". They are making the conscious choice to omit a hyphen. My argument would be that the best quality sources leave out the hyphen. We are not required to follow n-gram results or Google results, though those results can be taken into consideration. Bus stop (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're not required to follow them, and I would never pay much attention to Google web search count since they are so heavily influenced amateur, junk, and wiki-mirror sources. But the books n-grams are a pretty good estimate of usage in better sources, since most books have editors and publishers who tend to keep them from being junk. I haven't seen other evidence about why some of these are "better" than others. Dicklyon (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: Organizations that oppose antisemitism, and have this term (antisemitism) in their title, generally use the unhyphenated version. These are good quality instances of the occurrence of this term. These are not mere mentions. N-grams are mere mentions. And it also seems that the best quality organizations use the unhyphenated version of the word when they use it in titles of their web pages. By "best quality" I mean organizations that stand in opposition to irrational dislike of Jewish people. "N-grams" are not distinguishing between good quality instances and inconsequential instances of the term being used. Furthermore this word does not mean opposition to "semitism". We are talking about a word that refers to the irrational dislike or hatred of Jews. Seemingly similar word formations do not necessarily serve as precedent for this word because in seemingly similar word formations we can easily discern the meaning of those compound words by examining their components. But if we were to attempt to decipher the meaning of "Anti-Semitism", in an absence of a knowledge of the word's actual use, we would be somewhat stumped. This is because it doesn't mean quite what it appears to mean. A correct term would be the German term "Judenhass". It means what it says. Note the definition at an English dictionary: Judenhass: "Noun 1. antisemitism - the intense dislike for and prejudice against Jewish people." The word "Judenhass" does not mince words as concerns its component parts. It means exactly what it says. "Hass" means "hatred", and "Juden" means "Jews". I think one misses the point if one fails to take notice of usage—not just in "n-grams"—but in sources of the best quality. Organizations that oppose the irrational dislike of Jews, generally use the unhyphenated version in their title. In the instances in which the term is not found in the title of the organization, I think we often find the unhyphenated version when used as a part of a title of a web page. In my opinion such occurrences are the precedents that we should be following. We should not be following the indications of just n-grams because such indications do not discern for quality. The indications of n-grams are at odds with the form of the word that is chosen for the titles of organizations that oppose prejudice against Jews. When looking at the form of the word chosen by organizations that oppose prejudice against Jews, we tend to find the unhyphenated version. Wikipedia should not be misinterpreting precedent and Wikipedia should not be stumbling over logic. The word that we are discussing contains an irresolvable kernel of illogic. We don't have to magnify that inherent illogic by hyphenating the word and using an upper case letter for the second component of that word. In fact "Semitic" is not of great importance in the word that we are discussing. Antisemitic does not mean opposition to Semitic languages. Antisemitic does not mean opposition to Semites. Yes, Jews are Semites, but Jews are hardly the only Semites. We always have to bear in mind (in these discussions) what the word means. It is not referring to Semites. It is referring specifically and only to Jews, who are only a small component of all of the world's Semites. If we stick to usage we will be alright. The word has an inherently confusing quality about it but it invariably refers to prejudice against Jews. We can adhere to reliable sources and at the same time not perpetuate confusion related to an etymological fallacy. There is a more and a less dumb version of the word. In the final analysis one reason that we should be using the unhyphenated version of the word to title our articles is because that is the "less dumb" version of the word. The organizations which had no choice but to use this word in the title of their organization opted for the less problematic version of a word that is inherently fairly senseless if we examine its components. Nevertheless it has a meaning. This is something we should not lose sight of. Bus stop (talk) 04:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @Timrollpickering:, I asked advice from the closing admin of Talk:Anti-Semitism#Requested_move and where it was said, "Given the controversy, a new discussion is probably best." I agree with this as good procedure. In any case, it is the validity of the arguments that count. I hope it was OK to have placed the "done template" in your edit above. Gregkaye (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth noting that, of the long list of articles proposed to be moved, all of those relating to an actual body which uses the term antisemitism in its name, use the unhyphenated form, and have thus been excluded from the proposed move. Those remaining all use the term in Wikipedia's voice, as it were. Once again, this bears out my contention that those actively concerned, whether as activists or as academics, with the subject, use the unhyphenated form. RolandR (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Activists" may also be considered to include those in Arab-Israeli peace projects;
site:www.childrenofpeace.org.uk/ "anti-Semitism" OR "antisemitism"
site:www.seedsofpeace.org "anti-Semitism" OR "antisemitism"
site:www.theparentscircle.org "anti-Semitism" OR "antisemitism"
There are few references but these are people that span a significant area of conflict.
Gregkaye (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just found an essay by Paul Eisen, a controversial commentator with whom I have frequently clashed, on "Should Anti-Semitism Be Hyphenated?". He writes: "...an old hobby horse of mine - the critical distinction between the two possible definitions of 'anti-Semitism/antisemitism'. Here they are: One possible definition (antisemitism in the article) is a blind, irrational hatred of Jews and all things Jewish. In my view, this is not only completely absurd but also pretty much non-existent at present. Those occasions where it has or does occur, are when legitimate but pent-up feelings quite simply explode. The other possible definition (anti-Semitism in the article) is opposition to a proposed Jewish ideology or spirit. This opposition is legitimate, appropriate and sometimes necessary - though may I, as ever, express a fervent hope that such opposition be expressed intelligently, justly, compassionately and peacefully". Thus someone whom I am precluded from characterising on Wikipedia as I do elsewhere argues for the use of a hyphen, so that he can continue to attack and blame Jews for themselves being the cause of racism that they experience. This argument is the flip side of my own argument about why the term should not be hyphenated, putting a positive where I put a negative, and strongly reinforces my opposition to the proposed move. RolandR (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose moves As evidenced by multiple encyclopedic and dictionary sources, both terms are acceptable and commonly used (it might be 65/35, but it certainly isn't 90/10). As discussed at the previous RM discussion, WP:COMMONNAME does not apply. Nonsense about recognizability and capitalization in low-light conditions should be ignored. That leaves us with a mild argument in favor for consistency, and a strong argument against in the hope that it will lead to Gregkaye becoming more clueful. My natural recoil against wholesale removal of the alternate spelling such as this seals it for me - the underlying reason for the proposed move is to forward an ideological agenda. VQuakr (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The differences caused by the article edit mentioned went from this to this. The changes constituted a moving of the Merriam-Webster definition (which, incidently, had previously been misrepresented as "Antisemitism" despite the entry's contents containing the text: anti-Semitism.. an·ti–Sem·i·tism.. an-tē-ˈse-mə-ˌti-zəm,.. ANTI-SEMITISM.. an·ti–Se·mit·ic.. an·ti–Sem·ite.. ANTI-SEMITISM.. ANTI-SEMITISM.. anti-Semitism.. anti-Semitism.. anti-Semitism.. anti-Semitism.. anti-Semitism.. and anti-Semitism while making no mention of "Antisem-anything")[9] and I made about 50 corrective changes to add a hyphen and capitalisation. As mentioned in the summary of my edit, several of the examples of the changed text should never have read "antisemitism" or similar. They were based on citations that had used "anti-Semitism" or similar. All these changes were made following DrKiernan's page move. Since this page move other editors have made similarly justified changes to templates and categories. I have a very simple ideological agenda in regard to this topic which is to call a spade a spade. My preferred agenda is clarity.
Wikipedia editors can be aware of a range of terminologies and descriptions that may find application including: Persecution of Jews, Anti-Judaism, Anti-Jewish sentiment, Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism. The term I hear most frequently on Israeli radio is "Anti-Israeli". (I listen because like the music: Mosh Ben-Ari+)
Wikipedia editors are fully entitled to use any relevant terminology that suits any particular situation.
I do not personally see a justification for the use of (let alone the changing of) a terminology that does not directly apply to the subject population. That is my personal view.
Incidently, VQuakr originally expressed "weak support" for the move of Antisemitism to Anti-Semitism (even at a stage where the arguments in favour were not nearly so well developed). Gregkaye (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the move discussion, I see tens of thousands of words of Gregkaye digging himself deeper into a hole. I do not see any development of arguments in favor after my !vote. The only development that would alter my "weak keep" !vote [10] since then is if my observation regarding consistency (the sole policy-based argument to move so far introduced) was indeed incorrect resulting from selective sampling by Gregkaye as pointed out by Anomalocaris. VQuakr (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A simplified link: Talk:Anti-Semitism#Requested move mishandled. Gregkaye (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose moves for many of the reasons I laid out at Talk:Anti-Semitism#Requested move mishandled.
    • Gregkaye claims that three Wikipedia policies support the proposed moves; I respectfully disagree. WP:COMMONNAME does not discuss how to prefer hyphenation or non-hyphenation. WP:CRITERIA discusses consistency, but we need to be consistent with names of academic journals, agencies, and NGOs that don't hyphenate, and we need to be consistent with the Wikimedia Commons Antisemitism category, which contains nine (9) subcategories that include the word antisemitism or antisemitic and zero (0) have hyphenated forms of these words. WP:NOTPROMOTION does not discuss how to prefer hyphenation or non-hyphenation and has zero bearing on this proposed move.
    • I agree with Bus stop that mere Google hit counts are not persuasive because some uses are more important than others.
    • Lisa gets to the heart of the matter; antisemitism derives as a translation from a German word and is not analyzable as anti+Semite or anti+Semitism, because that's not what it means.
    • It is a major disruption of Wikipedia to make a change affecting so many articles, for no benefit to the user.
    • Gregkaye claims "The capital S, (the launch point into the word Semitic) remains clearer for longer in poorer reading conditions in comparison to its lower case counterpart." No evidence is offered to support this claim, and even if true, no Wikipedia policy has been offered saying that Wikipedia article titles should be based on considerations of their clarity in poorer reading conditions.
    • A significant minority of anti...ism articles are not hyphenated, including Antidisestablishmentarianism, Antifeminism, Antihumanism, Antimilitarism, Antinomianism, Antipositivism, Antireductionism, Antitheism, Antiziganism, Antihaitianismo, and the related Anti Middle Eastern sentiment. — Anomalocaris (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anomalocaris, I wish we had a like button on Wikipedia. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We do! 👍 Like RolandR (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomalocaris: Your respectful disagreement has been genuinely appreciated. However while,
WP:COMMONNAME does not mention capitalisation, hyphenation or any other similar issue, it still has an explicit content. Its most direct interpretation applies.
WP:CRITERIA, consistency and journals:

  • Google searches on "anti-Semitism" OR "antisemitism" within sites indicating "journal" and prejudice and/or discrimination made predominant reference to "anti-Semitism":
site:jdi.sagepub.com, site:www.journals.elsevier.com/, site:https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.12.2.63 / site:jls.sagepub.com/, site:www.nasponline.org, site:www.apa.org/, site:onlinelibrary.wiley.com.
  • Google searches on "anti-Semitism" OR "antisemitism" within sites that relate to NGOs and prejudice and/or discrimination again made predominant reference to "anti-Semitism":
site:humanrightshouse.org/, site:ec.europa.eu/, site:www.ngopulse.org/, site:www.media-diversity.org/en/, site:www.emunion.eu/, site:www.migpolgroup.com/, site:www.osce.org/.

Gregkaye (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Oppose Moves Moving these articles supports and perpetuates the very intent of the creation of the term "anti-Semitism" - to delegitimize claims of anti-Jewish bias and legitimize the wrong-headed actions of legitimately anti-Jewish individuals. "Antisemitism" has an entirely other meaning to "anti-Semitism" and "anti-Semitism" has only ever been a cloaked code word. "Antisemitism" is hostile or prejudiced behavior towards Jews, not Semites. "Anti-Semitism" is a term used to confuse the issue. Do not, please, do not diminish the importance of the distinction and legitimize the bigotry of antisemites by allowing them to dictate terminology on Wikipedia, which should be neutral. Geofferic T•C✡ 01:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What?, This makes no sense. Moving these articles supports and perpetuates the very intent of the creation of the term "anti-Semitism" - to delegitimize claims of anti-Jewish bias and legitimize the wrong-headed actions of legitimately anti-Jewish individuals.  You mention "anti-Jewish bias" and "anti-Jewish individuals" and I commend you for your straightforward use of this wording. However, a use of hyphenation and capitalisation does not legitimise anything. It must also be stated that prejudice itself has no legitimacy. Individuals must be treated as individuals no matter what their ethnic, racial, religious or other background may be. All individuals and groups should be treated impartially and according to the same rules applied to all.
"Antisemitism" has an entirely other meaning to "anti-Semitism". This is patently ridiculous. They are both misnomers regardless of whether a preference is taken to the spelling "Semite" or "semite". They are both equally used as indicative of prejudice against Jews.
"Anti-Semitism" is a term used to confuse the issue.  I actually agree although I would favour the wording: "Anti-Semitism" is a term whose usage confuses issues. It doesn't use common name.
Gregkaye (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Category:Antisemitism has been speedily moved to Category:Anti-Semitism per CFDS. --Randykitty (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Guardian's [style guide] sums it up nicely: "antisemitic, antisemitism no hyphen: it does not mean 'anti-Semitic'". But we must avoid imposing a false consistency; we have organisations listed above that use one form for their own names and we have different governments favouring one or the other. Even the published works of specific writers are not consistent; one of Sharansky's works listed under "Further reading" for this very article 3D Test of Antisemitism uses one form, one the other, and so as the article quotes and follows those articles and the work of other writers, it necessarily jumps between forms. Pluck another article from the list above at random - just now I chose Kosher tax (antisemitic canard) - and you can expect to find both forms in quotes and the titles of referenced works. Any blanket search-and-replace would be falsification in this article and would risk falsification in others. NebY (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Gregkaye's "identity theft" remarks are nonsense, since the term anti-Semitism/antisemitism was not invented by Jews or originally promulgated by Jews. It also unfortunately recalls the old tired stale dishonest sleazy "Arabs can't hate Jews because Arabs are Semites too" rhetorical maneuver... AnonMoos (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos There are two arguments presented in the lead. The first is the argument for the use of capitalisation and hyphenation within the title on grounds of common use and consistency. The second is the contextual argument regarding the use of Semitic terminology within anti-Semitic terminology. I agree with you on any use of an "Arabs can't hate Jews because Arabs are Semites too" is reprehensible as well as being 1 old, 2 tired, 3 stale, dishonest, sleazy and rhetorical. (On a private note I would be grateful for a pointer to related content on Wikipedia). However, a misuse of an "Arabs are Semites too" argument is easily avoided through the use of terminology such as Anti-Jewish sentiment.
Arabs call themselves Arabs, Armenians call themselves Armenians, etc. Yes, citizens of the United States call themselves American but, when not describing themselves as "US citizens" or such like, they actually call themselves "American". Identity is a relevant issue. Feel free to refer to what I actually said in the lead.
The parallel article to the main topic in German is de:Judenfeindlichkeit, ~Jewdophobia. Gregkaye (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Antisemitism" has a slightly strange etymology, but insisting that etymology must override current usage (and the consistent usage of the last 130 years) is the "Genetic fallacy". By the genetic fallacy, the word "homophobia" could only mean "fear of those who are the same as oneself". Anyway, the reason why "Semitic" was used by the non-Jewish inventor of the word anti-Semitism was because it fit in with a whole series of 19th-century mock-grandiose euphemisms, such as "Celestials" for Chinese, "Sons of Erin" for Irish, "Romans" for Italians, etc. Some of them sounded rather elevated, but when used by white Anglo-Saxon Protestants to refer to others, they were really rather condescending (not complimentary or respectful). Also, during the late 19th-century, the term "Jew-hating" could be considered a little too harsh to be used in mixed company when Podsnap's innocent Young Person was present, so that "anti-Semitism" was more acceptable as a genteel polite euphemism for drawing-room use. At that time neither Jews nor Jew-haters in northern European cities commonly encountered Arabs in their everyday lives, so that most of them didn't think about Arabs in the context of such terminology. Maybe they should have (according to you), but the plain fact is that they didn't -- so that allegations of "identity theft"[sic] are rather nonsensical. AnonMoos (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. "Jewdophobia"[sic!] is a very strange and unfortunate translation of Judenfeindlichkeit -- much more common and acceptable literal translations of the word would be "Judaeophobia" (classicizing) or "Hatred of Jews" (non-classicizing)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't think WP:COMMONNAME is applicable here. I think this question hinges on quality of sources. I don't think quantity of instances using each version of the word matters here because the two versions are equally recognizable. This is not a question of recognizability. WP:COMMONNAME concerns itself with the recognizability of alternative terms. I don't think we need to be paying attention to the results of Google searches or n-grams because these only tell us of quantity of occurrences of each version of the word. But we can look for quality of occurrences. Here are good quality occurrences:
Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism
Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy
Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism
Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism
Journal for the Study of Antisemitism
Berlin International Center for the Study of Antisemitism
Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism
Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism
Yale Program for the Study of Antisemitism
Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism
I've underlined the unhyphenated version. Organizations that oppose irrational hatred of Jews represent the best quality sources for setting precedent vis-a-vis hyphenated versus unhyphenated. Bus stop (talk)
  • Note, organsations require funding and may be subject to criticism and lobbying. "semitism" remains a disassociation from Jewish identity. The removal of hyphenation and capitalisation remains a disassociation from parallel forms of prejudice. Quality sources include dictionaries and encyclopaedias. Gregkaye (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because if it ain't broke, don't fix it (from WP's own DICTIONARY Wiktionary: "Leave something alone; avoid attempting to correct, fix, or improve what is already sufficient. Often with an implication that the attempted improvement is risky and might backfire.") and this is a radical move looks a lot like someone getting into WP:SPIDERMAN mode to violate WP:DONOTDISRUPT & WP:BATTLEGROUND to make a WP:POINT, and also reverse the recent hasty ill-considered reverse that was just done that violates long-standing 8+ years of solid WP:CONSENSUS as anyone but the blind can see from the way the term has been used by hundreds of editors in dozens of articles, the strong objections being made by all those who now oppose this request!! since this is just a retro move that takes WP backwards and not forwards, as the nominator himself points out that "This move request is made in the context of a creation of the "Anti-Semitism" article on 8 October 2001 (as indicated at the article's information page,) its subsequent move to "Antisemitism" on 26 October 2006 and its recent return to "Anti-Semitism" on 27 August 2014" -- EIGHT years later, that is EIGHT years straight of WP:CONSENSUS that one quicky request has upturned! That time span from FIVE years from 2001 to 2006 then EIGHT years on to 2014 is in itself indicative of the evolution how this term is now used. This is not part of "advocacy" -- if anything from some of the comments sprinkled about it appears that the opposite advocacy is seeping out that it's not just about Jews but it's about all "Semites"? Ha! So again, why? What motivates such efforts is hard to imagine? Is it because of pure concern about the meaning of this word? Or for its correct usage in English? It is hard to fathom why anyone would go to such lengths to upturn the apple cart that has worked just fine for so long, as can be seen from all the articles that must now undergo changes just because one person woke up one day and says let's move WP back by THIRTEEN years to 2001! Not a productive use of time and energy. Big puzzle, honestly! IZAK (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 08:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom. because, well because of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines; because of the principle: to thine own self be true and that honesty is the best policy, when you call a spade a spade, so that what you see is what you get. All content as from WP's own DICTIONARY Wiktionary. We have a description of prejudice. Descriptions of prejudice are formed around a description of the group prejudiced against. The descriptions are written with hyphenation and capitalisation. I am not the one with the disruptive editing.
Please no more WP:CONSENSUS misrepresentations. The purpose of consensus in here is to achieve Wikipedia's goals... while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
I'm also getting really tired of personal attacks and misrepresentations. I've been described as "disingenuous", when nothing could be further from the truth, without retraction or apology. I've been accused of picking policy out of a hat. Policy is clearly written and I have clearly presented actual content. My argument has been stated to, recall an old, tired, stale, dishonest, sleazy, rhetorical, uncited and frankly ridiculous argument that "Arabs can't hate Jews because Arabs are Semites too". Now, most laughably of all, I'm being compared to Spiderman. Do you honestly want to insinuate that it's me that's wearing the mask?
WP:SPIDERMAN: There is no wall to scale, just a downhill path to COMMONNAME and consistently applied CRITERIA.
WP:DONOTDISRUPT, there's nothing here that "disrupts progress towards improving an article". Your mail, however, presents the current irrelevant content.
WP:BATTLEGROUND, which is basically a veiled accusation that I in some way hold "grudges". My edit record of defending Israel and Jewish interest can speak for itself.
WP:POINT: When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied. My frustration, if I have one, is the way in which policy or guideline ARE NOT being applied. If Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines had been properly applied EIGHT years ago, the change would never have been made.
Enough of the mud slinging. If you have something relevant to say about policy, say it. Please see: Wikipedia:Etiquette
Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gregkaye: We all know that Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but all we have here is the bald assertion that they apply in your favor. Your uses of rhetorical catch-phrases are just you saying "I say I'm right" and they prove nothing, neither individually nor collectively. You haven't responded to Lisa's point which I restated as antisemitism derives as a translation from a German word and is not analyzable as anti+Semite or anti+Semitism, because that's not what it means; this point alone completely undermines all your arguments about how we have to treat one word the same as other words that are analyzable as anti+something. You haven't responded to the call for consistency with Wikimedia Commons. Repeated assertions about the applicability of COMMONNAME have been refuted by the observation that COMMONNAME is about an article title's words, not spelling or hyphenation. Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 06:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Answers to your reference to your "Lisa gets to the heart of the matter" comment were given in immediate response and in previous statements. I responded with immediate comment to say: "The heart of the matter is the use of the English language in English".
From the beginning of related argument I have stated: "The fact that anti-Semitism/antisemitism is a misnomer or the fact that the term takes reference from a relatively large group (Semites) and applies it to a relatively small group of people (Jews) is not a justification for giving the term different linguistic treatment to the rest of the English language." As per lead: Talk:Anti-Semitism#Requested move.
In the previous RM discussion I also gave reply to say: 'The unhyphenated "spelling" is not more natural. Semite is a demonym no matter the size of the group of people referenced. The use of good English has relevance in an English encyclopaedia. Using your link, WP:CRITERIA we read: "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." In addition to the issue of hyphenation we can note that demonyms are capitalised. They always are and a similar standard of English should also be used here.'
(As a side point Lisa has made 3 comments as per the Revision history of "Talk:3D Test of Antisemitism" and 1 comment as per Revision history of "Talk:Anti-Semitism". The content quoted is not mentioned).
The terms "anti-Semite", "anti-Semitic", "anti-Semitism" and "Philo-Semitism" all make reference to prejudice and/or bias related to a group of people. (The terminologies take reference from the terms "Semite", "Semitic", "Semitism" with reference being made to terminological use in relation to people). If that were not the case then the terms would never have been used. Anti-Semitism is a people related topic. What else is it about? To quote from: Anti-Semitism#Etymology: 'As Alex Bein writes "The compound anti-Semitism appears to have been used first by Steinschneider, who challenged Renan on account of his 'anti-Semitic prejudices' [i.e., his derogation of the "Semites" as a race]".' Further on we also read: 'In 1873 German journalist Wilhelm Marr ... used the word Semitismus interchangeably with the word Judentum to denote both "Jewry" (the Jews as a collective) and "jewishness".
As stated above: "To state the obvious, the word Semite relates to the Semitic peoples". The terms "anti-Semite", "anti-Semitic", "anti-Semitism" and "Philo-Semitism" have always been used on the basis that the Jewish people are a Semitic people. On this issue I also stated above that, "There is no reason for Wikipedia to remove capitalisation from Semitic terminologies and no reason to removal of separation from an attached prefix when all other demonyms are afforded hyphens." The only difference is that a substitute demonym has been used. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the previous thread made VQuakr's his entry that began: "WP:COMMONNAME is about recognizability..." and I replied:
WP:COMMONNAME is about commonly recognizable names. Across the internet as a whole anti-Semitism is the spelling that has currency. It has a far higher rate of usage than antisemitism which clearly has an effect on recognisability. It also appears in a regularly used and recognisable hyphenated format that has consistent usage when the prefix anti is followed by people related words such as Semite. Anti-Semitism has high recognisability and, with Wikipedia preferring the most frequently used version, WP:COMMONNAME does apply. ...
I also said: My point was and still is that the text states: "Wikipedia ... prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject". It does not state that: "Wikipedia ... prefers to use a name that is less frequently used to refer to the subject" which would make no sense.
As indicated above: the most direct interpretation of the clear and explicit content of WP:Use commonly recognisable names applies.
All these points have been previously been made.
  • Regarding Wikimedia Commons, I would have thought that if there is relevant content that needs to be changed then Wikimedia Commons should follow the lead of Wikipedia. I would not have thought that things would naturally work the other way around.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You replied; that does not mean anyone agreed with you. To think that your line of reasoning was recognized with any sort of consensus simply because you replied is fallacious. The hyphenated and unhyphenated spellings are equally recognizable and any statements from you to the contrary are simply being ignored as too silly to merit a response. VQuakr (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For goodness sake. My true statement relates to the clearly written wording: "Wikipedia ... prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject". Do you disagree that this is what it says? I have been direct in my arguments which have been free of fallacious content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a selective quotation. In the section Use commonly recognizable names, one sentence reads, in full, Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. The last part of that sentence, which you omitted, is essential; the purpose is recognisability, not conformity to statistical norms or majority rules. I've yet to see any evidence that including or omitting the hyphen makes a smidgen of difference to the reader's recognition of the term. Indeed, it would be astonishing if all those organisations that use antisemitism were less effective because they had whimsically chosen to use a less recognisable form. NebY (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why the focus on the hyphen? Beyond the explicit content of Use commonly recognisable names or Wikipedia's direction regarding consistent use of title form or even the usage in connection to a people of a description that does not directly apply, there's also the issue of an ancient terminology. It is used with a reduced scope that might have otherwise applied but, all the same, the standard practice with demonyms remains a respectful use of capitalisation. The hyphen is, so to speak, a side issue but that does not reduce its relevance. Forms of prejudice are most frequently written in the anti-Xxx format and this is the most recognisable form of usage. You say both forms are recognisable. Fine. Use the one in more common use. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The proposition that a capital S is more respectful is new to me; can you cite any authorities for it? Meanwhile, I remain at a loss to see how the encyclopedia would be improved by retitling all these articles when both forms are in common use and both are properly used within the articles. Whatever happens, we will have to continue to use both forms in quotations, citations of book titles and organisation titles including when they appear as article titles. This sweeping change requires a stronger argument than selective analogy or crude word-counts that disregard sources and merely show both terms are in common use. Sadly, with the loss of arguments such as "identity theft" (presented in the previous discussion at Anti-Semitism#Requested move) or perceptibility when squinting (above) we have little else left. NebY (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? An association between respect and capitalisation is well understood as is dramatically evident in discussion of Reverential capitalization. For instance, despite no usage of capitalisation in original languages, reference is consistently made to YHWH (יהוה), a name introduced in the context of I Am that I Am and that is presented variously as Yahweh, Yehowah, Jehovah, Lord, Adonai and HaShem.
The existence of Semitic peoples is an issue that goes beyond faith and they fit into Category:Ancient peoples (29 subcategories and 183 pages) Potentially long lists of examples can be cited and, again, issues with regard to respect and capitalisation are fairly evident. For example See A: Ababda people, Achaei, Adrabaecampi, Aesti, Agisymba, Amard, Amorites, Anariacae, Ancient Hawaii, Ancient kingdoms of Anatolia, Androphagi, Arabs, Arameans, Armoricians, Arusnates, Aryan, Assyrian people, Asturicani, Ất line. The clear convention is to capitalise the ancient terminologies. This issue had largely been covered with regard to the normal conventions question above.Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the umpteenth time, the term antisemitism has nothing to do with Semitic peoples. Just like homophobia has nothing to do with the psychological concept of phobia, and just like "you're pulling my leg" is not an accusation of physical assault, antisemitism -- regardless of etymology -- has nothing to do with Semitic peoples. You have made this same argument over and over, and it doesn't get truer with time; it merely makes it harder and harder to assume good faith. It is precisely because of people making this error that the hyphen has been dropped by academics and by organizations and periodicals which deal with the phenomenon. You are attempting to enshrine this error into an official position of Wikipedia, and it is beyond inappropriate.
I am formally requesting that this tendentious move request be closed by an admin, and that the same admin reverse the move of Antisemitism to Anti-Semitism on the same grounds. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned below I have no objection to a close.Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm not sure what we're waiting for. The requestor has said he's okay with a close. Let's be done with this. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a backlog and the sheer length of the discussion might deter volunteers too. I don't know if it helps if we all go quiet so that it's clearly ready for closing, even without consensus, but it wouldn't hurt - and gives me a good reason to stay away too. :) NebY (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moves. If you take a look at google books there are five times more hits with the hyphen than without the hyphen. I find some of the objections i read above irrational because if a word has more than one definition that is not a reason to lexicologically alter the word itself. If so, then you might as well abonden the entire English language because English is filled with multiple definition words. If you are convinced that this version causes confusion then I think splitting the article would make more sense than a rearrangement of typesetting. The title "anti-Semitism" would be the lemma. I could for instance think of a similar word that ticks me off sometimes; such as "American" when it is used as a demonym for US citizen. thats because America is a continent and it seems like US inhabitants have taken ownership of the entire continent. However that lexicological inconvenience gives me no right to insist on an alternative way to refer to Americans. Emphascore (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and on Wikipedia, the term American does not lead to an article on US citizens, precisely for that reason. So your argument does not hold water. RolandR (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further to my "oppose": We're citing various word-counts (with little regard for whether those are from reliable English-language sources) but few authorities. Here's a little from this brief article - I recommend the whole thing:

"If you use the hyphenated form, you consider the words “Semitism”, “Semite”, “Semitic” as meaningful. They supposedly convey an image of a real substance, of a real group of people-the Semites, who are said to be a race. This is a misnomer: firstly, because “Semitic” or “Aryan” was originally language groups, not people; but mainly because in antisemitic parlance, “Semites” really stands for Jews, just that.... So the hyphen, or rather its omission, conveys a message; if you hyphenate your “anti-Semitism”, you attach some credence to the very foundation on which the whole thing rests. Strike out the hyphen and you will treat Antisemitism for what it really is-a generic name for modern Jew-hatred which now embraces this phenomenon as a whole, past, present and--I am afraid-future as well."

— Shmuel Almog, Professor of Modern Jewish History, Hebrew University of Jerusalem and director (1982-1995) of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism at that university
NebY (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request closure of this proposal. There is a very clear and strong consensus against the proposed move (ten against four, with one or two neutral, by my count). Over the past ten days, this has generated some 10,000 words (5000 of them from the nominator), and the longer this continues, the more editors join to oppose the proposal. I request that an admin closes the discussion now, with no move. RolandR (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is reminiscent of the hatting maneuver towards the end of the Talk:Anti-Semitism#Requested move discussion.
The current discussion may also be regarded in the context of a non neutrally described link from a non-neutral source: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Anti-Semitism or Antisemitism (hyphenated or unhyphenated). I don't object to the closure of the discussion at a time of admin's choosing. The last !vote was in favour of the move but, none-the-less, the important issue is not number of !votes or influence of groups with vested interests but the application of policy.Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all - Quality sources tend to use antisemitism, rather than anti-Semitism, because there is no such thing as Semitism and hence the hyphenated version confuses and irritates the readers. Wikipedia, too, used antisemitism from 2006 until just now, when the article was moved in a wrongly closed procedure. This closure should soon be overturned, judging by the responses to the review. Antisemitism is consistent with the other "antis" that oppose groups that aren't well-defined (misnomers). The initiator of the move did not wait and tries here to move all related articles, some of them names with the commonly used word "antisemitism" within (he later withdrew these). All renamings are with very little community support. Suggesting closure of the proposal above under WP:SNOWBALL. gidonb (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose all Quality of sources. Confusion caused by hyphen. etc. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lede[edit]

The lede contains the following passage: The 3D Test of Antisemitism rebuts arguments which claim that "Any criticism toward the State of Israel considered as antisemitic, and therefore legitimate criticism is silenced and ignored".[5] The quoted words are cited to "Kenneth L. Marcus. Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America. Cambridge University Press. pp. 60–62." I find it difficult to believe that a single sentence can cover three pages. Looking online, it seems that this book spells the word anti-semitism with a hyphen. Furthermore, the quoted sentence is ungrammatical. I can't access those three pages directly, but I find it difficult to believe that the quoted words exist in the book in this form. Use of the phrases in the sentence via the google books link for this title produces no hits. Paul B (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Essay tag and off topic content[edit]

190.19.191.116 I placed an 'essay tag' on the article, which you removed. I don't doubt that much/most/all of the content is sourced, what I doubted is that it is about the '3D test'. Whole paragraphs are about the distinction between anti-Israelism and antisemitism, with sources that do not mention the test at all, these are not presented as 'background, but rather part of the subject. To that extent the article, as written, is about ways of making that distinction, inc 3D. Possibly such an article should exist, I have no view, however it should not masquerade as being about the test. This is what is called WP:Coatrack. It is also fairly bad manners to remove a tag without discussion on talk, for that reason I intend to restore the tag until other editors have offered their opinion as to whether it is legitimate.Pincrete (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A specific example is Professor Irwin Cotler, a leading scholar of human rights, has said that "we’ve got to set up certain boundaries of where it [criticism of Israel] does cross the line, because I’m one of those who believes strongly, not only in free speech, but also in rigorous debate, and discussion, and dialectic, and the like. If you say too easily that everything is anti-Semitic, then nothing is anti-Semitic, and we no longer can make distinctions. Engage – the anti-racist campaign against antisemitism. This source does not mention the test at all. Also, the full interview is available as a source, rather than its re-posting.

It may be that the 'essay' tag is not the most appropriate, I was unsure, however chose that as the closest. Pincrete (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 3D Test of 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:

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) 22:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish settlers[edit]

I removed their mention from the article because:

  • The is a fundamental difference with Northern Cyprus in the existence of the long-established Turkish Cypriot population and the split of the island. The Turkish military is never in contact with the overwhelming majority of Greek Cypriots, unlike in Morocco and Israel.
  • The number of Turkish settlers is, in fact, debated. The source listed doesn't say how many Turkish settlers there are, nor if they outnumber the "native population". Assessments of the number of settlers is completely speculative, but never alleged to be equal or bigger than Greek Cypriots in the South.
  • It is unclear wether this text is referring to turkish cypriots or greek Cypriots as the "native population". Clarifying this aspect to it would make its argument fall apart.
  • The source listed doesn't talk about the three Ds of antisemitism, calling into question if lack of criticism of Turkey is really part of the test. Mottezen (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source explicitly, and repeatedly, refers to both Morocco and Turkey. So your first three points are not relevant. If your fourth point has any validity, you should have removed the reference entirely. Instead, you chose to retain it insofar as it referred to the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara. but simply removed the reference to the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus. So it is hard to view this as a good faith argument. Please stop edit-warring to remove any implied criticism of Turkey, and instead try to convince editors that this reference should be removed. RolandR (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RolandR: Don't assume I play defense for Turkey, I don't. Please strike out your sentence where you fail to WP:AGF, and then consider the validity of point 2 and 3. A better source is needed for this whole section indeed Mottezen (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the whole discussion on settlers from the "Main concepts" section as the sources on the 3D test don't talk about this settlers question and the sources on this controversy doesn't talk about the 3D test, let alone antisemitism. Mottezen (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

worth a page ?[edit]

This is interesting but not sure it has any encyclopedic value. In addition is there a connection between the delegitimation and double standards criteria ie several states or who-be states have their right to exist questionned eg the Basque state, Catalonia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and of course Palestine. Is there an -ism involved in each of those cases or does Israel get a different standard ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.163.59 (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous in Intention[edit]

I'm finding it difficult to tell if this is an opinion piece, or a summation of a written work. The key ideas are all allowed to go mostly unchallenged, with the only apparent faults that can be found within the pitifully small "Criticism" section essentially being that the ideas weren't expanded on enough! Which isn't criticism; it's a request for an encore.

Whilst the "Demonization" and "Double Standards" sections are at least addressed in some way (with the former arguably even capable of standing on its own), the lack of adequate pushback or elaboration on the "Delegitimization" section comes off as odd, and even biased -- which would be fine if this article were simply a factual summation of an individual's perspective; yet it includes a section devoted to opposing viewpoints. Hence the apparent ambiguity of intent -- if you intend to address such a controversial subject as Zionism, and are bold enough to include criticisms therein, you are inherently taking a stance when you give off the impression that what criticisms do exist are wholly benign, if not complimentary.

There is no mention within the section on "Delegitimization" of the sovereignty of Palestine. There is no mention within "Criticism" of the State of Palestine. In fact, the only place the State is mentioned at all is in reference to the perceived hypocrisy of the global community in not allowing Israel to occupy even more territory. The State of Israel is mentioned as being described as a "racist endeavour" and Jews as being singled out as "ineligible for the basic right for self-determination", but no mention is made as to why people might have the former opinion, or the potential hypocrisy of the latter, re. the continued occupation of the State of Palestine by the Israeli Government.

I am not writing this to take a position on the Zionist debate; I only contend that by leaving this perspective out, you are. The problem isn't with cataloguing a set of criteria, or detailing the justifications of the people who put it forward, as long as it's done in a factual, objective manner. The inclusion of a "Criticism" section transforms this article from a summary of facts to a debate of ideology, which is perfectly fine, but only as long as you adequately represent both sides.

TLDR; Clarify your intent. Either simplify this to an impartial description of a philosophy, or do your due diligence when finding perspectives to critique it. RecycledHeroin (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be a little confused; if there are problems with the original "Three D's" concept, then Wikipedia CANNOT fix these on our own initiative (though we can report on criticisms that appear in reliable sources). The "Delegitimization" prong of the fork means that some people think that each and every ethnic group from Abkhazians to Kurds to Zulus is entitled to self-determination, but for some reason make a conspicuous exception for Jews... AnonMoos (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of the three prongs of the 3D test not properly addressed individually in article.[edit]

Each of the three prongs has been criticized in some way as having been incorrectly applied or interpreted by supporters of israel with charges that they have been broadly interpreted in order to silence critics of israel and particularly prevent serious critisim of Israel by labeling of any such serious critisims as inharently antisimitic, thus leaving only mild critisms as the only form of legitimate criticisms pro-Israel advocates seemingly would allow. Rather then simply limiting the critisms of the 3D's to a seperate critism section, it would be better to follow the prefered Wikipedia method for dealing with criticisms and incorporate them into the body of the article where appropriate. In this caese we could still have a seperate section to address general criticisms about the test overall and whether it provides an generally accurate test of true antisemitism or not (though we should rename the section to something like "Other Critisms" or whatever) but we should also specifically address criticisms of how each prong is applied and interpreted by Israeli supporters within each prong's section. Let me point out some criticisms of each prong that have been addressed in other Israeli and antisemitism related article of Wikipedia that come from reliable sources that I think need to be added to this article.

  • Deligitimization - This rest a lot on what critics would argue is a faulty premise, i.e. that Israel has an objectively obvious and/or at least internationally recognized "right to exist". Here are two examples of lines of disent by Israeli critics over the "Israel has a right to exist" claim from the Wikpedia "Right to exist" article: "Critics like John V. Whitbeck have argued that Israel's insistence on a right to exist forces Palestinians to provide a moral justification for their own suffering." and "Noam Chomsky has argued that no state has the right to exist, that the concept was invented in the 1970s, and that Israel's right to exist cannot be accepted by the Palestinians.". Noam Chomsky POV presents an argument why not automatically accepting Israel's "right to exist" isn't automatically antisemitic, especially if you believe that a) Ethnicities don't automatically earn a "right to self-determination" solely by being a internationally recognized distinct ethnicity and that international law has never recognized any consistent well defined "right to self-determination" as defined by Israeli defenders, which is why Natives Americans, Basque, Northern Irish, Kurds, Aborigines, etc, etc. don't have their own completely atonomous states currently.
  • Demonization - The main critics argument here is the potential for conflation of criticisms of Israel or in some case specific Israeli governments or leaders (Past or present such as Netanyahu) with demonization of Jews as whole. Many critics of Israel believe that there has been a deliberate attempt to improperly remove the destinction between Isreal as a state and Jews as a whole, which they would liken to say a left-wing defender of a controversial civil rights activist like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson or a defenders of a controversial left-wing group/movement like Black Lives Matter accusing any right-wing critics (or even left-wing critics) of being racist merely for critising a movement/grouop comprise largely black activists as if racism is the only reason one could critisize said group/movement.
  • Double Standard - This one has been critisized on several different grounds beucase a) It assumes too often the how the critics of Israel feels about other alledged human rights absusers and dictatorships often based solely on the logically faulty assumption that silence equals endorsement of the other human rights abusing practices/governments. b) It puts an unfair onus on the critics to equally publcially critisize all or many other human rights abusing countries that very few people could comply with due to time constraints and other for other legitimnate. c) It involves a double standard by defenders of Israel itself as trhey do not seem applu this doubel standard logic in the same way to critics of other human right absuing goverments (for ample: Critics of Cuba, North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia , etc., as they never seem to be accused of a double standard when they solely or largely focus in on one countries human rights abuses amnd remain silent on other human right abusers (or worse seem to support them). d) It involves a logical fallacy where the mere act of being a hypocrite is considered to invalidate one's argument when the argument can be valid even if the critic does not practice what they preache. For examample, a smoker can argue smoking is bad for your health deapite continuing to smoke themselves. Thus as applied to israel, if a criticism of Israel is valid such as a human rights abuse allegation, it deosn't suddenly become invalid simply becuase the accuser hasn't held other countries with similar human rights abuses to the same standard. While such a "double standard" might be motivated by antisemitism, the mere existance of it isn't proof of antisemitism, especially in cases where you can't prove the Israeli critic is actiually holding the other countries in question to a different standard simply becuase they haven't stated in public an opinion on the other countries actions.
  • General critisms of the 3D test - The criticism section is a good start on why the test is potentially problematic is currently spelled out doe to the criteria have definitional problems that could lead to overly broad and inapropraite charges of antisemitism. Thus we coukd expand on thsese arguments as well as the argument in the section currently that states that the 3D's might be a starting point for a valid test for when Israeli criticism become antisemitism.
  • All of the above counterarguments from notable Israeli critics have been documented and explained in other articles on Israel, antisemitism, and in articles where Israel is a sub-topic like the "Right to Exist" article mnetioned above. So we can draw from those Wikipedia articles for sourced criticisms of these prongs to incoperate concerns and/or rebuttals to the three prongs of this test as currently defined and applied into this article.

--Notcharliechaplin (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the concepts must each first be fully explained before criticism is mentioned. I'm not exactly sure if your proposal is that each explanatory sentence should be immediately followed by a refutatory sentence, but if so, I don't think that format would be very useful. And the "right to exist" may be a very theoretical abstract metaphysical issue for you and Noam Chomsky, but it's a visceral gut life-and-death survival issue for many Israelis, given the constant barrage of wannabe-genocidal threats against Israel during the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, continuing at a lower level even today from Iran and others. AnonMoos (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delegitimization - what does international say?[edit]

The section "Delegitimization" includes this sentence which I think is misleading about what international law says or doesn't say about self-determination: "This claim allegedly discriminates against Jews by singling them out as ineligible for the basic right for self-determination as it was determined by the international law."
It reads to me like we're saying that self-determination = statehood, with borders wherever you want them. That's not what the law says, afaik. --Slackr (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only in the case of Israel (among all the states in the world) is there a widespread campaign to roll back an already-achieved self-determination and national sovereignty which has been widely-recognized internationally. Israel is just about the only country in the world which commonly receives genocidal threats ("wipe Israel off the map" etc) from the official state information organs of the governments of other countries... AnonMoos (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2022[edit]

I'm guessing you consider the refusal of the current Israeli government to accept the State of Palestine's right to exist to be a different matter 82.11.163.59 (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously consider your remarks to be quite cutting, but they're totally irrelevant to what I said: "a widespread campaign to roll back an already-achieved self-determination and national sovereignty which has been widely-recognized internationally". Which part of that did you have trouble understanding? AnonMoos (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
haha ... did'nt consider them cutting .. certainly more polite than yours ... its the "Only in the case of Israel (among all the states in the world)" that is problematic and relates to my pont .. many would consider than Palestine is another state whose existence is threatened .. largely by Israel itself (in its case it is under actual threat not verbal threats) .. sorry that you found it so upsetting that I noted that the current Israeli government denies the State of Palestine's right to exist 82.11.163.59 (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be more emotionally invested in your remarks than I am in mine (at least I can refrain from sprinkling them with melodrama-villain style "haha"s), and the simple basic fact is that you still haven't bothered to read my words: "roll back an already-achieved self-determination and national sovereignty". Or else you have a strange view of the world, if you think that a real Palestinian state has actually been implemented in actual facts (not just declared in empty rhetoric). In that case, what the heck is anybody even fighting over now?? Is the sky magenta or chartreuse in your universe? AnonMoos (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sorry the haha seems to have upset you now
so, as I said to start, you consider Israel's denial of the State of Palestine to be a different matter as you don't believe Palestine is a real state.
Many disagree with that:
Conversely John V. Whitbeck, who served as an advisor to the Palestinian negotiation team during negotiations with Israel, writes that "the State of Palestine already exists," and that when, "Judged by these customary criteria [those of the Montevideo Convention], the State of Palestine is on at least as firm a legal footing as the State of Israel." He continues: "The weak link in Palestine's claim to already exist as a state was, until recently, the fourth criterion, "effective control... Yet a Palestinian executive and legislature, democratically elected with the enthusiastic approval of the international community, now exercises 'effective control' over a portion of Palestinian territory in which the great majority of the state's population lives. It can no longer be seriously argued that Palestine's claim to exist falls at the fourth and final hurdle." 82.11.163.59 (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever -- you seem to have either great difficulty reading and understanding a newspaper-level vocabulary, or a strange view of the word in which an alternate-universe perspective and/or inflated rhetoric prevents you from grasping basic ordinary facts. You can go through all the lofty abstract rhetoric you want, and it won't change the actual reality that a proclaimed Palestinian state has always lacked many of the basic attributes of sovereignty, such as control over what comes in and out of its borders, having recognized borders in the first place(!), not being subject to external supervision, etc. Furthermore, the government of Gaza is now completely separate from the government of the West Bank, and Mahmoud Abbas is now in the seventeenth year of his 4-year term(!). And as I said before, if a real sovereign Palestinian state exists now, then what the heck are people even fighting over??? Since that's not the case, therefore all of your remarks in this section are completely irrelevant to my original comment of "05:22, 26 November 2021" above. My advice to you: Quit while you're behind (or as Wikipedia expresses it "Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass")... AnonMoos (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see you know better than international legal experts of course. No wonder you want to "declare victory and go home" 82.11.163.59 (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Friedman[edit]

In the double standards section is Friedman's point that Israel should be subjected to the same international sanctions as Syria and Iran ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.163.59 (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

singled out ?[edit]

So if "this claim allegedly discriminates against Jews by singling them out as ineligible for the basic right for self-determination" does this mean that anyone who opposes Israeli statehood but also opposes the statehood of anyone of the Kurds, the Basques, the Western Saharans, the Palestinians etc etc is not an antisemite as they are clearly not "singling out" Israel ? well as least it lets the Israeli government off the hook on that score as Israel itself denies Western Sahara right to statehood. 82.11.163.59 (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the failure to support any one particular nationalist cause which is the problem, but rather claiming that Jews are somehow inherently incapable or unworthy of self-determination and/or that any effort at self-determination by Jews is inherently ipso facto "racist". AnonMoos (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Three_Ds_of_antisemitism&oldid=1208412295"