Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Add mention of alternative uses of the word

(This was mentioned above, but may have gotten lost in the re-write of that lead paragraph):

The word "antisemitism" is, rarely, used to include bigotry against arabs and other "Semitic" peoples. This usage is discouraged, but it is made by notable people, sometimes for political purposes. Although the usage is rare quantitatively, it is significant from a political and social point of view. The importance is underscored by the huge debate over spellings antisemitism vs anti-Semitism, and the trend towards the former spelling to avoid the mis-use of the word.

But the total absence of acknowledgement of the alternative use in this article is not good. I would not suggest anything in the lead paragr, of course, but would suggest a sentence in the "Usage" section. Something like: "the word has been used on occasion to include bigotry against other Semitic-language peoples such as Arabs, but such usage is often rooted in political purposes and is discouraged by language authorities."

Primary-source examples of using the word to include Arabs include Ralph Nader, James Zogby, and Samir Hanna Kafity.

Secondary sources that discuss that usage (and generally condemn it) include: Bernard Lewis "Semites and anti-Semites" page 117; book "Aftershock: anti-zionism and anti-semitism" by David Matas p 34; and several other books.

One especially notable example of this usage was in the report of the Durban Review Conference.

I understand that this alternative usage of the word is an anathema to many, but it is a reality, and should be described in the "Usage" section. This usage is not "fringe" or screwball, instead it is a notable, albeit rare, usage that deserves to be mentioned. --Noleander (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Any comments? Here is a quote from that book by Matas:

"At the Durban NGO forum, anti-Israel advocates arranged to have inserted into the final Declaration and Program of Action the words 'anti-Arab racism is another form of antisemitism' and 'Arabs as a Semitic people have also suffered from alternative forms of antisemitism'... This attempt has nothing to do with racism against Arabs and everthying to do with undercutting a rationale for the existence of Israel."

--Noleander (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Didnt see any objections after five days, so I added that sentence. --Noleander (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be correct Noleander, regarding motives, but Zionist motives are also at work above, to try to prevent the proper and correct use of the English language and stiffle a term's correct and legitimate use. I don't mind what Jews do with their language. I do mind when they try to interfere with my language. Anti-semitism refers to Semites (Arabs and Israelis.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.169.188 (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with antizionist antisemanticist such as you is that your politics block your grasp of human language. The term's meaning is the way in which it is usually being used, and Nader is trying to make a point specifically by using it differently, thus relies on the standard meaning of the term. 134.106.41.28 (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The debate about this word antisemitism is typical of discussions that involve peoples personal understanding of language and the actual facts of language. English has many words that have changed meaning, and some words have the opposite meaning to that when the word was first used. The emotionally charged nature of the word antisemitism means it will always have competing definitions depending on a persons background, education, and beliefs. The above comments are typical;"Anti-semitism refers to Semite (Arabs and Israelis.)" What about the other groups known as Semitic? Maltese etc? To lock a words meaning into a denial of history is only one trap for this debate. We use language to clarify and to cloud facts.We talk to conceal and to reveal.Culture is like that. Good luck.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Dhimmis

part of the article where jews under islamic rule are discussed , there is a factual error regarding islamic perspective of non muslims under muslim rule.Nonmuslims were equal to muslims in every field and they were allowed to appear in court of law. and file a law suet against even the caliph, which is proven in history.They were to pay jizya only if they could ,otherwise islamic goverment was to pay for the expences for that idividual, this was called wazifa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.30.72 (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Odd sentence

Every time I look at "According to James Carroll, "Jews accounted for 10% of the total population of the Roman Empire. By that ratio, if other factors such as pogroms and conversions had not intervened, there would be 200 million Jews in the world today, instead of something like 13 million."[30][31]" it strikes me as a rather strange thing to say: very few ethnic/national groups from history are recognisable today, the world doesn't work like that, intermarriage and dilution are also factors as is the rise of nations, national identities, dilution etc. Why are there virtually no celts today? Not persecution, just conquest. Every ethnic group can point to a historical peak when it was a much higher proportion of the world population. At the time of the exodus from Egypt how did the number of Egyptians and Jews compare, and how do they compare today? Is this really anything to do with antisemitism, or persecution of Egyptions? No, surely it had far more to do with the conquest of Israel, or fall of the Egyptian empire. All in all although there is a source of sorts claiming it, it strikes me as a deeply weak and innumerate argument to the point of bringing down the credibility of the whole article. Does anyone really support it as an argument worth its weight compared to the others? --BozMo talk 16:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Oddments Überall

This is the first protected talk page I've seen in 5 years or so of editing wiki, that says something. FTR, "antisemitism" could in fact be precisely that a dislike or antipathy to semites of all varieties whether arab or jew, their underlying common belief system, culture, etc. Telling the arrogance that preempts even this commonsense linguistic truth. They are after all a common ethnic group at the level of the term with the affix "anti", common mythic ancestor ("abraham"), common actual ancestry, etc. Lycurgus (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the US?

"In the United States, in the context of the "Global War on Terrorism" there have been statements by both the Democrat Ernest Hollings and the Republican Pat Buchanan that suggest that the George W. Bush administration went to war in order to win Jewish supporters. Some note these statements echo Lindberg’s 1941 claim before the US entered World War II that a Jewish minority was pushing America into a war against its interests. During 2004, a number of prominent public figures accused Jewish members of the Bush administration of tricking America into war against Saddam Hussein to help Israel. U.S. Senator Ernest Hollings (D-South Carolina) claimed that the US action against Saddam was undertaken 'to secure Israel.' Television talk show host Pat Buchanan said a 'cabal' had managed 'to snare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests.'" Both these statements were labeled antisemitic by Dr. Rafael Medoff, director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies.[157]"

I don't see how this is antisemitic? Maybe in the opinion of Medoff it's antisemitic, but that doesn't make it so. I really don't see anything hostile or prejudice towards Jews here. It just seems like it's speculation. Maybe it's not politically correct, but to call it antisemitic seems to be pushing a POV. You could argue it either way, so I think it should be removed. ScienceApe (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There are always those eager to see antisemitism in any opposition to anything Israel wants. In some cases, so-called "anti-Zionism" or "criticism of Israel" is a tissue-thin veil for genuine antisemitism; but by no means in all. It's a question of interpretation, and I don't think the case has ever been made. Some of Buchanan's other remarks over the years are fair game, though. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

As is this one. Buchanan is skilled at using "code words"; the subtext of "cabal" is "Jewish conspiracy". Not quite so sure about the Hollings comment. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough it may not be, but there is a source claiming it as such. Maybe a "controversy" section (which i added) as to overzealous interpretations of ad hominem attacks using the term "anti semitism"(Lihaas (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Split article?

WP:Article size this article is over 130k which means its overdue for a split off. Perhaps a split by worldview along western and non-western lines. Or some other suggestions? Lihaas (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Semitic=arabs/ethiopians,etc

WP:Consensus can change if there was one.

1. the article doesn't make more than 1 paragraph to talk about the word and that too with a western perspective, which means the global tag must go on if it doesn't expand its euro-centric worldview.

2. Furthermore the link on the talk page saying why this is limited to jews cyclically links back to a section on etymelogy that is uncited.

Now i'm not precluding the fact that the predominant usage is to refer to jews, and the article would be in its right to talk about this historical, but it needs more than sub-paragraph to clarify the use (ie- more than the 1 non-western link)

Along the lines i've altered the lead a bit to reflect neutrality while still preserving the jewish-predominance of the word. Lihaas (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted these edits, all of which suffer from the etymological fallacy and ignore the history of the use of the term. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you dont revert them until consensus. You havent discussed why.

Based on seeing your edits you CLEARLY have not bothered to read the edit but resorted to blind reverting. That is VANDALISM. Now i posted reasons above, if you want to discuss them then do so. 1 link to another page (that too without proper cites and vague ones at that) without explanation doesn't no quantify as a debate or a consensus.

Lihaas (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not vandalism; it's a content dispute, which you are on both the factually incorrect side of and the incorrect side of as far Wikipedian consensus is concerned. Yes, consensus can change; and if you can develop a consensus for the definition you prefer, then it might go in; until you establish that consensus, the existing consensus stands. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The edits in question are less than helpful. IronDuke 03:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you read his edit? There was info over there that had nothing whatsoever about anything controversial. Blind reverts of anything and everything is vandalism. (some might be controversial but he removed everything

Does the "long" tag (amongst others) have any such POV controversies? You clearly have not read the edit as shown. At any rate i have EXPLICITLY shows at least 1 source that disputes your summary ascertation that " but that's incorrect; anti-semitism does and always has referred to Jews, not the more general case of "semites"." Find a non-western source for that assertion if you want to take off the globalize talk.

The onus was on me to challenge my removal. So i was WP:Bold with the change and knowing it would be controversial brought it immediately to talk and no one has been willing to discuss this controversy before reverting. The ball is not in the challenger's court. Lihaas (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I did read the edit in question -- I generally do, before commenting. And I saw nothing in your edit worth preserving. What specifically did you think should be kept? If you're referring to al manar, I don't see that as a reliable source, and it's a fringe opinion. Even if it weren't, it would belong somewhere else, since it has nothing to do with antisemitism per se, merely the term. Finally, while you were bold, you were reverted (with consensus), and now must discuss and gather a new consensus -- if you can. Calling JPGordon's perfectly legitimate edits "vandalism" is not the way to get there. IronDuke 20:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If you dont see it as reliable that is your problem. Take it to WP:RS (which there is a debate going on). allegations of it being a fringe opinion are yours. I could say your cites and fringe opinions? You want to cite a 100 sources then? It under the section to do with etymelogy, what does that mean if not the term? There wasn't a consensus because as per above we're trying to build it.

and if you did read it how come your response doesn't concern the issue i mentioned above? the LONG tag is controversial? the globalize reference i question hasn't been answered let alone per consensus.Lihaas (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The archives reveal a long-term discussion on these matters, with the consensus in favor of the description of antisemitism as applying to Jews. Changing this, while including the unsourced sentence in the lede However, the word has evolved to predominantly imply in the global media a derision for Jews, is, one presumes, unlikely to gain consensus. Per Ironduke, referring to the previous version as vandalism won't work. If this appears to be an edit war over content, and perhaps a revisiting of an old matter, page protection may be an option (already protected, he notes). JNW (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) In fact, the problem is yours. Show me why your source is reliable -- you provided it, I didn't. If you wanted to challenge other sources, you can feel free to do so here. As for consensus, you need to get it first to make your changes. You don't have any support that I can see, so you need to stop reverting (including the spelling and formatting errors you keep reinserting) until you do. The long tag looks like a windup to a useless POV fork. I see no reason for it to be here. IronDuke 21:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas, accusing me of vandalism is a personal attack, and I promise you it will not be tolerated. If you still havent read WP:VANDAL to see why content disputes are not considered vandalism, you need to. Likewise, your edits against consensus are not what we call vandalism here; however, they are verging on disruption, and no doubt an uninvolved administrator will treat your actions as such if they continue. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

JNW: consensus is not concrete. read the above. the sentence in the lead goes on the definition and the clarification already cited and accepted by others that the current definition is as such. There is also the evidence that the root word does not meet that. (see the article's etymology section. which needs to be better reflected in the lead) it was an accomodation. If you want to READ my edit/revert you will note that everything is not controversial. Take for instance the discrimination sidebar (amogst others). Are you seriously going to claim "antisemitism" does not fall under the scope of discrimination?

IronDuke, ReliableSource discussion are form the RS noticeboard not here. there's a reason for the noticeboard. Long is a POV fork? Have you read WP:Article size? Have you seen the subject created below for it? if you dont want the tag then discuss it below. Furthermore, I have never said I am against removing the controversial info until i get consensus, but did you bother to read the edit? I'm not sure because you will find the edits are not all part of "political controversy." What is wrong with the "spelling and formatting errors"? it simply shows that the reverter has not read the edit and blindly reverts it.

jpgordon, likewise blind reverts are not contructive. The edits have you reverted are not constructive because there is content that you have not bothered to discuss when you too reverted them. the long tag (a discussion is below this with no response), the discrimination side bar, etc. Continous revertal of that w/o discussion is at least disruptive if not vandalism. I have come here to discuss the issue of POV and the "long" even BEFORE the "edit war." At any rate, I was calling the edit vandalism, not the editor a vandal. that is a mega-difference because not everything out of the editor is vandalism, therefore he can't be a "vandal."

Let's please stick to CONTENT disputes as i have asked for above. yet the yall seem to want to argue about the revert and "edit wars." if we stick to content we can sort this out. It is a red herring to avoid discussing content and resort to "consensus has already been discussed. you need to gain consensus" well, it aint happening if no one discusses it. So if anyone wants to discuss content list it here and i will be more than willing (as explained in the first post) to continue that. Lihaas (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let's stick to content; when you gain consensus for the broad changes you are making in one edit, they'll stay in. If you want piece by piece discussion, make piece by piece edits. And describing someone's edits as vandalism is accusing them of vandalism, no matter how you try to parse it. What's most objectionable is your counter-historical, counter-factual insistence that the generally accepted and academically accepted definition of "antisemitism" means something other than "hatred of Jews". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

JPG I agree with you about the meaning of AS but please see WP:DRNC--BozMo talk 18:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's just one of several reasons -- "factual incorrectness" is important too. (And describing good faith edits as vandalism is fighting words.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I would add that there's a difference between making an edit without consensus and one against consensus. Jihass is clearly making the latter, in addition to highly inappropriate remarks and stonewalling. IronDuke 22:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

We are just trying to work out on Climate Change probation how to deal with bold edits which plenty of people watching an article disagree with. The discussion there has been along the lines of you cannot just say "we all agree you are wrong, bog off" you have to sigh deeply and go and find the last archived discussion on it or offer a proper explanation. This is very boring for everyone but a price we pay for being a community. --BozMo talk 08:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link to a rich vein of discussions [1]. IronDuke 02:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point is here. Both history and reliable sources indicate what antisemitism means. It was invented to mean Jew-hatred, and it's always meant that. Hatred of Arabs is Anti-Arabism, not antisemitism. Everyone has a special bigotry reserved just for them; Arabs, Poles, Turks, Estonians, Iranians, and dozens more. Why do people want to specially deprive the Jews of having their own unique "anti" sentiment? Does anyone really assert that the Nuremberg Laws were directed at the Maltese or Lebanese? Lihaas, what is the point in trying to make the article say things that are both untrue and unsupported by reliable sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

At the end of the day people are just committing the etymological fallacy, which has already been said. Do people really not get this?. --Woland (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas, your edit stated "Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is prejudice against or hostility towards Semitic peoples, often rooted in hatred of their ethnic background, culture, and/or religion. However, the word has evolved to predominantly imply in the global media a derision for Jews." This is just wrong. The word was coined to refer to Jews, and it has always overwhelmingly meant that. Yes, it we look very hard we can find isolated examples of its use to mean the same as "anti-Abrahamic", meaning opposed to monotheistic religions stemming from Judaism. There are also cases in which it is used in an extended sense to mean "anti-Semitic-peoples", which typically implies "opposed to both Jewish and Arabic identity". This is usually in the context of the "Aryan v Semitic" debate of the early 20th century. However, I've never found any example in which Ethiopians are included. In any cae, these are rare usages. The principal meaning has always been "anti-Jewish". An analgous case would be "anti-Americanism". This means "opposed to the USA", not opposed to the peoples of the Americas as a whole. It has never been used to mean that, so we couldn't change the intro of that article to say "Anti-Americanism is prejudice against or hostility towards the peoples of the Americas, often rooted in hatred of their ethnic background, culture, and/or religions. However, the word has evolved to predominantly imply in the global media a derision for the United States of America." Words mean what they are used to mean. Paul B (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ethiopian are Semitics only per language, and even there they represent distinct branch of Semitic languages. I think that Anti Semitism apply for people of the Semitic race and Ethiopian hatred, if there is such thing, doesn't count as anti Semitism in people view, but just as racism against black people. But all of this is off topic. The issue is that the term refer almost only to Jewish people hatred. It's also most commonly used, and by far, to refer to Jews' hatred. --Gilisa (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability Standards?

Why does anti-semitism get such a long and detailed article while anti-(any other race) doesn't get anything like that treatment? For example where is the anti-arab page? I realise that there's a lot that has been written on anti-semitism, but that doesn't mean it necessarily deserves a lot more "air-time" than discrimination against other races.

Note: I am NOT anti-semitic, I am just questioning over why such a long article should be devoted to this and not other races who have been persecuted and discriminated against. Anonywiki (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you actually check your facts before making the statement that are no articles on "other races who have been persecuted and discriminated against."? There are innumerable such articles, including the "anti arab page", which is exactly where you would expect it to be, at Anti-Arabism. Paul B (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, you could have just answered the question. You didn't need to be confrontational about it. It was a legitimate question, as it pertained not just to existence of other pages, but to relative sizes. I think the answer is within the question itself; i.e., there simply is a greater deal of written material and historical documentation of anti-semitism. But that doesn't make it an unreasonable question. A little patience is in order here.

Fair enough. But your question does sound politically oriented. Especially considering it being written soon after the Gaza Flotilla incident, which has triggered talk of antisemitism. Plus, the fact you chose anti-Arabism is interesting. But I digress. Whats the history of anti-Arabism? I would posit to you that it is historically less prevalent and had less impact on its targets relative to antisemitism. Most of the examples of anti-Arabism I can think of are either discrimination and negative atmosphere, in which case the comparison is best to anti-black racism, or minorities in most of the world, or intercene, such as Saddam draining the Marsh Arab homelands. For antisemitism, well, I'm sure you read the article. Plus, there exists the empowerment of people wishing to replicate some of this history. I think nowadays, in this postmodern world where all opinions hold the same value, there is the tendency to equivocate anything that seems of a similar strain if one party wishes it so. Particularly if it fits within the post-liberal, post-colonial narrative. If you happen to read this, and someone doesn't delete it first, I'd be interested to hear your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.61.135 (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The length of articles is determined entirely by the amount of effort that editors want to put into them. If you want to write an article as long as this one on anti-whateverism no one will stop you as long as the topic is notable. Even the ridiculous anti-Canadianism has been knocking around for years. Don't complain about the gaps, fill the gaps. Paul B (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 79.115.13.127, 20 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} How can I change the picture of teh yellow david star cuz thats teh star that the nazis tagged the jews and iits not nice :|

79.115.13.127 (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: Guess that's the point. Favonian (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnet

There is a similar issue at Antisemitism in Europe (Middle Ages) and a discussion in its talk page. A part of it is: "So far Jacob Barnet's article shows only the religious intolerance of the university, only allowing Christians. Compare, for example to Dreyfus affair, the only other individual event(s) linked in antisemitism, to get an idea of the different features and connotations of an antisemitism example. It is possible that the links is right to be linked here. But for that the article needs to be improved much further to show, with references, that it is in fact considered an example of antisemitism. A key to that improvement could be finding out the content and connotation of the changes in the speech of the priest presiding the baptism had to do after learning of the disappearance of Barnet. So far, the article only shows an intolerant university only accepting Christians and an upset group after being turned down. Your rationale implies then that if a similar incident happen to a Taoist then is an example of antitaoism? Well, in any case, that inclusion needs references not just an individual opinion and certainly be something explicitly stated in the article that is classified as such."

In summary, we can not call antisemitism to any regrettable incident involving a person that is considered a Jew. It needs to be supported by references and be explicitly said in the corresponding article. Abisharan (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering why you make reference to "a person that is considered a Jew." Are you considering that the person might not be a Jew? If you are suggesting that, that would be a separate and unrelated issue.

In your above quote, you are quoting yourself from the Talk page of Antisemitism in Europe (Middle Ages). At Jacob Barnet affair, which you refer to in that quote, one of the participants says: "God's just judgment upon that perverse nation and people, whom he had given up to a reprobate sense even to this very day." I find that to be an expression of a fairly antisemitic sentiment. Bus stop (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Category Antisemitism is included in the category Religious persecution. According to WP guidance the article should be put in the most specific category only, not the higher-level categories as well. That's why the article itself was put to the Category:Antisemitic attacks and incidents, and that's why it belongs to "see also" section of Antisemitism. If there are no more objections, the article will be added to "see also" section of Antisemitism in 24 hours.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Abisharan, as was well point out by the two editors commented here, you don't seem to have valid point for why not include Barnet. You removed him from the article first without consensus and without leaving any comment on the TP, although in the edit summary you refered to the TP. You reverted again, my edit this time, without having any sort of consensus, and this way going straight to edit warring. As I see it, there is majority for Barnet in this article, the arguments for his exclusion from the article seem weak and therefore I inserted him again. Don't revert unless you got consensus to revert. --Gilisa (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone find a source to say this case was AS? Without a source including it violates WP:OR but it should not be hard to find one if it is obvious --BozMo talk 10:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, look at this quote from William Twyss, who preached a sermon on Barnet's change of heart and called for "God's just judgment upon that perverse nation and people, whom he had given up to a reprobate sense even to this very day." He wasn't talking about Taoists when he said that. If that's not antisemitism, there's no such thing. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Causes: relations between Jewish sub-culture and dominant culture

The article seems incomplete: it details the fact that the Jewish people have been subject to prejudice, but fails to provide any serious rationale for this prejudice, making the reader assume it is rooted in religious dogma or even suggesting it stems from a primitive and "inherited" defect. Friction between jewish sub-cultures and dominant cultures in the Roman Empire, post-Roman Europe, and the Islamic Empires is well documented. Can the article attempt to answer what it is about the historical jewish culture that allowed such friction to grow? I say this realizing most of the editors on this page will either be jewish and have a hard time conceiving any rationale basis for the prejudice to grow or be antisemites and attempt to exploit this idea. If the editors here are willing to be objective, this might be a fruitful area. Just a note: I write this after reading Stephen Bloom's Postville: A Clash of Cultures in Heartland America. While I cannot say he was accurate in every respect, he had many insights into the issue.Tobit2 (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No. That would be original research. That's not what we do here. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that would be including existing works into the body of the article. That is what we do here.Tobit2 (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that this article should have a reasonable summary of Srtre's classic Anti-Semite and Jew. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would Bloom's recent work about a specific situation in one small town be relevant to an overview of a global prejudice with a 2,000 year history? Please also review WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Bloom was hardly limiting himself to a specific situation; rather, he was using what happened in Postville to frame a number of ideas (which is why the book was so successful). There are a number of works related to this topic - SLrubenstein pointed out Sarte's essay as another - and their inclusion would certainly help make a more complete picture. Otherwise, the article will continue to look sophomoric.Tobit2 (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I too doubt that Bloom's musings would be relevant, though I haven't read the book. Was there antisemitism in Postville? People can look at one another as being outlandish. That in itself is not necessarily an example of antisemitism or any other form of hatred that would fit into a similar category. I think the types of hatred that we are talking about are characterized by actual manifestations that matter, and are without any foundation in for instance an initiating action on the part of the group of people who are the object of the hatred in question. Bus stop (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It's still unclear to me why a journalist's musings, framed around a specific example of ethnic conflict in a small town, would rate a mention here, per WP:UNDUE. A famous philosopher's famous essay on the topic would be a separate matter. This also smacks a bit too much of victim blaming to me. Will we next be looking for why "serious rationale" for why African-Americans were enslaved, disenfranchised, discriminated against, lynched, etc.? Will a section on the Crips help explain it all? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I expected this to be difficult for you. On a side note, research on the causes of African enslavement is extensive. The African problem of tribal rivalry was at the root of the slave trade; these tribal conflicts continue to be a problem in Africa to this day.Tobit2 (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not "difficult." "This" is misguided, probably. You posited in your first post that there might be a "rationale basis for the prejudice to grow." If it were rational, would it be antisemitism? Isn't antisemitism baseless, or do you understand it otherwise? I'm willing to listen to your suggestions for material for the the article. We can discuss it. I'll tell you if I disagree with you and why. Bus stop (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Anti-semitism, like all things must begin from somewhere. It can be taught. It can be formed from experience. If it were without a cause, it would not exist. The cause may be empirical evidence or an abstraction of reality, but something must give it power, something must focus it on the jewish people.Tobit2 (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You have to bring relevant sources for any material you wish to put in this or any other article. Present the material, present the source, and then we can discuss a potential edit in a productive way. We should try to keep this discussion relevant to editing the article. Bus stop (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see response to Jpgordon, below. Thanks.Tobit2 (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You have no idea about anything regarding me; please don't refer to me again. Now, are you arguing that the cause of prejudice against African Americans in the United States is tribal rivalry in Africa? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If you do not wish me to refer to you, please do not answer me. A clarification is required as you have twisted what was said: you had previously asked "will we next be looking for a 'serious rationale' for why African-Americans were enslaved," so I provided you with an example of research on this; people do look at this issue because it is important to modern day Africa. I did not "argue [that there is a] cause for prejudice." Perhaps Sarte was correct; passion rather than reality can be the kernel of hatred.Tobit2 (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Now, what changes are you recommending for the article? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I recommend a new section be added to the article, perhaps entitled, "Causes of anti-semitism." I suggest that the section incorporate the best research available on why the jewish people have been the subject of sustained prejudice across cultures and time. Slrubenstein suggested a good start for the section by including Sarte's Anti-Semite and Jew. I do not intend to contribute to this article directly, so please take it as a suggestion for the editors.Tobit2 (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Tobit2, it's policy that you use article Talk: pages to comment on content, not on the contributor. So, if you can't manage that here, then you'll need to take your comments elsewhere. As for your "clarification", what I said was "Will we next be looking for why "serious rationale" for why African-Americans were enslaved, disenfranchised, discriminated against, lynched, etc.?" You left off the last part of the sentence, so I've highlighted it for you. Now, do you think there is a "serious rationale for this prejudice"? Can you "attempt to answer what it is about the historical African-American culture that allowed such friction to grow?" Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is getting just odd. If you need clarification, please re-read what I wrote above.Tobit2 (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

As a newcomer to the topic of antisemitism, I would also appreciate an explanation of what, exactly, the oppressors thought was bad about the Jews; i.e. how the persecutors mistakenly justified their persecution. There seems to be a great deal of detail about reasonings of ancient history and also reasonings about the post-war Israel/Palestine conflict, but very little about reasonings behind the Nazi persecution and other 19-20th century prejudices. General statements such as the Nazis believed that the Jews polluted bloodlines doesn't really tell me very much; what was it about the Jewish bloodline that they considered negative? What were the stereotypes? Also, there are vague references to some kind of 19-20th century capitalist/economic "justification"; what exactly were the claims that the persecutors made? I am a total newcomer to this topic, newly interested as I have just welcomed a Jewish brother-in-law to my family, and these are the kinds of questions that stand out but I am to embarrassed to talk to my brother-in-law about, as the topic (probably correctly) makes me look uneducated. I'm trying to educate myself, and this article leaves me wanting. Andrew Oakley (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

too long

This article is way too long. Can we heavily trim some long sections like "New Testament and antisemitism" which have their own article largely duplicating this one? --BozMo talk 12:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That section should definitely be trimmed. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Inserted material about Thessalonians 2:13-16

I've moved the following recent insertion here for further discussion:

Particularly, verse 16 implied that ''wrath'' would come upon the Jews for their alleged hinderance of preaching the Gospel. Although the verse is highly critical of the Jewish people it does not advocate Christians to retaliate with violence in any manner against Jews or Gentiles who were against the Gospel message. Theologian [[Charles C. Ryrie]], contends that this "wrath" against the Jewish people was a one time event with the Roman army's destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.<ref>Ryrie (1986, 1994), '''''Ryrie Study Bible Expanded Edition King James Version''''', pp 1813, 1814</ref> Some theologians contend that in view of the eschatological emphasis of this letter, Paul is possibly alluding to judgement coming to unbelievers during the [[Tribulation]].<ref>Ernest Best, A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. Black’s New Testament Commentaries series. 2nd ed. (London: Black, 1977), 119; Robert L. Thomas, “1 Thessalonians,” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 259-60; D. Michael Martin, 1, 2 Thessalonians. The New American Commentary series (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 95

It's not clear what this material has to do with Antisemitism, the topic of this article. While it's somewhat interesting New Testament apologia, it's unclear if the authors themselves in any way discucss antisemitism, as opposed to merely expressing their views on the "real" meaning or intent of the verses. Do they actually discuss antisemitism? I've replaced it with more appropriate material from Craig Blomberg, which had a second advantage of shortening the section too.Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 26 July 2010

Roots of Nazi Antisemitism

In the section on Christian antisemitism in the 20th century there is one tiny detail missing, that Nazi antisemitism came from existing roots of antisemitism and that this prejudice was created at least partly by Christianity. It often seems to me that modern Christianity often seems to hide from and forget/conceal the more ugly aspects of its past like its long connection with German and other antisemitism and other prejudices. Ideally this imbalance needs to be redressed a little. Lucien86 (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

When looking into the German question it is important to know that there were many German tribes during the Roman period that invaded Europe. These tribes detested Roman authority, even Church authority, and were semi-independant. The Germans accepted the Arian belief that God and Jesus were separate entities; the point being that the "traditional" German beliefs are not considered traditional "Christianity". Antisemitism can be traced to Martin Luther, another German who detested Roman authority. Luther was a Church reformer, however, his views on the Jewish people are not considered "Christian". It is important to note that just because some person is labeled a Christian reformer, it does not neccessarily imply that the person is a Christian. Christian beliefs are rooted in the Bible. Antisemitism gained popularity, in my opinion, because Luther did not denounce it. The Bible does not support antisemitism. There is only one passage in Acts where a Jewish leader is beaten by Greeks. Paul the Apostle was denied to speak by the Roman authority and escorted out of the room before the beating took place. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Furthermore, the concept of Germany as a single country or integrated federation is relatively modern; post-Napoleon 1814. The idea that anything can have a "long connection" with Germany only really holds if you consider 200 years to be "long", which is absurd. Any real or imagined connection with Christianity would certainly apply equally to all Northern European states, possibly the whole of the Roman Empire and even perhaps the whole of both Orthodox and Catholic Christendom. Such a Christian connection can't be German-specific, the logic doesn't hold. Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that at all merely pointing out that Hitlers antisemitism didn't occur in a vacuum. I'm certainly not trying to tie antisemitism to any one group, it was then (in the 1920's) common in Germany and most of Europe, Britain and the US and elsewhere. The same goes for general racism. One merely has to look at things like Pathe news, compared to today the whole world was racist, homophobic, and full of a thousand prejudices.. I'm a demon for OR but its a theory of mine that the great liberalization (like the sexual revolution or the Civil Rights movement or modern anti-racism) the world over after WWII was partly a reaction against Nazism and the Holocaust. Lucien86 (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"tragically misinterpreted" / Keith Krell

I've moved the following recent insertion here for further discussion:

tragically misinterpreted throughout history for antisemitic purposes. <ref>{{cite web |last=Krell|first=Keith|title=Tomorrow’s World (1 Thessalonians 2:13-20)|url=http://bible.org/seriespage/tomorrow%E2%80%99s-world-1-thessalonians-213-20|accessdate=07-26-2010}}</ref>The verse speaks of violence suffered at the hands of one's own countrymen, both the Gentile and Jewish Thessalonians

To begin with, the phrase "tragically misinterpreted" is obvious editorializing in Wikipedia's voice; the previous "employed" complied with WP:NPOV and WP:WTW. Next, why would Keith Krell or http://bible.org/seriespage/tomorrow%E2%80%99s-world-1-thessalonians-213-20 be considered reliable sources for this, or anything? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Keith Krell and bible.org have not been proven to be invalid sources. "Tragically misinterpreted" was Keith Krell's world view. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would Keith Krell or http://bible.org/seriespage/tomorrow%E2%80%99s-world-1-thessalonians-213-20 be considered reliable sources for this, or anything? Please explain in terms of the requirements laid out by WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you all noticed,

But someone seriously messed up this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.234.237 (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Got it thanks- Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 00:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

New Testament and Antisemitism

Perry and Sweitzer's book Antisemitism: Myth and Hate from Antiquity to the Present, according to reviewer Theodore R. Weeks, states "this book does not attempt to provide a coherent historical development of anti-Semitism from early Christianity to the present day." To claim that the four gospels in the Bible blames Jews for the death of Christ is unfounded. It indirectly assumes that Christians by their very nature are anti-semitic. This is completely contrary to the Bible and Christ's teachings. There is no concensus among Christians that Jews have been scattered around the world to be persecuted. There is no biblical passage that tells Christians to persecute Jews. If you read this article, one would assume that Christians condone the atrocities under the Nazi regime. To make an allegation that the New Testament supports the destruction of the Jewish people is dubious. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've attributed it to the authors. Do you have reliable sourcing that contradicts this specific claim? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the author attribution. I do not have any issue with the opening statement in the section as long as it is attributed to the authors. In fact the section is well written with valid sources. The book review by Theodore R. Weeks is found in The Historian, Vol. 66, 2004. I was only objecting to a blanket statement that the Gospel writers were for the destruction of Jerusalem and for the Jewish people to be scattered and persecuted throughout the world without attribution. Perry and Sweitzer's book is actually an accumlation of six essays that "cover a wide variety of anti-Semitic manifestations." I have personally read the Gospels and I can't find one instance of Jewish retaliation by Christians. There were two legal authorities in charge of Jesus's trial execution, Pilate and Herod. The Jewish authorities did not have the power to execute, only Herod and Pilate. Herod declined to make a decision and sent Jesus back to Pilate. At Jesus's trial, Pilate only consulted with the Jewish leaders. The scourging of Jesus was completely Pilate's idea. There is no reference in the Gospels that advocates any retaliation against Romans or the Jews. According to the four accepted gospels, the Romans executed Jesus, not the Jews. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And yet, the cry of "Christ killer" is still not dead today. Must be something in there that prompted it, often as church doctrine, for almost 2,000 years. I suspect "his blood be on us and on our children" had something to do with it. And it's really no use arguing here that all these Christians, for all these centuries, have misinterpreted the gospels; regardless of whether they were correct or not, that's how they interpreted it. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've moved this inserted material here for now:

Theodore R. Weeks points out in The Historian that Schweitzer and Perry "make little effort to distinguish modern political anti-Semitism from the religious prejudices of the premodern period," however, he notes the book is a good reference for non-specialists.

To begin with, per WP:WTW, Weeks doesn't "point out" these claims, he states them. More fundamentally, the material, while interesting, does not refer to the specific issues raised in this section. While it would certainly be appropriate for an article on the book itself, or perhaps even in a biography of the authors, if it discusses the book at length, it is simply a book review, and therefore has no place in this section. Please recall, we are trying to tighten this section, not lengthen it with general and broad comments about the sources. If you have material that discusses the specific issues raised, that would be much more helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not attempting to justify any antisemitism from the past by any Church or political authorities. Personally, I am disgusted and repulsed by antisemitism or any racist hatred. That statement in the Bible "his blood be on us and on our children", in my opinion, does not justify any hate crimes committed against the Jewish people. Thousands of Christians and Catholic Americans and English died in WWII to stop Hitler. Many Christians today support Israel. The Bible specifically states the Romans crucified Christ, not the Jewish people. Ignorance can only be cured with education. I believe it is important to point out how mankind has a flawed tendency to justify acts of cruelty to other people. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but whether or not the statement justifies antisemitism, that is what it was used for, and that is what this article documents. The rest is simply not relevant; we're not here to educate people on the true meaning of the New Testament, we're here to reproduce what reliable secondary sources say about antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I added an alternative view for balance by Solomon Grayzel from a reliable book source. The source is a strong reference. I do not mind Weeks being put talk section. His point that there is both political and religious antisemitism is valid, in my opinion. He was only put in the article to give more balance. I understand the need to tighten the section, however, a fair and balanced view point over rides the section length. That follows the Wiki standards for a fair and balanced point of view.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmguy777 (talk • contribs)

I've also moved the Grayzel material here:

An alternative point of view comes from Solomon Grayzel who claimed that during the first period of Christianity there was "no convincing evidence that any real antagonism existed on the part of the Christians to Jews and Judaism." Grayzel points out that Jesus and his followers had no desire to see the destruction of the Jewish people or Judaism. According to Grazel, Jesus critisized hypocracy, a burdensome legal system, and desired to cleanse the Temple not from hatred motivations, but rather "a desire to extend and deepen the ethical implications of Judaism." Many of the early Christian themselves were Jewish and attended the Temple. Paul's attitude towards Jews, while not clear, did not reveal any evidence of hostility towards the Jewish people. Although Paul deeply critized the efficacy of the Jewish law in terms of Christian salvation, he boasted of his own Jewish heritage. Paul never stated that the Jewish nation should be destroyed or that Christians should be unfriendly to Jews.

To begin with, Grayzel is very old material - it's from 1942, almost 70 years old, and does not represent modern scholarship on the subject. In addition, the material itself is not relevant to the topic of the section, which is Antisemitism in the New Testament. Rather, as is obvious, this is Grayzel's view of the relationship between the Jesus and his first followers, or the very, very early church, and the Jewish groups of that time. The authors of the gospels in particular wrote their material two to three generations after this period.

More troubling, in general, is your statement that you are editing the section there merely to present "a fair and balanced view point". However, your edits and Talk: page comments have made it clear that your intent, and edits, have been solely for the purpose of exonerating the Christian church and its holy books of the charge of antisemitism, and correcting misunderstandings of Christian teachings/the New Testament. We are not here to be advocates for any particular position; rather, we need to read what reliable sources say on a particular issue, and reproduce those views. Please stop looking for material solely for the purpose of defending Christianity or educating people about what the New Testament really means. Instead, please look for reliable material that discusses the charge of antisemitism made against the New Testament in particular (in this section), and present what it says. The material, as it stands, indicates the charges that have been made, in a neutral way. These charges are in no way exceptional, or unusual, since Christian leaders and laypeople have used these documents in exactly this way for almost 2,000 years. Even if you want to explain that "they misinterpreted things, it was all a big mistake", that is still what they did, and you are not the church's defense lawyer here. Please re-consider your editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg could you correct the antepenultimate sentence which must have a missing word or something. In general we have to be careful to distinguish between elements within the Christian Church and the totality of it. Also, plenty of AS within the Church was based on the OT Prophets etc and we need to remember those "holy books" include ones which I guess you would not regard as per sae AS? --BozMo talk 09:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not pretending to be the Church's "defense lawyer". I am not disputing that there is a relationship with the New Testament and antisemitism. I put in a reference with a valid source, standard Wikipedia editing. This section contends that the New Testament is in itself antisemitic. In my opinion that is not a neutral point of view. I was only going by the criteria of Wikipedia for good article:

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Cmguy777 (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Cmguy777, your comment doesn't in any way address the specific issues I've raised with the material, so I can't see how it's relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"This section contends that the New Testament is in itself antisemitic" where? I don't see this (which won't be consistent with the main article on the subject). AFAIK the OT makes far more negative and hateful comments about the people of Israel, most of them attributed directly to YHWH (and of course with context which rather affects the meaning). --BozMo talk 16:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This blanket statement, "The authors of the gospel accounts placed responsibility for the Crucifixion of Jesus and his death on Jews, rather than the Roman emperor or Pontius Pilate," only offers one viewpoint. There is no counter viewpoint mentioned. I Thessalonians 2:14-16 is justifiably mentioned as antisemitic with a counter viewpoint from Blomberg. This is good. The Blomberg comment offers neutrality. However, I Thessalonians 2:14-16 is not the entire New Testament. I had put in the Solomon Grayzel statement for neutrality that stated Jesus's critisisms came not from hatred, rather "a desire to extend and deepen the ethical implications of Judaism." This statement was taken from the article. You mentioned, "In general we have to be careful to distinguish between elements within the Christian Church and the totality of it." I agree. There is neutrality in part of the section, the Blomberg reference, however, the section is not completely neutral, in my opinion. I apoligize if the above statement implied that the whole section was not neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is clear POV in "The authors of the gospel accounts placed responsibility for the Crucifixion of Jesus and his death on Jews, rather than the Roman emperor or Pontius Pilate," . But the whole section isn't that bad now (Jayjg improved it a lot). Your argument (paraphrased) that those who regard the New Testament as the ultimate authority on morality will consider AS as morally right if they believe the New Testament teaches AS is chilling but I think true. I recently found online that these viewpoints are not extinct. It is in fact a strong argument for ensuring we are particularly careful to stick to WP policy here and don't give POVs or judgements on what the NT says unless categorically supported by a consensus of reliable sources. --BozMo talk 17:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

BozMo, that POV is clearly attributed to the people who make the charge. Frankly, it wouldn't be hard to find other reliable sources making the identical charge, but there's no particular need. Cmguy777, you haven't addressed a single one of the issues raised with the material, which had to do with the age, non-specificity and relevance of the source. Your role here isn't to defend Jesus, or the New Testament, it's to find relevant secondary sources on antisemitism - and in this case, on antisemitism and the New Testament. The material you brought failed that requirement. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg it would not be hard to find reliable sources which BOTH make and refute the claim that claim, I am afraid. That is what makes it a POV. Sure, most of the refuters would be contemporary Christian Bible scholars, but my guess without reaching for the bookcase is just as valid sources as the ones you can produce. As OR I think the question would be the critical meaning of Pontius Pilate washing his hands. Does the scholar allow this as innocent or condemn it as weak guilt? Off my bookcase my first heavyweight Victorian exegetical commentary on John (published 1900) is by the rather well known Marcus Dods (theologian), Professor of Exegetical Theology, University of Edinburgh, Vol2 pp 299-321 (Chapter on "before Pilate")..."Could (Pilate) persuade himself that the mere words "I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man.." altered his relation to the death of Christ. No doubt he did... (but) ... Nothing could save Pilate from the responsibility attaching to his connection with Jesus " etc. I could find another ten textual commentaries from reliable sources on different gospels given a day. They are, I grant you from a POV, just not the same one as the sentence offered. Implying ALL of the gospel authors attribute NO blame to Pilate per this statement is a pretty bold claim; even in the middle ages I think people blamed Pilate's role for the fall of the Roman Empire (ho ho). --BozMo talk 19:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the most reliable sources tend to show both sides of an argument. Also, please keep in mind that this article (and the section in it) are not about New Testament exegesis, but are about antisemitism. Thus, all sources used would have to specifically discuss the New Testament in the context of antisemitism, explicitly stating whether it was, or wasn't, or might be, or might be considered to be antisemitic. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Then you need to take out general statements on interpretation such as this one and stick to statements on AS. There is not both sides in the categorical "rather than" since it falsely implies exonerating Pilate. --BozMo talk 21:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a slow connection and am off for the night. Placing guilt "More on the jews than on PP" would be acceptable but whether you mean to or not you current statement is exactly a piece of exegesis. It is claiming categorically guilt on a rather than b and that is not acceptable as NPOV. --BozMo talk 21:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

BozMo, the material that's in there now is from sources that explicitly discuss NT verses in the context of antisemitism. They're not just general exegesis. What we're avoiding here is WP:SYNTH, and so far have been successful at it, I think. If you can find any material in the section that doesn't discuss NT verses (or the NT) in the context of antisemitism, please point it out. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have told you that the problematic statement is "The authors of the gospel accounts placed responsibility for the Crucifixion of Jesus and his death on Jews, rather than the Roman emperor or Pontius Pilate,". This is not a statement about antisemitism but an interpretative statement about the New Testament authors. It is also wrong; sure the New Testament places plenty and most of the blame on Jews, more than on the Romans, everyone agrees on that, but not to the exclusion of blaming others as well per numerous very reliable sources (including even blaming God as in "thy will be done" although perhaps God is Jewish). You cannot limit sources on interpretative statements as categorical as this to discussions of AS. Besides which you have not produced a source for this level of precision. I have looked around and cannot see a definitive "100% on Jews" statement. Are you sure you are representing your (ungiven) sources accurately?--BozMo talk 09:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's from a book on antisemitism, of course it's relevant to the topic of antisemitism! Somehow the qualifying material was lost, my error, I've restored it. What do you think the source is saying? Jayjg ^(talk) 12:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, not for others. Personally I believe that AS or racial hatred is immoral. AS is active today, I am in total agreement, and in my opinion should be suppressed with education and laws protecting a persons faith and race. I can not speak for those who believe the New Testament as the ultimate authority. My own POV is that the Bible has unjustly been used to justify AS. I can attempt to find a source to balance the opening sentence that is both accepted by yourself and Jayjg. Yes. Jayjg has fastly improved the section. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no. Stop looking for material to defend the New Testament. Look for material that discusses antisemitism and the New Testament, and see what it says. You're not here to write apologia. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that these claims about the meaning of gospel writers are not just limited to AS as a topic, they fall in a huge field of Biblical exegesis. You can call the NT AS on AS sources but you cannot say the gospels e.g meant xyz or exonerated Pontius Pilate on AS sources. You must be able to see that --BozMo talk 21:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, but this isn't an article about NT exegesis, it's an article about antisemitism. So, we can't synthesize material in order to present some sort of defense/apologia for various NT passages. Instead, we must restrict ourselves solely to sources that discuss NT passages in the context of antisemitism, and explain what they say. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Per above, your source please for this ver categorical claim. I do not think that anyone else is in danger of breaking WP:SYNTH here by the way, except you. --BozMo talk 06:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You say you've read the pages in question; how would you word what they say? Jayjg ^(talk) 12:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have found a source by Tania Oldenhage that discusses antisemitism. The book is titled: Parables for Our Time: Rereading New Testament Scholarship after the Holocaust, published in 2002. Is this an acceptable source?

Here is a sample paragraph:

Rosemary R. Ruether cites the parable of the wicked husbandman (Mark 12:1-11) as an example of anti-Jewish writing that depicts the Jewish people as unrepentant and unbelieving murderers of Christ. Aaron Milavec's argues that the passage rather then authenticating “Jewish guilt” challenges the reader to tear “away those religious assurances which shield one from the terrible judgment of the living God.” According to Tania Oldenhage, Milavec's view point is that Mark's original intent in the passage was not anti-Jewish but rather “decidedly favorable to Judaism.” Cmguy777 (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The source is fine, but the paragraph displays more of the problem. This article nowhere mentions Mark 12:1-11, so why have you decided to bring it up? Your paragraph nowhere explains why Ruether thinks this is an example of anti-Jewish writing. Nor does it explain Oldenhage's lengthy dissection of Milavec's defense of the passage (Oldenhage disagees with Milavec's views). Rather, it focuses on Milavec's arguments, and Oldenhage's explanation of his arguments. In other words, the entire passage is brought as a kind of straw man, a platform that allows you to present Milavec's defense of Mark 12:1-11, rather than actually explaining why people think it's antisemitic, or how it has been used for purposes of antisemitism. Again, you're not supposed to be acting as the Church's defense attorney here. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, I am not the churches "defense attorney". I have only attempted to give a balanced point of view. In the section, there is no mention of an actual link between the New Testament and an actual act of antisemitism. I do not want any edit wars. You can do what you want with the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"A person who practices antisemitism is called an 'antisemite'."

Normally I would just make the change I'm thinking of, but this is a pretty controversial article, so I felt the need to check it out here. The above sentence is in the lede. It treats antisemitism as something that an antisemite practices, whereas I think most people would say it is something that an antisemite professes or believes: practices such as discrimination or hate crimes are expressions of antisemitism, but antisemitism can exist as a belief without those overt practices.

It seems to me that prejudice is an attitude, not a behavior. Prejudice is thus distinct from discrimination, which is an overt behavior in society. A person can be prejudiced even if they do not do anything about it: for instance if they are deterred from acting on their prejudice because they fear social disapproval.

Thoughts? Is antisemitism a practice, or a professed belief? --FOo (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it takes both forms, mostly I think it just keeps looming in antisemite minds and they just try to stay away from/be unfriendly/ avoid doing any business with/ or neglect to extend general favors that they would otherwise extend to anyone else (without any other particular reason or they may even feel inspired to invent a reason for such behaviour). How do you think it could be useful in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Civilizededucation (talk • contribs) 03:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

How do RS define it?Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Buchenwald Corpse Picture

I don't think this picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Buchenwald_Corpses_60623.jpg) has a place in the Antisemitism article. Are these corpses specifically Jewish? There are no indications in the caption (simply "wagon loaded with corpses") or on the website it was retrieved from (http://resources.ushmm.org/inquery/uia_doc.php/photos/13855) that they are Jewish. Yes, it is from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website, however according to the Buchenwald concentration camp article on wiki, this camp housed not only Jews, but also "non-Jewish Poles and Slovenes, religious and political prisoners, Roma and Sinti, Jehovah's Witnesses, criminals, homosexuals, and prisoners of war" So, there is no way to correctly assume that these are exclusively Jewish corpses, and thus I feel this picture does not belong in this article, for it misinforms the reader that these corpses are Jewish. If there is a request to replace this picture with another portraying Antisemitism in the scope of World War II, perhaps there should be a depiction of the yellow badges enforced on Jews by the Nazi's, or something that can be distinctly identified as Anti-semitic. Paulm27 (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean but the caption isn't claiming to know which Holocaust victims are pictured and having an anti-Semitism article without Holocaust pictures would be a disservice to readers. Sol Goldstone (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it Neccesary to Place a Lock on the Article?

Recent edits would seem to suggest some basis for locking this page. Apologies if I misunderstand the locking policy, but there has been recent vandalism to this page. Thank you.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as these things go, it's not all that bad, no more than one or two vandal edits a day, reverted within minutes if not seconds. Usually protection and semi-protection happen when there's either a furious edit war going on or massive vandalism, dozens of edits a day happening so fast the legit editors can't keep up. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"In 1873 German journalist Wilhelm Marr published a pamphlet "The Victory of the Jewish Spirit over the Germanic Spirit" The date is inaccurate. It was 1879 when this pamphlet was issued.--Shitikov (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was earlier; it had been through multiple printings by 1879. He founded the Antisemitic League in 1879. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I personally think its good to place a lock on this article, its much saver against vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Essentialmovement (talk • contribs) 14:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to Pare and Re-Structure

This article is very long, and many of the sections are parallelled by articles that address the specific issues directly. It seems to me that this is far from optimal, and that the article should be radically streamlined (with due care, of course.)

With so many fully-fledged articles on the finer details and events of antisemitism, this article should really operate as a solid summary, and as a kind of table of contents to the detailed articles.

If not, it becomes very difficult to edit. For instance, I might think "what about event X, or phenomenon Y - that should definitely be mentioned here," yet, it may well be mentioned somewhere in the article, and become lost. Or worse, a detail may be sprinkled across various sections; making it difficult to determine its status within the article, and deflecting prospective improvements.

The effect of this, is that the article loses efficiency, and some elements become effectively censored via crowding. /You, Me and Everyone Else (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, nothing in this article has been "effectively censored via crowding". It appears to give reasonable weight to the various issues. Please keep in mind that your own interest in the topic may give WP:UNDUE weight to less important issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. See below. > < You, Me and Everyone Else (talk) 08:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Transferrals and re-sizing

The most obvious problem with this article is the extensive and unnecessary detail. The numerous histories, and religious intrigues will be better placed in their own articles, rather than potentially confounding and distorting the integrity of this article.

Please present any suggestions or objections in the coming days, as it is my intention to transfer perhaps 90% of the history and intrigue elements away to existing or new articles, and to begin to wrangle this unwieldy beast of an article. You, Me and Everyone Else (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I see little "extensive and unnecessary detail" - can you be more specific? Please do not make major changes to an important, sensitive and relatively stable article such as this without first describing them here, and second gaining consensus for them. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahuh! I'm glad I attracted someone's attention. Apologies if my etiquette is not completely calibrated yet, as I'm new editing here. I am happy to describe any such changes here first, as well as gain consensus: there would be little point in crafting material only to have it reversed; and if I wanted to expound my own biases I'd start a blog. I was initially prompted to mention this when the Wiki console warned me that the page was four times larger than the 32kb that will compromise some browsers.

Anyway, I was referring, for instance, to the presence of Antisemitism > History > # 4.5 Nineteenth century in addition to Antisemitism > Christianity and antisemitism > # 5.4 19th and 20th century which not only overlap with one another, they also have representation in two additional articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Judaism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Catholicism_and_Judaism.

Now I'm not saying that this material is not important, rather that there is no need for the detail in this article to approach the scale of the detail found in the related articles. Also the fact that two sections are entitled with the Nineteenth Century (partially or fully) suggests that the article's structure could be improved. I just think that an article that was briefer would be more likely to be read and understood, and that those seeking further detail could find it via the very same related links I've mentioned above. I'm not proposing to remove anything that wouldn't be present in (or be able to be incorporated into) the related articles. Look, if people think it's unnecessary then I'll accept that and direct my energies elsewhere. > < You, Me and Everyone Else (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure it could be tightened or summarize better. The 19th century was a very important time in the history of antisemitism, it was the era in which Racial antisemitism became a major force, which in turn culminated in the Holocaust of the 20th century. It also led to the Dreyfuss case, which had a huge impact on Herzl, and everything that arose from that. The interaction of nationalism, and antisemitism in Russia, are also extremely important. It can't just be glossed over, at any rate. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Israel and antisemitism

Despite many involved sections, this article currently lacks what is probably the most currently relevant area for clarity, and that is the relationship between the specific state of Israel and antisemitism. It seems to me that a single point of focus upon this is vitally important to this topic. It is a highly politicised topic, in which there are legitimate concerns and subtle dynamics; it is also a topic (like anything politicised) that is subject not only to confusion, but also to disinformation. For this reason I would invite contributions to this, as well as ask that the section is able to be maintained as its own section. To fragment relevant content would only foster disinformation or otherwise result in a failure of this article. You, Me and Everyone Else (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Your changes unbalanced the article because Antisemitism is about far more than Israel. Also, the EUMC definition of antisemitism is not simply about Israel, and pretending it is "would only foster disinformation or otherwise result in a failure of this article."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No need to be rude. I think you've misunderstood me - I am making the point that antisemitism is about more than Israel. And that its relationship wth Israel requires specific and clear attention. I am motivated here exactly because criticism of Israel and antisemitism are two distinct phenomena - potentially related, though, certainly not the same. This is crucial to this article, and ought not be obfuscated (not least because confounding Israel with being Jewish is itself antisemitic by virtue of trivialising those who have actually experienced prejudice.)

Regarding the EUMC content - I didn't write it, and it isn't only about Israel, however, its contribution to this article is mainly concerned with when antisemitism has or hasn't got bearing upon criticisms of Israel. Parts of it could be moved or reworked accordingly.

You, Me and Everyone Else (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

yawning at antisemitism

The facts of Gottlob Frege's antisemitism that provoked an expression of shock and indignation on the part of the Frege scholar Michael Dummett, also provoked a yawn on the part of a wikieditor who has persistenly blocked attempts to restore the Dummett quote he deleted, see talk: Gottlob Frege. Yesterday the editor in question compared Frege to Shakespeare. Tkuvho (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the (wiki) background at all, but I am not sure you are representing the "yawn" comment fairly. Antisemitism was in fact so widespread in Germany at the time that you can find relatively clear examples even in the writings of Kurt Tucholsky. Hans Adler 13:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Also the editor who "compared Frege to Shakespeare" was making an analogy with what would be included in the Shakespeare article. Obviously Frege's politial views should be included in what is a biographical article, but they are not what makes him notable, so adding editorialising opinions about them could be considered undue weight. Paul B (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Frege's notability is an issue here, he is certainly a notable academic. Dummett's remarks about him reflect the sentiment of a number of intellectuals, and are therefore notable in their own right. Tkuvho (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't actually find it very interesting at all that Dummett was surprised/shocked to read of Frege's hard-line politics. However, I guess it's because it seems almost arbitrary, as Frege's thought is so abstract that we can't link it to "real world" views directly. This is unlike Heidegger, whose preoccupations with being and embeddedness can easily be linked to "blood and soil" ideology. Paul B (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't find Shakespeare's antisemitism interesting either, but our article on The Merchant of Venice contains at least 5 footnotes citing scholarly work that deals with the issue. The question is not so much whether an individual wikieditor is or is not interested, but rather whether the issue is notable, for instance reflected in secondary literature. Tkuvho (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

A 19th century German intellectual was antisemitic? Wow. We should make a list of all the ones deemed so and insert in the article. It couldn't be very long (we can discuss later if similar lists should be made for the 20th century and the 18th century and so on).Bali ultimate (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The comparison to the Merchant of Venice is absurd. That is a play about Jews and Christians. Antisemitism is central to the topic. However it tells us nothing about "Shakespeares antisemitism" since the play is about characters expressing views, and also about dramatic sterotypes of the day. Shakespeare's personal opinions cannot be gleaned from it and do not get a mention in the William Shakespeare article. In this case the situation is reversed. Frege's work has no discernable connection to his political opinions. The opinions are, in this sense "private". That someone doesn't like them (surprise surprise) is no more interesting than someone being surprised to discover he regularly visited a dominatrix, or was a heavy drinker, or anything else about his personal life that one might disapprove of (obviously I just made those up). Paul B (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You are within your rights to think that Frege's antisemitism is uninteresting, but you are not a Frege scholar. Dummett is a Frege scholar, and he thought this is a fact of great significance that deserves mention in Dummett's writing. Now as you seem to be puzzled by what the relevance of such a fact may be, consider the fact that Frege was a first-rate logician. Logic? Dummett appears troubled by the idea that his great hero, a great logician, would have certain views that Dummett spent his life fighting. The significance of this is that it is reflected in secondary literature and therefore notable by our standards. Tkuvho (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Look, this is not what this talk page is for. Go work it out on the Frege talk page or find a relevant noticeboard. However, for clarity's sake, I'll point out that the article in question contains ample material on Frege's antisemitism and his admiration for Hitler and Ludendorff, just not the Dummett quote. Whether that material is suitable for inclusion is a content dispute better resolved elsewhere. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, you are right. Tkuvho (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The ancient world section is worthless

Antagonism regarding political and economic matters and even intra-Jewish conflicts can be considered anti-semitism apparently! The section then closes with a big "well, you know, there could have been 100 million Jews today if things went in another way". Yeah, and perhaps 700 million Romans too, someone add it to the Roman Empire article. 87.202.8.90 (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree that section is problematic. For a start the 10% statistic, if true, refers to the proportion at the end of what we call the ancient world. The "other factors such as pogroms and conversions" that intervened occurred in the medieval and modern periods, so it's doubtful if this really belongs in the section without further clarification. As for the claim that "Examples of antipathy to Jews and Judaism during ancient times are abundant", well yes, but examples of antipathy to Celts and Germans and Egyptians and pretty much any ethnicity are also abundant, so it doesn't necessarily mean much. According to the article on Elephanitine the Jewish presence was part of a military stronghold, and its temple associated with polytheism. How true this is, I don't know, but it's hardly surprising that it ended up destroyed, since the place was a war zone. That does not necessarily tell us anything about antisemitism. We'd need more detail. Paul B (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Antisemitism is hatred of semites not jews

Semitic Languages and Semitic peoples include Egyptian, Berber, Cushitic, Omotic, Chadic, Hausa. These languages and peoples, Semitic and Semites, come from Africa (and not from Europe). Empires of The Word by Nicholas Ostler(Oxford and MIT PhD), Pages 35 to 37, 2005 HarperCollins

How has this error been introduced to wikipedia? 130.56.90.123 (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's the exact opposite of what you say. Please review the article for more details. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The ancient world section is worthless

Antagonism regarding political and economic matters and even intra-Jewish conflicts can be considered anti-semitism apparently! The section then closes with a big "well, you know, there could have been 100 million Jews today if things went in another way". Yeah, and perhaps 700 million Romans too, someone add it to the Roman Empire article. 87.202.8.90 (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree that section is problematic. For a start the 10% statistic, if true, refers to the proportion at the end of what we call the ancient world. The "other factors such as pogroms and conversions" that intervened occurred in the medieval and modern periods, so it's doubtful if this really belongs in the section without further clarification. As for the claim that "Examples of antipathy to Jews and Judaism during ancient times are abundant", well yes, but examples of antipathy to Celts and Germans and Egyptians and pretty much any ethnicity are also abundant, so it doesn't necessarily mean much. According to the article on Elephanitine the Jewish presence was part of a military stronghold, and its temple associated with polytheism. How true this is, I don't know, but it's hardly surprising that it ended up destroyed, since the place was a war zone. That does not necessarily tell us anything about antisemitism. We'd need more detail. Paul B (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Antisemitism is hatred of semites not jews

Semitic Languages and Semitic peoples include Egyptian, Berber, Cushitic, Omotic, Chadic, Hausa. These languages and peoples, Semitic and Semites, come from Africa (and not from Europe). Empires of The Word by Nicholas Ostler(Oxford and MIT PhD), Pages 35 to 37, 2005 HarperCollins

How has this error been introduced to wikipedia? 130.56.90.123 (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's the exact opposite of what you say. Please review the article for more details. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of textbook material

Connor's most recent edits removed material labeled as redundant. I'm a bit confused by this because it completely removes the content about antisemitism in textbooks. Should this content be restored? JoshuaZ (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(Refers to this edit; Freedom House source) Yes, it could probably go to the Middle East section, which already has a bit on that. It was previously in the Islam section, which may be problematic. It'll need rewriting though, because it contained copy and paste without making this clear with quotation marks (quite a bit of the stuff I removed had close paraphrasing and such). I think the Christianity and Islam sections have too much detail, and there's little material on say antisemitic canards and organisations working against antisemitism. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Antisemitism?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Semitic Languages and Semitic peoples include Egyptian, Berber, Cushitic, Omotic, Chadic, Hausa. These languages and peoples, Semitic and Semites, come from Africa (and not from Europe). Empires of The Word by Nicholas Ostler(Oxford and MIT PhD), Pages 35 to 37, 2005 HarperCollins

the definition of the word is anti meaning against, semites mean of language of ancient middle eastern origin doesnt this include arabs? and arab speaking people? just wondering cause im pretty sure, we cant associate this just to one set of people if semites themselves are not only jewish and the article itself is only reference to jewish hatred and no other set of people

Furthermore The word semite, is old and while antisemitism, in its use when it became common language was specifically for jews in its time, the word itself does not mean against jews so its still incorrect, or it would be antijudah, or something along those lines. i get that horrible things happened, under the banner of antisemitism, though i dont think that was the word used in any of the attrocities it is the word used after the fact to describe it.

you could consider the crusades antisemitic cause of the attacks on arabs, to take back jerusalem. im sorry, but to take exclusivity of semite to one people is rediculous. the only way this works is if the definition of semite is changed in the dictionary.

Fortybam (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This is covered in the article; see also etymological fallacy. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Further more the article uses someone elses writing to define the word rather then its true etymology which is how words are defined show me another word in the english language that is as such and i will shut up and delete my words. Fortybam (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Fortybam, you are on the border of trolling. Read etymological fallacy. Read the sources provided in the footnote. --Richard S (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

How about "minion" and "gunsel"? Again: you're committing the etymological fallacy; drop the stick and back slowly away from the deceased equine.

you cant define words, by interpretting someones writing, that is used only for words when reading personally. it cant be used to reference or for research means, unless you are a linguist, figuring out ancient languages, but then you would show 100s of expamples of how your word works in other writing. not to mention they are using hate groups writings as references! my god, when i research african americans i dont ask the kkk about them, im not trolling and im not trying to beat a dead horse, and i dont read your links to gay wikipedia elitest shit deadhorse, trolling, i know what it is, i did read fallacy and its cited expamples and your examples arent words that have specific roots to define it anti- against or opposite and semite is middle eastern origin ancient language, i know you think that this article defines why but it doesnt it tells me that hate groups used the word wrong. i guess if you allow people to use stories in newspapers and other things that have not followable chain of research, its pretty easy to skew things.

Fortybam (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

fuck it, delete this if you want i dont hate israel, i hate this word, and its bad usage constantly, by everyone. Fortybam (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your complaint. The actual sense of "antisemitic" is narrower than just being against Semites. Taking you seriously, and assuming that you mean "define" as what it should mean according to its etymology, there is no contradiction because "defining" something just limits what it can mean. The English language is full of words that don't mean precisely what their etymology suggests, and has always been. A "window" is not an eye for the wind to pass through, and even the times when this came reasonably close to a sensible description (when they were much smaller and didn't contain glass) are long gone by. Why don't you hate the word "window"? Doing so is much cooler than hating the word "antisemitism", and is less likely to make others suspect you are a racist. Hans Adler 18:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass.

Words mean what people use them to mean. Thus, the definition of a word can change over time. Many of them have changed over the course of decades and centuries.

However, this is not the case here. This word was constructed for a specific meaning. It is possible that people around the world could accept Fortybam's meaning of "antisemitism" and use it to mean hatred of Jews and Arabs alike. But they haven't done so and are not likely to do so anytime in the near future (i.e. I don't see any evidence of a significant movement in that direction). Thus, we can argue endlessly about what "antisemitism" should mean based on its roots. However, no amount of arguing here will change the fact that it is not used in that way in the real world.

Time to stop beating the dead horse and move on.

--Richard S (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

you cant make it make sense semite does not mean jew exclusively, therefore antisemitism cant mean hatred of jews. sure im beating a dead horse. but its like me saying antiamerican means i hate people from california. then because of misuse it becomes accepted, even though the word doesnt mean what its being defined as. if you want wikipedia to become respected things like this should say semites refers to all old language middle easter cultures however, the word in usage has lately refered to hatred of jews, and not make it a 5 page article about hating jews, so much so that it sounds harpy. and the examples you "researchers", though publishing in wikipedia might one day count as research it doesnt today, you need to find examples of ANTI-(variable) words that are similar to this to prove your point. This is a massive point of contention more then one person brings it up, alot of people think it, just the common usage is wrong.Fortybam (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Common usage may be wrong. However, common usage dictates the dictionary definition. If you can find evidence that the word "anti-semitism" has been used in reliable sources to mean what you think it should mean, then present those. Otherwise, go out into "the real world" and change how people use the word and eventually that usage will be reflected in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Peace. There are other things to do here and in the real world than repeat the same arguments over and over. --Richard S (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If the fact that she either did not read the article, or did not comprehend it, is not enough, surely once she said "fuck it" we can dismiss Fortybam as the POV-pushing troll that she is. Can we close this pointless discussion, rather than rehash a topic that has already been covered ad nauseum? Remember, this page is only for talk about how to improve the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Semitic Languages and Semitic peoples include Egyptian, Berber, Cushitic, Omotic, Chadic, Hausa. These languages and peoples, Semitic and Semites, come from Africa (and not from Europe). Empires of The Word by Nicholas Ostler(Oxford and MIT PhD), Pages 35 to 37, 2005 HarperCollins

This is not about jews and Arabs, this is about the meaning of the term "Semite". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.240.164 (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2010

No, it's about the meaning of the word "antisemitism". Your change has been reverted. Stop disrupting the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

While your edits might be relevant at Semitic, they're not applicable here. Please read this article's text, and review WP:NOR and WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We will file antisemitism under the golden rule then, as it seems those who have to gold define the word. rediculous, that this even needs to be discussed. semitism has now been changed in the dictionary to mean jewish and pertaining to jews as to make this definition work. also do you think this is even more so the fact because the nazis had an alliance with the arabs and bath party of the arab nations at the time, i dont need to cite sources, its a fact google image, nazi arab alliance youll see hitler hanging out with young arabs. so semite became jewish or pertaining to jew as of 1933~8. Also i am putting this in this area because the article would need improving, crusades as i stated before are antisemitic behavoir. apparently there is no history before the great depression. Fortybam (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually you do need to cite sources; see WP:V. It would also help if you read the article. Now, to whom were you referring when you said those who have gold define the word? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni#Ties_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II , the rich have the gold, they define the history you read. that is until the internet gave rise to sharing of information, and easier ways to disclose forbidden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.36.86 (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but who are "the rich", and what does that link have to do with the origin and meaning of the term "antisemitism"? Again, please actually read the article, which does explain the origin of the word. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Instead of beating the dead horse, one might as well start making it creative picking on the seahorse. go there. start a trollish discussion on why it's not really a horse... Ka-ching. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. And after that, he can start a discussion at Talk:Kindergarten about why a kindergarten really isn't a garden. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

kindergarTen, i cant emphasize the T anymore in text. not a d, and that word makes sense based on germanic roots of english language. Further more, the crusades in the article in 1096 werent persecuting jews, the crusades of 1096 was catholics vs sarasons (spelling?), or arabs, both fighting for the holy land. the word, means more then persecution of jews. im ok, with a section of the article saying, since nazi germany it has refered to persecution of jews, but before then it was something different. what i am saying is, because of what happened in ww2 the jewish community thinks they have exclusive use of antisemitic. they do not, infact the war in the middle east right now could be called antisemitic. think beyond the holocaust and ww2 then we will talk. once you can get past that small blip on the world history you will see where this word has gone ary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.133.71.245 (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You're just wrong, though. The term "antisemitism" was invented by a Jew-hater, long before WWII, for the purpose of describing his Jew-hatred, and has meant Jew-hatred almost exclusively ever since it was coined. Feel free to use it however you want, but our personal preferences or beliefs are irrelevant to Wikipedia. You should at least read the article before commenting on it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Criticism of Judaism

This absolutely belongs in the lead rather than the bottom of the article. People could easily be confused about what the difference is between the two. Note a link to this article is in the lead of that one for the same reason, not put there by me. 76.65.33.149 (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It does not belong in the lede. Placing the link and the related text in the lede is a violation of WP:LEDE, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. The lede is intended to summarize the text of the remainder of the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned above NPOV - I thought the reason was obvious, but to clarify: repeatedly using the description "For valid criticisms of Judaism..." applies a judgement to the criticisms and fails WP:NPOV. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Antisemitism is hated of Jews, not Judaism. If this link belongs anywhere, it's at anti-Judaism, not here. And it certainly doesn't belong in either article lead, written the way you were adding it, which, as Barek points out, was a violation of WP:LEDE, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Contents of Category:Antisemitism

So...yeah. Per this discussion about Category:Homophobia, "no articles for allegedly homophobic people (including fictional people), organizations, or media should exist in this category." (See also Category:Discrimination against homosexuals, etc.) In the interest of consistency, I'm basically considering a purge of this category to bring it to the same standard, but I thought it was right to bring it to talk here first. (I should also note that Category:Antisemitic people has apparently been rejected a number of times, but as editors have simply upmerged its contents into Category:Antisemitism, the NPOV problem has not been solved at all.) It should not be Wikipedia policy to label subjects antisemitic for making one nasty comment about Jews (or anti-Christian for making one nasty comment about Christians, substitute groups as you see fit) as long as people and organizations who make a career out of campaigning against LGBT civil rights cannot be labeled homophobic.
Also, for those who were unaware, Category:Antisemitic organizations is currently up for deletion, for the above reasons. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No, we've been through this at length before; the category is for articles that discuss antisemitism in some way, and in no way implies that the articles in the category are themselves antisemites. Indeed, it is filled with articles on individuals who were obviously not antisemitic, and there's a big blue box at the top of the category just in case people try to claim otherwise. There's never been a consensus to remove this category, or to bring it down to the standard of the Homophobia category, since it obviously and simply belongs on all articles that discuss the topic of antisemitism. Indeed, there's no consensus even in that discussion to do what you're suggesting here. A couple of editors saying "yeah, let's delete the category from all articles about people" isn't a consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

So (to choose two pages at random) Warith Deen Umar "discuss[es] antisemitism in some way," while Fred Phelps can't be in Category:Homophobia because that might imply that the man is homophobic? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever special rules were made at Category:Homophobia aren't something I can really comment on. However, Warith Deen Umar should not be removed from the relevant categories any more than Uriah P. Levy, Itzik Feffer, Jan Gotlib Bloch, or Richard J. Green should be. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This has been a perennial discussion (over years) and, until this point, there has been no consensus to change the parameters of the category. The categories that specifically related to people (e.g. Category:Anti-Semitic people, etc.) have all had a consensus to be deleted. -- Avi (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I said in my above comment. Copying and pasting: "Category:Antisemitic people has apparently been rejected a number of times, but as editors have simply upmerged its contents into Category:Antisemitism, the NPOV problem has not been solved at all." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are incorrect when you say "upmerging". People whose notability includes their involvement in the topic of antisemitism belong in the category. It does not matter if it someone whose notability is based on their being described as a proponent of antisemitism (e.g. Matthew F. Hale) or described as an opponent of antisemitism (e.g. Abraham Foxman). Your suggestion implies we should only categorize people whose notability includes their involvement in the topic of antisemitism from a non-proponent perspective, which would violate wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. We should be using categorization neither to whitewash nor vilify; merely to categorize. -- Avi (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That (only including non-proponents) is the current consensus for Category:Homophobia, so apparently some people thought it was reasonable. I don't, but I accept that it is consensus in the name of NPOV, and am seeking consistency across the encyclopedia. (I refer you to the above Warith Deen Umar/Fred Phelps example - why can we label Umar antisemitic for one comment, but God forbid we even suggest that the notorious Phelps might possibly be homophobic?)

Do you think it might be worth re-opening the discussion at CfD with all relevant categories at once? Perhaps that - having the discussion/vote on everything at once - might cut down on the number of people who would vote one way if the category under discussion were, say, "anti-Christianity" ("yes! yes! anyone who opposes Christian hegemony wants to persecute Christians!") but another if it were "homophobia" ("wanting to execute gay people isn't homophobic, it's just my religion's family values"). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a more recent change, and the Homophobia discussion did make its way here, IIRC, and did not reach consensus. And no, I'd rather err on the side of over-granularity by discussing each category individually than lump very disparate categories into one discussion and paint everything with the same broad brush. -- Avi (talk) 05:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you specify why you believe that one irrational bias should be treated with more respect than another irrational bias? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not involved in the discussion about homophobia, and I do not know how that category was created and how the most common editors intend to use it. I am interested in these discussions, and I also believe that we should not shy away from categorization where appropriate. Foxman has never been shy about his relationship with antisemitism. Neither has Leonard Jeffries. Why are we to prevent users from finding out about the latter and not the former in their search for knowledge. More generally, I am afraid that whenever decisions are left up to people, especially different people, true consistency becomes impossible. As we are a consensus-driven project, and not one with an editorial board with the final decision, each area gets to be decided upon by those people who have been volunteering of their time, energy, and resources to flesh out and expand the area. C'est la vie, or perhaps אזוי גייט דאת would be more appropriate; your choice :) -- Avi (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm probably not making myself clear. It's evident from the history of the two categories that LGBT rights pages are monitored in no small part by people interested in defending those who want to take away LGBT rights, while Jewish rights pages don't appear to have the same problem. Your comment about leaving each category up to the discretion of the people who work on it is exactly why I want to put the whole lot up for discussion at once. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

We're people, not robots :). My own opinion is that I would wish that Category:Homophobia, and any similar category, follow the same rules as Category:Antisemitism (and this discussion should really be held at Category talk:Antisemitism), for what it is worth. However, I am highly skeptical that one can get a consensus on EACH AND EVERY category simultaneously, which is what you want to accomplish. -- Avi (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought of putting it in the place one would expect to find category discussion, but this talkpage had seen action more recently and I hoped to get a more active discussion here... Anyway, the issue was brought up at that talkpage after the cat:homophobia discussion closed, as I see you know since you took part, but that was in August/September and no consensus was reached either to apply the same standard or to create a special rule for cat:antisemitism, so in the same way, I hoped to get some fresh blood that might tip the balance one way or another. :D

Anyway, I'm still mulling a community-wide discussion - I think it would be really useful for weeding out voters who want to apply a special standard to groups they belong to or to groups they especially oppose. If I do end up starting one, I hope you'll participate, even if you oppose the idea. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If you do start one, please drop a friendly notice on my talk page. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I look forward to hearing what you have to say. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that what was decided at Category:Homophobia was actually a "special rule", not a "standard", so the question you're asking is whether or not you should apply that special rule to Category:Antisemitism too. Category:Antisemitism follows the standard for categories. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to tell from the discussion simply because similar discussions don't appear to have been had. The discussion notes that consensus has consistently deleted "Cat:Homophobes" and similar, but that's also true of "Cat:Antisemitic people." (And some voters in that discussion did advocate removing people from analogous categories.) Nowhere is it indicated that the rule is only meant to apply to Cat:Homophobia. Hence my thinking it would be worth having the relevant discussion, across all categories so we don't have to fly blind applying decisions from analogous categories (I'd never go about removing all the people from Cat:Antisemitism without some kind of discussion and decision). Anyway, I'll let you know if I start such a discussion - I hope you'll contribute. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

About "Current Situation" of Anti-Semitism specifically in France, but everywhere else

One person´s opinion, influential or not, part of the government, the economy, the showbiz, etc. or not, DOES NOT encompass the anti-Semitic current situation, rather than just an opinion on the topic. Opinions should not be considered part of the “Current Situation”.
Here what it says under France:
"... However, "it is Muslims rather than Jews who can expect to suffer more from bigotry in France", stated Holocaust survivor and former French cabinet minister Simone Veil. "Let's not exaggerate," she said. While noting that radical Islamists are behind some violent incidents against Jews in certain French neighbourhoods, "Anti-Arab sentiment is much stronger in France than anti-Semitism." France's Jewish community is much more integrated than its 5 to 6 million Muslims, she noted, claiming Muslim youth are moved by a militant and anti-Jewish hierarchy...
Jewish philanthropist Baron Eric de Rothschild suggests that the extent of antisemitism in France has been exaggerated. In an interview with The Jerusalem Post he says that "the one thing you can't say is that France is an anti-Semitic country."[59]" --afa86 (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism - new meaning

Whilst there is attached to this, much emotion; I believe to many people who describe themselves as Anti-Semitic, the word means they are opposed to the idea of a religious state, antisemites are not necessarily racist. The word in it's original intent referred to a diverse people of a geographic area, not one people who claim a god given right to occupy a land. The idea of separation of state and the values most westerners apply to their own governance are set aside here? Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.46.116 (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean, or how it's relevant to this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

See also's

Is Unification Church and anti-Semitism (now a redirect) such an important article that it should be one of the ones on the "see also" list? Steve Dufour (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I took it off. I am having a hard time even imagining why someone put it there in the first place. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... Maybe "Uncle Ed", notorious Unification Church spammer who was always trying to stir up a discussion. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Statistical evaluation

"According to a 2004 study, Germany, France, Britain and Russia are the countries with the highest rate of antisemitic incidents in Europe."

Is it just a coincidence that these are the European countries with the highest population, with the highest rate of incidents to be detected in the country with the highest population (namely Germany)? Or have these numbers already run through a more elaborate evaluation and express a percentaged value? The quoted article does not give exact figures that would enable the reader to compare them to the overall population as well as the Jewish population in each country. Although there is not neccessarily a relation between the percentage of Jewish population in a country and the number of attacks directed against it, this could still be explanatory to a certain extent in regard to antisemitism as more of a pan-European phenomenon. Yet, if the quoted statement basically just presents numbers that could also be explained by their relation to the population of each mentioned country (as the term 'rate of antisemitic incidents' suggests), it has little statistical and thus informative value, at least in reference to a specific European country. Could someone find out more about that? --80.128.20.214 (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It says "rate," not "number." I agree that more information would be helpful, but it's definitely not a "they're taking the number of incidents and interpreting it to mean these countries are the most antisemitic." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'm not a native speaker of English, I can just rely on the Macmillan Dictionary that defines 'rate' as "the number of times something happens,or the number of examples of something within a particular period of time" (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/rate) whith the earlier as my interpretation of that word. If this is perfectly clear to a native speaker, I guess that is my problem then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.128.20.214 (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I'm assuming it refers to number of incidents divided by population. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Anti semitism card

I think it should be mentioned how charges of "Anti Semitism" are often used to deflect legitimate criticism of Judaism and most commonly Israel (aka the "Jewish state"). Such charges are also often used to self victimize and advance a imaginary view of "oppression" when there is none. Much has been made about this, specially of the ADL and its chairman Abraham Foxman who seems to cry "anti semitism" at the drop of a hat. People like Norman Finkelstein and Tali Mendelberg (both Jews) have written erxtensively on this. Even large Jewish groups and pro-Israel activists like have expressed concern on how real anti semitism may be dismissed as "yet another use of the anti semitic card" (as in the classic tale of "the boy who cried wolf").-Bill tzay (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

We have been over this several times and those who own this article don't want anything like that as they think that is someone calls you and antisemite then you are an antisemite. Period. No discussion. // Liftarn (talk)

The article Criticism of the Israeli government has a section that discusses that topic, at Criticism of the Israeli government#Suppression of criticism. But I'm not sure that it deserves much mention in this article. The article New Antisemitism would be more appropriate, since many definitions of New Antisemitism encompass various criticisms of Israel. --Noleander (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

as stated by so many noble scholars, this article represents opinions from 1935~6 onwards, because there is no history of antisemitism before then at all anywhere. the crusades wouldnt be antisemitic, because no one besides jewish people have semitic backgrounds. also, according to wiki standards, this is not to discuss antisemitism. we can not allow you to talk about an article when its something controversial at all. Also, if we go through refrences and find op-ed articles can we delete them from references as they are opinion orientated?? wait, there i go showing my true colors, maybe cause my previous questions were deletedFortybam (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't a simple "Criticism" section suffice? I in no way condone the racial stereotyping of people of Jewish ancestry or religion (they do that plenty well themselves), or discrimination against anyone based on religion, race, skin colour etc etc - but at the same time it's hard not to notice that any rhetorical or intellectual or ad hominem criticism of any one Jewish person is often, by some/many but not all, treated as a blatant attack on *all* Jewish people. Leading to the situation that I, as a fairly reasonable and non-discriminatory international affairs analyst, fear the consequences of criticizing anyone of Jewish descent, or any one of Israel's thousands of policy decisions, lest I immediately have to defend myself against unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism. Hell, just look at what I just wrote. If I hadn't started off with a few disclaimers this inflamed subject would have immediately branded me as such.Pär Larsson (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Israel is likely the most criticized country in public discourse. It is criticized unceasingly in every forum, public, private, relevant or irrelevant. The amount of criticism heaped on Israel is actually nothing less than bizarre, given the dozens of horrific dictatorships or autocracies which commit heinous crimes on a daily basis, and escape all but the lightest comment. What is even more bizarre is that critics of Israel incessantly whine that if they criticize, for example, "any one of Israel's thousands of policy decisions", they will be accused of antisemitism, despite the copious evidence to the contrary. Not only is criticism of Israel welcomed in all fora - indeed, considered almost de rigeur for any discussion of politics - but such critics typically receive fulsome praise for it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's stay on topic, please. If you feel that there are no reliable sources attesting this supposed "antisemitism card" phenomenon, just say so, don't go all TLDR with your political opinions. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

128 words was TLDR? Wow, short attention span. Odd how the previous 152 word political speech by User:Parjlarsson didn't get the same response. Anyway, the point is, the claim that if someone who criticizes "any one of Israel's thousands of policy decisions" will be described as an antisemite is nonsensical because it runs counter to reality. Also, this article is about actual antisemitism, not political posturing. That's why the material is irrelevant here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, Funnily the white government of South Africa used to say much the same thing; why make a fuss when so many all black African governments are far worse. In both cases personally I think a key factor is the "Western" perception that the "perpetrators" are not "johnny foreigners" but "people like us". Israel is heavily criticised in large part because the Western world identifies with the Israeli government in a way which it does not for Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Zimbabwe etc etc etc. We feel guilty about Israel's behaviour because collectively we feel we share responsibility for it. Sorry about that. The only things which are more criticised are actually our own leaders and political parties. -BozMo talk 18:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This pathology is a world-wide phenomenon, not just a "Western" thing, and those who incessantly, uninformedly, and irrationally criticize Israel do not feel "guilty" about Israel's behavior. Anyway, all that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of antisemitism, which is the topic of this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

par - it is a very narrow tightrope to walk. yes, one can criticize israel for its policies, actions, lack of actions, etc. BUT there is a way of doing it which is more intellectually honest than saying 'boycott israel because it is apartheid'. maybe see: [2] - it helps explain quite a bit. Soosim (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, all very relevant to a page about Anti-Semitism but not intuitively obvious to search for as a 3rd-party, reasonable observer. Which begs the question why there isn't a "Criticism" section (more accurately, "Criticism of usage of the term 'anti-Semitism' in public discourse to demonize an opponent and/or stifle debate" - but that's a bit long) in this article that links to the very link you gave me? I would boldly edit it in, but I'd rather not be boldly accused of anti-Semitism, so I'll refrain from editing. Perhaps there's a braver soul than I, out there?Pär Larsson (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there's no such section because, ironically, that claim that is usually made to deflect legitimate criticism, demonize opponents, and stifle debate. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should simply keep apples and oranges separately. There are several related but separate subjects here: (1) anti-Zionism (being anti-Israel), (2) Anti-Judaism (religious issues) and (3) Antisemitism (meaning a sentiment against Jews as an Ethnic group). Is not it? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are several different topics. The topic of this article is Antisemitism, not those other things. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Every few issues The New York Review of Books has an essay on the Israel-Palestinian conflict which of course emphasize criticisms of the Israeli Government, crucial decisions made by Ben Gurion or Meir, and longstanding Israeli policies. I never read a letter to the editor criticzing the authors of the essay or review or authors of the books reviews in question as "anti-Semites." Moreover, this is a highly prominent publicaton and essays on politics, critical of Israel or even of the UK and US, are quite prominent, and I have never seen any criticism of the publication as anti-Semitic. Same gos for criticisms of Israeli poligy I have read in The New Yorker and other publications. All of this serious criticism of Israel that has never occasioned even a whif of an accusation of anti-Semitism ... it makes one wonder whether there is an "anti-Zionism" card that anti-Semites throw in as a precautionary or diversionary measure. Maybe the real problem is anti-Semites who think that criticizing Israel will get them a free pass. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you have hit it exactly, Mr. Rubenstein. This idea that anyone who criticizes Israel is automatically labelled an antisemite is trivially simple to refute and obvious nonsense. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hence all anti-Israel claims should go to anti-Zionism page, the religious issues should be described in Anti-Judaism, and only claims against Jews as Ethnic group should be described in this Antisemitism article. Right now this is not exactly the case.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

In 2005, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (now Fundamental Rights Agency) listed ways in which attacking Israel could be antisemitic:

• Denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor;
• Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis;
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis;
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.[3]

Now, to which specific material in this article do you object? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• OK, I looked. This article is actually pretty good. Some other articles look strange. For example, History of the Jews in Russia unites people like Joseph Brodsky and Trotsky or Roman Abramovich and Garry Kasparov at the same photo as "Jews". That looks offensive/racist to me. Compare with a similar image in article Russians or British people. They feature good people, rather than mass murderers or thieves. The image of Germans does not feature Adolf Hitler, and rightly so. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

nicely put jayjg. by no means is criticism of israel automatically anti-semitic, but this list is a very good way to help determine it. thank you for posting. Soosim (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• - also from that PDF - however, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic - from me - such as its considered illegal annexing of land not belonging to them and its much derided and criticized by many many organizations, countries and informed people, poor treatment of the Palestinian peoples. - the commenting on and opining about these issues is not considered antisemitic at all.Off2riorob (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It all depends on how it's done; as the quote itself points out, it must be "similar to that leveled against any other country". But in any event your comment isn't really relevant; the point here is that according to the Fundamental Rights Agency "criticism of Israel" may well be antisemitic, which was the issue that was originally raised and being questioned by User:Hodja Nasreddin. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, don't mention Jew and don't mention Nazi - just comment and criticize the Israelis and the state of Israel. Criticism of Israel in not only not anti semitic it is completely correct and relevant and widely supported. If you are claiming that it is correct that criticism of Israel in anti semitic I completely disagree and many, many , other neutrals also do - if that is in this article it requires removing - Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't claimed that at all, Rob. Please review what I've actually written. In fact, no-one claims that "criticism of Israel is anti semitic" - that's merely a straw man raised by self-described "critics of Israel", so that they can pre-emptively nullify any criticism of their own statements - this has been clearly shown in the discussion above. Also, the Fundamental Rights Agency doesn't say that if you "don't mention Jew and don't mention Nazi" you now have a "Get out of Jail free" card regarding antisemitism; rather, it is quite clear that antisemitism also includes "claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor", "applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation", and, in general, applying criticism that is not "similar to that leveled against any other country". Please also carefully review what the Fundamental Rights Agency says. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Diff please. Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Diff please for what? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Diff please for the FRA comments - Criticism of Israel is not anti semantic - full stop. No one needs any get out of free card to criticize a country that is well known for its oppression of another country. Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

For what FRA comments? I already gave a link to the FRA definition above; you obviously read it, since you quoted from it. Also, your personal opinions about what is or isn't antisemitism aren't relevant, nor are your comments about Israel being "known for its oppression of another country". Please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize that was you claim - it disputes your position? anyway - if you think my comments are irrelevant - I will leave it with you then, I will however like millions of others criticize Israel with freedom from opinionated attempts to restrict those comments by unfounded claims of antisemitism, in fact in consideration of your unfounded accusations I will make more statements and cited comments about Israel. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't made any "claim" about "my position", nor any "unfounded accusations". I'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding the point you are trying to make, or its relevance to this article. Also, please don't threaten other editors, and please review WP:POINT and WP:NOTAFORUM. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"Criticism of Israel is not anti semantic (sic) - full stop." Dead wrong and badly reasoned. One need only read the quotation from the FRA posted by Jayjg above to see how flawed this is. Although Israel is criticized continuously in ways that are not antisemitic, it is routine for antisemitic attacks to be couched as criticisms of Israel. Your personal opinion does not overrule reliable sources. You're welcome to make all the criticisms of Israel you like, but don't make them here unless they have some relevance to improving the antisemitism article. (A blog might be a good place for them.)--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic - from the FRA - get your own blog. I realize I am not a single purpose Jewish issue account as you are but surely you want uninvolved opinions without labeling them as anti semitic commentators hiding behind anti Israel comments. Off2riorob (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

As explained above, the Fundamental Rights Agency states that antisemitism also includes "claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor", "applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation", and, in general, applying criticism that is not "similar to that leveled against any other country". Please delete your comments regarding User:Steven J. Anderson per WP:NPA. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

- what comment do you claim is a personal attack? If it is this, that he is "a single purpose Jewish issue account" - then I will not delete it, a simple look at his edit history supports the comment. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It's quite obvious, and you've now repeated it in a second comment. Remove it from both comments, and comment on content, not on the contributor. That is policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Your shouting won't help. I will not delete it, it is clearly correct and indisputable and relevant and as such worthy of comment, NPA does not require that we are requested to act as if blind people. Off2riorob (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—you've told me that I represented a "single purpose account" even in a context in which nothing of a Jewish nature was mentioned. See here, here, and here. I assume you feel my account is "single purpose" in a way that has something to do with Jews, as you aver something to that effect in the three comments linked to. Perhaps you should just allow people to edit where their inclinations lead them, in the interests of collegiality and in the best interests of the encyclopedia as a whole? Bus stop (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Your contributions have been assessed at arbitration level to have issues related to this topic sphere - please correct me if I am mistaken...this discussion is not about you - you are a single issue editor in relation to Jewish issues but you wouldn't dispute that would you?. Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—I believe you have called me a "single purpose account" or something to that effect in settings other than the one I document above. You say, "Your contributions have been assessed at arbitration level to have issues related to this topic sphere..." I will be the first to admit that I contribute to the encyclopedia on the topic of Jews. The block log will tell you all about my being blocked at the point in time you refer to. But I edit about other topics as well. I don't have to force myself to edit about other topics. I don't edit about other topics to deceive people into believing that I have other interests besides Jews. I will readily admit that as an account my interests range from Art to Science to Judaism to a variety of other interests. You need not slap labels on people. Editors are human beings with multiple interests. Bus stop (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool - I don't mind your edit history, just I retain the right to mention it without it being considered a wikipedia personal attack. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You never had such a "right", therefore you cannot "retain" it. Wikipedia:No personal attacks (and WP:TALK#Yes) are policy, and they are quite clear: Comment on content, not on the contributor. There's a reason it's called the "No personal attacks" policy, and why that specific statement is the "in a nutshell" summary of the whole policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The UK section already has some on this: "It discussed the influence of the Israel-Palestine conflict and issues of anti-Israel sentiment versus antisemitism at length and noted "most of those who gave evidence were at pains to explain that criticism of Israel is not to be regarded in itself as antisemitic ... The Israeli government itself may, at times, have mistakenly perceived criticism of its policies and actions to be motivated by antisemitism."" Though it doesn't seem especially relevant to antisemitism in the UK. Christopher Connor (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Answering Bill tzay ... perhaps some of the following may be useful:

• Informed Comment - Juan Cole - The Decline of the Israeli Right and the Increasing Desperation of the ‘Anti-Semitism’ Charge, 18 February 2010.

• Salon.com - Glenn Greenwald - TNR's ugly and reckless anti-semitism games, 10 February 2010:

What's most striking about this attack is how inconsequential it is. It was once the case, not all that long ago, that an accusation of "anti-semitism" was the nuclear weapon of political debates, rendering most politicians and pundits (especially non-Jewish ones) petrified of being so accused. A 4,300-word prosecution brief published by The New Republic, accusing a major political writer of being a Jew-hater, would have been taken quite seriously, generated all sorts of drama, introspection and debate, and seriously tarnished the reputation of the accused.

No longer. Neoconservatives have so abused and cynically exploited the "anti-semitism" charge for rank political gain -- to bully those who would dare criticize Israeli actions or question U.S. policy towards Israel -- that it has lost its impact. Ironically, nobody has done more to trivialize and cheapen anti-semitism accusations than those who anointed themselves its guardians and arbiters. As Charles Freeman can attest, frivolous anti-semitism accusations can still damage those seeking high-level political positions, but those accusations no longer pack any real punch in virtually any other realm. As neoconservatives became discredited, so, too, did their central political weapon: casually and promiscuously accusing political adversaries of anti-semitism.

• The Atlantic - Andrew Sullivan - The Anti-Semite Card, Again, 19 June 2009.

• The Guardian - Tom Paulin - On Being Dealt the Anti-Semitic Card, 8 January 2003. (A poem which first appeared in the London Review of Books)

• Counterpunch - Norman Finkelstein - Kill Arabs, Cry Anti-Semitism, 12 September 2006.

• The London Review of Books - Judith Butler - No, it’s not anti-semitic, 17 September 2002: Summers uses the ‘anti-semitic’ charge to quell public criticism of Israel, even as he explicitly distances himself from the overt operations of censorship.    ...    Here, it is important to distinguish between anti-semitic speech which, say, produces a hostile and threatening environment for Jewish students – racist speech which any university administrator would be obliged to oppose and regulate – and speech which makes a student uncomfortable because it opposes a particular state or set of state policies that he or she may defend.

• Campus Watch - Professors Contest Charges Of Anti-Semitism, 28 March 2005. (copy of Columbia Spectator article by James Romoser)

• The Electronic Intifada - Jonathan Cook - The new anti-Semitism?, 3 June 2003.

• Information Clearing House - Jonathan Cook - How Israel’s 'new anti-Semitism' is leading to nuclear Holocaust, 23 September 2006.

• The Independent - Christina Patterson - The limits of multi-culturalism, 28 July 2010.

• The Independent - Christina Patterson - How I was smeared as an anti-Semite, 23 December 2010.
• Arutz Sheva - Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu - Helen Thomas Leads 2010 List of ‘Top 10 Anti-Semitic Slurs’, 18 December 2010: The last three slurs were by a Lithuanian official, a British journalist and messages on social networks. ... Christina Patterson, who works for the London Independent wrote last year. “I didn’t realize that goyim were about as welcome in the Hasidic Jewish shops as Martin Luther King, Jr. at a Ku Klux Klan convention. I didn’t realize that a purchase by a goy was a crime to be punished with monosyllabic terseness or that bus seats were a potential source of contamination or that road signs and parking restrictions were for people who hadn’t been chosen by G-d.”
• CBS (Los Angeles) - - White House Reporter Remarks Top ‘Anti-Semitic Slurs’ List, 17 December 2010: “Never before, in recent memory, has the Simon Wiesenthal Center seen such a proliferation of anti-Semitism going mainstream,” said Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which bills itself as one of the largest international Jewish human rights organizations. “Our list shows that anti-Semitic canards normally thought to belong to the lunatic fringe have in fact been bought into by major elements of Western society.”
• The Jewish Chronicle Online - Stephen Pollard - Christina Patterson's unrelenting bigotry, 28 July 2010.
• The Jewish Chronicle Online - Miriam Shaviv - The limits of multi-culturalism, 28 July 2010.
• The Independent - Jerome Taylor - Manners, multiculturalism, and the battle of Stamford Hill, 31 July 2010.

• The Guardian - Antony Lerman - The pro-Israel lobby and antisemitism, 20 November 2009.

• The Guardian - Antony Lerman - Antisemitic alarm bells, 4 May 2009.

• The Guardian - Jonathan Freedland - Once no self-respecting politician would have gone near people such as Kaminski, 6 October 2009.

• The Guardian - Stephen Pollard - Poland's Kaminski is not an antisemite: he's a friend to Jews, 9 October 2009.

• AntiWar.com - Ran HaCohen - Abe Foxman's 'Anti-Semitic Pandemic' , 17 February 2009.

• Counterpunch - Michael Neumann - What is Antisemitism?, 4 June 2002.

• The Independent - Anne Karpf - Anti-Semitism is at the limits of irony, 7 February 2010: If anti-Semitism of this kind seems to have disappeared altogether, we live in postmodern times where some of what looks like anti-Semitism isn't, but, conversely, some of what doesn't look like anti-Semitism in fact is. ... Modern anti-Semitism is a complex phenomenon, but Anthony Julius, for all his often thoughtful analysis, ultimately falls back on the elision of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, and the notion that the Zionist is the Jew by another name. Perhaps the best way of countering such reductionism is to reverse it: the BNP's Nick Griffin and the Polish MEP Michael Kaminski have shown that neo-Nazi anti-Semitic sentiments and support for Israel are quite compatible. We should never be complacent about anti-Semitism, but neither should we allow some Jews to exaggerate it, regard it as inevitable, use it to try and delegitimise criticism of Israel or see it as an altogether different kind of animal from other more socially accepted kinds of racism such as Islamophobia. Those who hate are rarely so discriminating.

• The Independent - Yasmin Alibhai-Brown - Still no hope of common sense in the war against anti-Semitism, 8 February 2010: But we can't and shouldn't become credulous. Unquestioning accommodation would be naïve. Accusations of racism are used by all vulnerable groups to deflect legitimate concerns about, say, female genital mutilation, or forced marriages, or the too many young black men sunk into drug addiction and violence, or the lack of real democracy in the Muslim world. Julius plays that game, dextrously extending the accusation of anti-Semitism to implicate principled critics of the Israeli state. Jewish objectors, like the esteemed American Tony Judt, are also cut down with a poisoned blade. Richard Goldstone, the South African Zionist, has found himself similarly discredited by Zionists for writing a scathing UN assessment of the Israeli assault on Gaza. Similar treatment is meted out to others who try to remain scrupulously fair yet tough when scrutinising the government of Israel. These defenders to the end of all Israeli actions knowingly mix politics and race. Their enemies do the same: when Lebanon was attacked, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said: "This is a war that is fought by all the Jews." It wasn't. To say so is iniquitous, just as bad as the Jihadis who claim all of us Muslims are on their side or must be. The much admired writer Anne Karpf points this out in a beautifully articulated column: "If the Israeli government (wrongly) elides Israel with all Jews it is hardly surprising if anti-Semites do so too."By reproducing this conflation in his book, the eloquent Anthony Julius undercuts his powerful case that anti-Semitism, a very light sleeper, is up again. Doubters have been given a reason to repudiate him.

• The Times - Anthony Julius, Alan Dershowitz - The contemporary fight against anti-Semitism, 13 June 2007: What is anti-Semitism? Anti-Semitism consists, first, of beliefs about Jews that are both false and hostile, and second, of injurious things said to or about Jews, or done to them, in consequence of those beliefs. It is no enlargement at all to rewrite this definition as follows. Anti-Semitism consists, first, of beliefs about Jews or the Jewish State that are both false and hostile, and second, of injurious things said to or about Jews or the Jewish State, or done to them, in consequence of those beliefs. Anti-Semites wrong Jews and the Jewish State, and they are wrong about Jews and the Jewish State. Many anti-Semites also want to hurt Jews and the Jewish State or deny to them freedoms or rights enjoyed by non-Jews or the generality of States.

• Huffington Post - Alan Dershowitz - The Lobby, Jews, and Anti-Semites, 12 April 2006: The perfect test case came last month, when the academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and a political science professor at the University of Chicago jointly published a "working paper" that parroted virtually every conspiracy theory ever articulated against Jews. Dean Walt and Professor Mearsheimer wrote that Jews control the media and the government; that we are loyal to Israel rather than to our "host" country; and that we dupe non-Jews, against their best interests, into fighting and dying for our interest. All that was missing from the Walt-Mearsheimer screed was the "blood libel": the medieval accusation that Jews use the blood of Christian children to make Passover matzo. (They came close by asserting another blood libel - namely, that Israeli citizenship is based on "blood kinship," a claim which is demonstrably false.)    ...    For responding to Mearsheimer and Walt's false charges, I was accused by The Nation contributer and Huffington Poster Philip Weiss of being a "vigilante" and by Dissident Voice as being one of "the attack dogs of the lobby." So much for the marketplace of ideas! Free speech for me but not for thee!    ...    I am proud of the way the Jewish community has responded to the Walt-Mearsheimer paper. Jews should not be ashamed to stand up for themselves and decry the sort of people who would blame all their own problems, or all of America's problems, on Jewish "power," "influence," and "manipulation." Those attitudes are indisputably anti-Semitic. It is doubly anti-Semitic to justify this sort of Jewish scapegoating by saying that it is "of [the Jews] own making."

• Bernard Lewis - Semites and Anti-Semite (from Islam In History (1973)): Two other groups, among the supporters of Israel, are the inverted and repentant anti-Semites.

• Rootless Cosmopolitan blog - Tony Karon - My Favorite ‘Anti-Semite’, 3 October 2007.

• AntiWar.com - Jason Ditz - ‘Anti-Semitism’ Charges Unleashed: Don’t Mention the Mavi Marmara, 16 June 2010.

• AntiWar.com - Jason Ditz - Israeli Information Minister Slams All Reports on Gaza War as Anti-Semitic, 25 January 2010.

• YnetNews.com - Roni Sofer - Minister Edelstein: Goldstone Report anti-Semitic , 21 January 2010.

• The Observer - Ned Temko - Critics of Israel 'fuelling hatred of British Jews' , 3 September 2006: Jonathan Sacks: Criticism of Israel is not antisemitism. Even denial of Israel's right to exist - obscene though that is - is anti-Zionism, not antisemitism, despite the fact that the route from the one to the other is slippery and steep. We do not serve the fight against prejudice by blurring these distinctions. What makes the new antisemitism antisemitic is that it is directed against Jews, not against Israel. Its targets - synagogues, Jewish schools and community centres, Jews in the street - often have nothing to do with Israel; Antony Lerman: But while very many Jews feel a deep attachment to Israel, it is the opposite of clear thinking to assume that all expressions of anti-Zionism are simply a cloak for or a form of antisemitism. It drains the word antisemitism of any useful value for it confuses a strongly held political view with an undifferentiated ideologically-based prejudice against a whole people.

• Front Page Magazine - Steven Plaut - The Pathology of Jewish Anti-Semitism, 16 February 2010.

    ←   ZScarpia   07:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the article by Bernard Lewis above [4] is very much instructive.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I included it because, besides being well written and comprehensive, it echoes one of Anne Karpf's themes and throws light on the dispute between Jonathan Freedland and Stephen Pollard. Also, of course, it deals with types of antisemitism so far not covered in the current article.     ←   ZScarpia   20:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Jews and banking

There is a discussion at WP:JUDAISM responding to a request that I made for help regarding a couple of draft articles that I'm working on e.g. Jews and banking. The discussion can be found here. Since the discussion is focused primarily on antisemitic views of the role of Jews and banking, I thought I might find editors here that could give me useful input. Thanx. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Lede has POV. OR generalization which I dispute

"often rooted in hatred of their ethnic background, culture, and/or religion"

That is an uncited statement of opinion. Actually, major anti-Semitic trends exist which are not necessarily best characterized in that manner. For instance, for many years in Germany, antisemitic trends, including ones which were rooted in hatred, were not shown to be specific to hatred of the enumerated traits ("background",culture, religion).

Rather, the emotions were not linked to that specific of a rationale. They were nebulous. Left critique contends that it was rooted in psychological factors [{Reich]], Adorno. Critics to the right might not go to psychologistic explanations, but they would concur that the disaffection was broad and nebulous, linked to theories of history, or irrationalist in a kind of Bergsonian sense. The point being, the phenomena was not tied to these roots, at all, really. Just, on the surface. After all , there were others who were different in terms of background, culture and religion, such as Muslims, Roma. So, why the Jews? Why were they singled out with such tragic consequences? Surely there is more to the matter than, simply, background culture and religion.

The history is that the hatred was a self-perpetuating phenomenon, rooted in the writings of the anti-Semitic writers. Their animosity was in turn rooted to some extent in "culture" but that is an overly broad term. The actual root often was a set of social perceptions, many will call them myths, fabrications and many are in fact such. Slander, such as the notorious blood libel, and the contentions that Jewish persons were engaged in usury out of greed.

It is well known that there was a long standing source of friction in popular perceptions of Jewish participation in finance due to medieval Church law. Thus, Jewish burghers were often forced to make a living in lending. Thus there was often a class conflict overlaying ethnic differences.

A second set of roots is theological. There are many trends in the history of the church creating this problem. Martin Luther for instance railed against Jews and frequently wrote in a manner which would not be considered acceptable today in German or English writing circles. There are contemporary intellectuals who even trace the roots to the gospels and certain gospels.

A corrollary set of roots is in Islamic theology. The root is the rejection by Jews of the new dispensation and its messenger; whatever one may think of this new religion, the rejection of its founder is in fact a root of certain classes of anti-Semitism. See Robert Wistrich

A third set of roots of the phenomenon is based upon overt propaganda issued for instance by some Marxist-Leninist type regimes such as Fidel Castro writing in Grandma in which he denounced so called "Zionist" financiers. This may not be an ideal example, but government issued propaganda is a root which is not one of the three delineated "roots" per the lede.

It takes time to find citations but all of this is provable: there are many much more complex determinants of the antiSemitism phenom. the above quoted opinion in the lead does not do justice to the complexity of the phenomenon. I would appreciate some feedback and obviously am not jumping in and wrecklessly editing. I just find the lead way too simplistic. I won't insult the writer of it, but IMO it needs improvement.Wikidgood (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)