Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

RFC: Should Wikipedia adopt the Working Definition of Antisemitism?

The consensus is against the lead using the Working Definition of Antisemitism, including all its examples, as the definitive definition of antisemitism.

Cunard (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

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.

---

Should the lead use the Working Definition of Antisemitism, including all its examples, as the definitive definition of antisemitism?

Our current lede definition is very different, and doesn't explicitly include "new antisemitism" (i.e. certain criticism of Israel) as a core component. This question has been discussed before, at #/Archive 32#A way forward? Proposal on using EUMC definition, also see #/Archive 31#EUMC/FRA "Working definition", but this was prior to the wider adoption of the Working Definition by various world governmental organizations. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Tentatively, No - For me, acceptance of this definition depends almost entirely on what "certain criticisms of Israel" means. I'm a strong proponent of and advocate for the existence of Israel, but I also recognize that various Israeli governments -- being made up of fallible human beings -- have been less than perfect in their policies, so some criticism of Israel and its human-rights record is legitimate and does not necessarily represent antisemitism. To disallow these criticisms as legitimate would be equivalent to saying that criticism of the U.S. government's record on promoting democracy around the world is necessarily "anti-American". The devil is in the details, and there's simply not enough information in the article Working Definition of Antisemitism for me to support this proposal at this time. If the article is made more comprehensive, or I find more information during my own research, my !vote could change, but in the meantime, I'm not comfortable with adopting this definition from (essentially) a single source instead of the composite definition we have now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Beyond My Ken: here are the references to Israel in the definition: "Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic....Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust; Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations; Denying the Jewish people their 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 it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation; Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (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." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I would agree with almost all of that, so I will think on it, and see what other opinions are expressed here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
      • I think the best thing to do is report in the article about this "working definition" and the controversy surrounding it, without adopting it per se as ours. Our current definition is based on reliable sources, and is relatively non-controversial, so I see no reason to replace it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Of course not There isn't universal, or near-universal, acceptance of the working definition, nor even a consensus among experts that it is the definition of antisemitism. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• No That definition is not universally accepted, and is controversial. We should stick with the classic and straightforward version, that is universally accepted. Debresser (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• No I don't think we should be in the business of adopting any definitions at all as Wikipedia is a living thing and subject to change in content, including definitions, at any moment. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• No Conflating Criticism of Israel and Antisemitism would backfire on us. --MarioGom (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic, but some of it is, and that is what the working definition includes, not any criticism, just some specific cases. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

That is itself controversial. Is every critic of the working definition, as noted in the Working Definition of Antisemitism article, to be considered antisemitic? What about critics of Israel being officially a Jewish nation state? And those who think that self-determination should not be based on religion or ethnicity, whether it is in Israel or any other country? --MarioGom (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The source that you linked to says nothing about "religion or ethnicity". Bus stop (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

That's right. The source was meant only to illustrate the second question. For the third, we could go on and discuss the different theories on the issue of self-determination. But I think it's pointless, since the whole point is that the definition is far from having a wide consensus, as many other editors pointed out here. --MarioGom (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The IHRA definition does not conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism but specifically says the former is legitimate. This is a poor, and not policy-based, reason for a No vote. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

That is, indeed, one of the interpretations, but not the only one. The article reflects criticism of the working definition from people who consider that the definition does conflate some legititame criticism of Israel with antisemitism. --MarioGom (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• No, with caveat. I think the RFC could use more specificity of suggestions for us to actually evaluate more substantively. The article already mentions the "working definition" appropriatley and just because some governments make a definition does not mean it is the correct or only definition that Wikipedia should summarize. I also think we need to be careful about conflating criticisms of Israel as inherently anti-Semitic. This conflation is factually wrong, a political strategy of many of supporters of Israel, and bad for jews. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• No. I am not sure that is for us to "adopt" anything. This is a widely used definition which other people use, and so we should definitely cover it in the article, but it is not universally accepted in all respects and we should also cover the debate around it and cover other competing definitions. Of course, we should take care not to give the impression that there is no fixed idea of what anti-Semitism is. The vast majority of what it says in the definition is accepted and the debate is around the edge cases. The criticism of Israel aspect is always going to be a tricky as anti-Semites use bad faith criticism of Israel as a dishonest dogwhistle (choosing their words very carefully in order to try to fall just the right side of the line while making their real meaning perfectly clear to those in the know) while other people, including some Jews, have good faith arguments to make against some aspects of Israel's policies. This can mean that the same actual words can be anti-Semitic in some contexts and not in others. Similarly the inclusion of an identical glass of milk emoji in a tweet can indicate either a simple liking for milk based beverages or a stance of white supremacism depending on the tweeter and the context. I think this is where such definitions hit intrinsic problems. The definition does make a reasonable attempt to address these problems and is clearly trying to draw the line in approximately the right place. I'm certainly not going to claim that I could do any better myself. It is just that I fear that a line of this type is impossible to draw so that all the anti-Semites will be on one side and all the others on the other. This a linguistic quagmire for us to document, not one to fall into ourselves. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes (or more precisely our lede and body should reflect the working definition). The IHRA's working definition is the most widely accepted definition among antisemitism experts at the moment. The IHRA's definition is not controversial among antisemitism experts - there are groups that are widely accused of antisemitism that have tried to attack the most common definition in use. In relation to Israel, the IHRA's examples make clear that expecting Israel to behave differently (or face different restrictions) from other nations is antisemitic - as it singles out the Jewish state from other states). Specifically Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. or for example Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination. Normal criticism of Israel does not run foul of the definition, only criticism that treats Israel in an exceptional manner in relation to other states.Icewhiz (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Correcting a factual error in your second sentence – controversy has flared between antisemitism experts on both sides; your suggestion that it's a debate between antisemitism experts and antisemites is misleading and is also insulting to some of those editors who have stated their disagreement above.

A good example is last year's House Judiciary Committee session at which nine experts gave witness –"five said the language was necessary to stem antisemitism on campuses. Four argued it infringes on freedom of speech" (verbatim testimonies are available here). One of the four witnesses against was Ken Stern, the original drafter of the definition back in 2004. His testimony is worth reading in the context of the rest of your post. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The House Judiciary Committee was for a particular State department formulation, furthermore you are misrepresenting Ken Stern - who opposes codifying the language into law, although he still endorses the language for its intended use — as a means for diplomats to identify anti-Semitism. - so he opposes free-speech restrictions (which would seem the crux of the argument before the committee) - but still thinks that the definition is correct. For the most part, controversies here have revolved around groups widely perceived and accused as antisemitic who challenge the definition and on the right to engage in antisemitic discourse as part of freedom of speech.Icewhiz (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, Stern stands by the definition as a working definition of antisemitism; he simply opposes using (or misusing) it to outlaw speech which appears to fall foul of it. Luckily, Wikipedia is not making law on who is allowed to talk on campus (the issue Stern was discussing) so Stern's issues are not relevant here. However, what is true is that definition is controversial, and therefore should not be "adopted" by this encyclopedia as "definitive". BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes of course we will go with what reliable sources say. I will remind editors this is not a forum and any editor who thinks a "I just don't like it" (vote!) will cut it are incorrect. We may want to wait until after Sept 5 when labour votes.Jonney2000 (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Absolutely not! The definition is highly contentious. It has been rejected by dozens of Jewish organisations across the world;[1] it is contested by leading scholars of antisemitism[2][3][4] and by eminent jurists;[5][6] it has been condemned by Britain's leading civil rights organisation;[7] and even the man who wrote it has opposed the use of the definition to suppress and limit free speech.[8] It is not necessary, and not appropriate, for Wikipedia to take a position on this working document. RolandR (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• No there is no consensus across reliable sources. While some sources that are RS agree with the new definition, others do not, with such discrepancies occurring across a very obvious political fault line. For as long as there continues to be controversy and disagreement between RS, our role in maintaining NPOV is to represent the controversy as a controversy.Rosguill (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Of course not, regardless of the content. While there is debate in reliable sources about something, we are required by policy to present it as a debate. Not to take sides on it. Zero^talk 01:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• No, not unless we also adopt a working definition of anti-Christianity and a working definition of anti-Islam. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Nope — While I think most of us are against anti-Semitism (or any type of unfair discrimination), the Working Definition of Antisemitism is highly contentious and has been denounced by a fair bit of reputed people (per RolandR), not to mention this may contribute a bit in censoring Wikipedia. Also, per MarioGom combining criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism has the potential to backfire on Wikipedia.
  Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 19:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• No the group promoting this definition is not as authoritative as they imagine themselves to be. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• No. We are not bound to definitions produced by fiat, and they should not override our existing editorial practices. VQuakr (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment This is bad RFC how can Wikipedia adopt some definition. Its like asking if Wikipedia oppose GMO? Wiki doesn't oppose or support anything its just reports what WP:RS says per our policies --Shrike (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

This is explained in the two paragraph introductory text at the top of the RFC just underneath the title. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

You write "Should the lead use the Working Definition of Antisemitism, including all its examples, as the definitive definition of antisemitism?" It is not an all-or-nothing situation. A question can be logically posed as to whether the Working Definition of Antisemitism is a reliable source or not. But just because support can be found in a reliable source for a certain piece of material is not a reason that we must include that material in our article. I don't think this RfC makes much sense because Wikipedia doesn't adopt lock, stock and barrel all assertions or material found in reliable sources. We exercise editorial judgement as to what material gets included in our article and what material is omitted. Bus stop (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• No As noted by others, the definition under discussion is highly controversial and does not enjoy general acceptance, even among various Jewish organizations. Also it is not the place of Wikipedia to endorse definitions regarding sensitive topics. Rather we simply repeat what is reported in reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• No. Although it is probably appropriate for the lede, and certainly the article, to mention or draw on the IHRA WD, it is not appropriate to use it as the definitive definition. It is silly to suggest WP "adopts" a definition; we should be objectively reporting what reliable sources say not making a ruling on a correct line. The IHRA def, which was originally intended as a heuristic device for monitoring organisations logging hate crimes, is supported by many civil rights organisations, many Jewish organisations, some law enforcement agencies and lawyers, and various politicians, but it is also contested and does not have very much support from academic experts, at least not without several caveats or qualifications. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• No, as there is no consensus amongst reliable sources. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• No, obviously not. As is becoming increasingly clear, the definition (especially its "examples") is coming under increasing criticism (from academic and legal scholars) for being untenable. The definition is far too ....undefinite, Huldra (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• No, it's not universally-accepted enough for that (just looking over its page here, it cites numerous reputable scholars of antisemitism disagreeing with it on various grounds.) This is especially true of the examples, which, additionally, aren't high-profile enough to be WP:DUE weight in the lead here - they aren't even mentioned or enumerated in our page for the working definition itself! Obviously the WP:DUE weight for them is even lower on this page. --Aquillion (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment We are getting into snow territory here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• No some of the examples are widely thought to be drawn too broadly. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
• No It's generally not a good idea to engage in labelling specially in the lede Arcillaroja (talk) 08:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• No The so-called definition is nothing of the sort. The core of the definition is so vague as to be useless for really any purpose; hence the need for eleven 'examples'. Most of the examples are phrased so as to de-legitimise criticism of Israeli government policy. The author, Ken Stern, has himself declared that the definition is unsuitable for use in legalistic situations, and has criticized its use to suppress academic discourse. The organisation that originally published the definition removed it from its website, saying that it was unauthorised. It is a 'working definition', that is to say, a discussion document. Under no circumstances should anyone adopt it as a policy - that would be insane.
• Absolutely not This definition of antisemitism is controversial, and the article in current form handles it well by having a section on "New antisemitism" that mentions the fact that this definition is controversial. Accepting one side of a controversy as fact is one of the more blatant NPOV violations you can make. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Your question is not neutral because it implie that the New definition implies ANY criticism of Israel is antisemitic, when that is not the case. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Good point - I have added the word "certain" above. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2018 (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.

Organizing principle

GHcool put in the lede, "It has also been characterized as a political ideology which serves as an organizing principle and unites disparate groups which are opposed to liberalism.[6]" This is a minority point of view - is the source even RS? Skingski (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC regarding Jeremy Corbyn and antisemitism

There is currently a discussion regarding whether a letter from a number of Orthodox Rabbis should be included in the “Allegations of antisemitism and responses” section of the Jeremy Corbyn page. Arguments for and against are in the “Letter from Orthodox Rabbis is Valid” section of the talk page. Please view and vote if this interests you. See http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Jeremy_Corbyn#RfC_about_a_letter_from_Orthodox_Rabbis Burrobert (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this article subject to editing restrictions?

I want to help edit this article, but I am reluctant to do so, since editing restrictions might be enforced here. Are editors of this article required to abide by the same restrictions that are being enforced on other articles about antisemitism, such as Talk:Antisemitism in the Arab world? Jarble (talk) 02:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The restriction affecting that article is because of the Arab part, not the Antisemitism part: see WP:A/I/PIA. Regardless, I'd recommend erring on the side of caution; perhaps discuss specific edits here first if you think they might be near a line. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Does antisemitsm include hatred towards Judaism too?

I would argue that antisemitism typically means hatred of Jews as an ethnic group, but some would argue it includes faith too. 2605:6001:E7C4:1E00:97C:B01C:4E8A:1D96 (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Considering that historically many antisemites will accept Jews if they convert -- even Nazi Germany treated converted Jews better at first -- it would seem that the religion is a primary factor. I doubt very much if most antisemites make the fine point of distinction you are making. People hate Jews because they're "different" religiously, or ethnically, or culturally, or physiologically, or because they "control the world", or because they're behind Communism, or just because they need a boogey-man to blame their problems on.

So, yes, antisemitism includes hatred towards Judaism too. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll note that historically, some of the greatest anti-Semites were converts from Judaism - e.g. Nicholas Donin and Theobald of Cambridge, or Johannes Pfefferkorn. Much of roots of European blood libel (as well as Talmud censorship) originated from converts. Ethnically Jewish, they opposed Judaism as a faith/culture. Hatred on ethnic lines is a later phenomena - coupled with Scientific racism and the like.Icewhiz (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

See main article Anti-Judaism. Dimadick (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

[EC] I suspect that normal usage would be that antisemitism is hatred directed at Jews themselves, Jews being regarded alternatively as people who practise Judaism or people belonging to to a particular ethnic group, rather than to Judaism. When describing dislike of the Jewish religion itself, it would probably be termed anti-Judaism.     ←   ZScarpia   14:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

To follow up on the last two comments, the original question isn't clear. Antisemitism is a hatred of people, not a religion -- that's anti-Judaism -- but there are varieties of antisemitism such as racial antisemitism (as Icewhiz noted, a relatively recent development, c. 1492 CE) and religious antisemitism. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Article purpose and definition

The opening definition of anti-Semitism as a prejudice against Jews is inadequate and misleading. The suggested replacement definitions on this page are somewhat better but still inadequate.

The core of anti-Semitism is a belief in a great and somewhat conspiratorial power of "the Jews" or a specific group of Jews such as "the Jewish bankers" or "Zionism". Most anti-Semites argue that they aren't against Jews per se but only whatever they consider to be the dangerous powerful conspiratorial group of Jews, although at the same time they usually argue that there are group characteristics of Jews in general that make them prone to be a part of the power structure and conspiracy.

Anti-Semitism is a combination of sociological pejorative characterization with conspiracy theory. Pure conspiracy theories, bereft of sociological reference groups as natural conspirators, are not as dangerous, nor as likely to get a mass of believers. Nor are pure sociological pejoratives as dangerous.

Anti-Semites typically say that "some of my best friends are Jews" and use this as an argument for denying that they are anti-Semites; Nazis have famously done this, and also talked about how poor Jews are OK, while continuing with their conspiracy theories about "the Jews" and "the rich Jews" and "the Zionists" and the "international Jewish bankers". Misdefinition of anti-Semitism as a general personal or social distaste for Jews makes this argument sound logical. I know someone, a libertarian world federalist leader (unusual combination there), who for years has freely made up accusations about Israel doing terrible things and talks a lot about the Jewish lobby being all-powerful, and can't imagine that he's an anti-Semite, because he has Jewish friends and probably really does not have any social Judophobia.

One could speak of personal anti-Jewish feelings as social Judophobia, or parlor anti-Semitism. It used to be widespread among Anglo elites, even while those elites often provided the best refuge to Jews available in the world and generally avoided the anti-Semitic ideologies that were spreading dangerously elsewhere. Real anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism per se, is something else, and something much more.

There is also a popular line that "the Arabs are Semites too, so we can't be anti-Semites"; that too goes back to the Nazis, if not earlier. Definition of anti-Semitism as primarily or entirely a racial ideology makes this argument sound logical. The racial ideology should be called "racial anti-Semitism", or "race ideology anti-Semitism", not used as the definition of anti-Semitism in general.

But anti-Semitism in general, or anti-Semitic ideology in general, is something else -- something larger, more about conspiracy, less about race. Race is just one of the sociological props that can be plugged into anti-Semitic conspiracy ideologies. Theories of minorities as disruptors and disintegrators of society, and about commercial classes and middlemen as exploiters and "culture vultures", are other theories that can be a part of anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, without any need for a racial component.

What is true is that all these things - anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, the big hidden Jewish power, some collective Jewish purpose that is hidden and against the rest of society or the world, social pejoratives, racial theory, religious intrinsic-enemy theories, sociological intrinsic subversive-minority theories, beliefs in a conspiracy of the Jewish religion to conquer the world going all the way back to Isaiah or earlier, -- tend to go together. But not all components of that amalgam are needed for something to qualify as "anti-Semitism". And many of those components do not by themselves qualify as anti-Semitism, absent some of the others.

The crux of it is that enough of these components are woven into a theory about a dangerous Jewish power, part-hidden or disguised or deceptive, and thus conspiratorial. That is what makes it a thing, a noun, anti-Semitism, an ideology, an "ism". Which is something more than an adjective, an "ic", anti-Semitic -- an attitude or belief that is not kind to Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.90.236 (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Dead link

Please update citation 40. The page no longer exists as linked. Possible update https://www.state.gov/s/rga/resources/267538.htm Pbmax (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Updated to archived link on State Department site. Thanks for pointing this out. RolandR (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Religious explanations of antisemitism

Bus stop's recent edit is a total non-starter, in my opinion. "Jews metaphysically cause antisemitism by not being good enough" has no place in the "causes" section of a serious encyclopedia article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Roscelese:—I didn't say "Jews metaphysically cause antisemitism by not being good enough". I made this edit which followed on this edit by @Tridy:. Bus stop (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, thank you for reminding me - it was Tridy's edit originally. Either way, a non-starter in a serious article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I never said "Jews metaphysically cause antisemitism by not being good enough" yet you are enclosing that in quotation marks. Why do you feel this material would be inappropriate for this article? Bus stop (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I can answer that one. It's taking an unsigned article on a non-scholarly website and raising it to the level of some sort of authority: "It is posited on religious grounds". Which requires "posited by whom", which is answered by "some anonymous writer at the Bnei Baruch Kabbalah Institute". Or, in shorthand, WP:RS. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 05:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Many sources support the same idea. This source, for instance, writing "Over many centuries, our ancestors fought to maintain their unity above their growing selfishness. But 2,000 years ago, they succumbed to unfounded hatred and were exiled from the land of Israel. Since then, Jews lost the ability to be a light unto nations because we lost our unity. This was the starting point of anti-Semitism as we know it." We are not writing an article on antisemitism that excludes what observant Jews think about the causes of antisemitism. Observant Jews hold the opinion that Jews are supposed to be a Light Unto the Nations, or at least some Jews maintain that opinion. And it is not unheard of for some observant Jews to express that antisemitism results from a Jewish failure to be that "Light Unto the Nations". This is a religious concept. Do you feel that that religious concepts do not belong in this article? Bus stop (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Find a reliable, scholarly source expressing this point of view and you might have a basis for including it. Laitman won't pass muster; WP:FRINGE comes into play here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It is a Jewish religious precept, not universally held, that failure to live up to Jewish religious obligations brings about antisemitism. This is from an article called "The Spiritual Roots of Anti-Semitism":

"Since assimilation is antithetical to God's design for the Jewish people, what can God do to keep His promise that the Jews will never become extinct? A cornerstone of Jewish monotheism is the insistence that everything – everything – comes from God, the one and only source. At the same time, He has given human beings free choice in the moral realm. Humans may not be able to choose what happens to them, but they are always choosing between right and wrong, good and evil. So, what if all the Jews in any given generation choose to assimilate into extinction?"

"That's where anti-Semitism comes in. Anti-Semitism is the Divine equivalent of the parent of a diabetic child locking the cookie jar. A Jew in 15th century Spain or 20th century Germany or 21st century America may want to blend in with the surrounding society, but anti-Semitism is a sealed door, strong and black as iron, which keeps him out – and separate. Anti-Semitism keeps the Jewish people from dissipating into oblivion."

"The ubiquitous effort to trace the source of anti-Semitism to the Jews remaining different and aloof – implying that assimilation cures anti-Semitism – is an inversion of the truth. Assimilation is not the antidote to anti-Semitism; anti-Semitism is the Divine antidote to assimilation."

I don't think we are discussing whether this is correct or incorrect or whether you approve or disapprove of this particular tenet of the Jewish religion. This is simply worth noting in our article for no other reason than that it exists. Many more sources can be found supporting this general idea. They are probably all going to be religious sources. A source is not disqualified because it is "religious". What we should be looking for is whether or not a source addresses a topic of an article. Clearly we are concerned with what causes antisemitism, in this article. So, a religious explanation for the existence of antisemitism is as much on topic as a secular explanation for the existence of antisemitism. Bus stop (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing against that. You just keep providing the same marginal source; this is the first one that isn't utterly fringe. Has anyone made the argument that a "religious explanation" isn't appropriate? Since, as you say, it's a very common assertion, it will be very easy for you to find well-sourced information to add to the article. You'll need to find scholarly analysis of the religious argument -- that's different from pointing to a particular religious essay as a source. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd consider a religious explanation of a social phenomenon to have just as much place here as in any other social phenomenon. It wouldn't be appropriate to talk about the devil's meddling in Causes of sexual orientation or female sinfulness in Causes of sexual violence. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed - or to invoke Godwin - discuss God's plans (or lack thereof) in the Holocaust - for which there is no lack of sources - e.g. Chabad, Aish, or this book, or this Oxford University Press book - Wrestling with God: Jewish Theological Responses during and after the Holocaust. Icewhiz (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

jpgordon—"Has anyone made the argument that a 'religious explanation' isn't appropriate?" Yes, see the two above arguments, one by Roscelese and one by Icewhiz. I think those are both arguments that religious explanations for antisemitism wouldn't be appropriate in this article. Bus stop (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Which were made after I asked the question; at any rate, that's a quite different issue than the poorly sourced material you put in. They make a good point; religious explanations are as appropriate as they would be in an article on evolution. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

"religious explanations are as appropriate as they would be in an article on evolution" There is a difference between evolution and antisemitism. One is of particular concern to Jews (antisemitism) and the other is equally of concern to people of any identity (evolution). This is not the article about evolution. This is the article about antisemitism. Bus stop (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 05:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Jews were victims of genocide in The Holocaust - it meets the particular concern criteria - yet I wouldn't think a Jewish theological discussion (for which there is no lack of sources - in fact, it is a topic of academic study) would be appropriate in our article on the Holocaust. Same here. In both cases, I'll note, that following the axiom that any place one has two Jews you have three opinions, there is a great multitude of different Jewish theological views (punishment, God's plan (sometimes for the good or future good), etc) on the subject.Icewhiz (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

"following the axiom that any place one has two Jews you have three opinions" I suspect that this is true for humans in general. Individual experiences tend to lead to individual opinions on any given subject matter. Dimadick (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop, re religious explanations being more appropriate here than in, say, evolution, I don't think that the special relevance of antisemitism to Jews justifies placing religious explanations on par with social explanations. It's possible that there could be a place for religious content if appropriately sourced, but it's absolutely out of line to imply that "Jews brought antisemitism on themselves by being lame" and "antisemitism is a way for the powerful to displace the anger of the powerless away from themselves and onto Jews" are equally valid encyclopedic explanations. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Roscelese—you may feel that observant Jews blame Jewish people for antisemitism but no one has to accept that. I suggest we call this section of this Talk page "Religious explanations of antisemitism". That wording is more wordy but also more evenhanded. Bus stop (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you find more appropriate sources for this and provide some suggested language before inserting into the article. You should also include non-Jewish religious explanations of antisemitism; there's a couple of thousand years of material to draw upon for that. (There was likely some sarcasm in that last sentence.) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bus stop: It is deeply, deeply weird that you're positing this as the "observant Jewish" position. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The sources that have been provided ([9][10] [11]) have been from an observant Jewish perspective, haven't they? Bus stop (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, your two sources (I say two because kabbalah.info and the Jewish Boston article are the same person) don't agree, which, aside from all the other issues, gives the lie to the suggestion that this represents "the" observant Jewish position. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I said we are discussing "a Jewish religious precept, not universally held". Bus stop (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see many reliable sources discussing this. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

NYT article "Anti-Semitism Is Back, From the Left, Right and Islamist Extremes. Why?"

here. Doug Weller talk 12:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

NYT article "Anti-Semitism Is Back, From the Left, Right and Islamist Extremes. Why?"

here. Doug Weller talk 12:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Anti Semitism in the DNC

There should be something on this. As Keith Ellison Vice chair of the DNC has made many anti-semeitic comments and Ilham Omar and Rashida are recognized anti-Semites.173.166.127.233 (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I presume you'd want to mention Republicans also? {https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-how-gop-s-anti-semitic-and-neo-nazi-campaigns-fared-in-midterms-1.6633483}][12]. Doug Weller talk 15:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that antisemitic comments made by individual politicians would necessarily be appropriate for a top-level article anyway. Something like the institutional problems of UK Labour, yes, but the Dems definitely aren't there, and yes, it would be inappropriate to mention the Dems without the GOP. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I would not consider Hareetz a reliable source. They are the anti Israel paper in Israel. The DNC and the Dem Controlled house refused to condemn the anti-Semitism of Ilhan Omar.American Zionist (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

If anything is relevant, it is Democratic Socialists of America (though Omar is not DSA I think - so some other, perhaps wider, definition) - and not the Democratic party as a whole. Icewhiz (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Banu Qurayza.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

NPOV/n discussion on inclusion of Islamophobia/Antisemitism/religious hate in Racism in X articles

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Islamophobia, Antisemitism, and other religious hate in "racism in X" articles may be of interest to talk page watchers here. The issue is whether to include Islamophobia, Antisemitism, and other religious hate in Racism in country X articles. Icewhiz (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the primary description gives liberalism a bit too much credit

Historically, antisemitism have existed in just about every liberal government with little to no opposition or concern until after WW2. And even at that point it was due to some rather self serving motives in a lot of instances. To equate the interests of Jewish people with one singular ideology that has for most of its history persecuted and excluded Jews is pretty revisionistic. I understand that liberalism is the modern day status quo, and as such it influences popular assumptions about history. But prior to the holocaust, the hotbeds of antisemitism was places like France, England and even Canada. These were all liberal governments, and antisemitism was far from an opposition to their liberal values. Liberal values include borders, visa requirements, travel restrictions, migrant politics, and numerous other things that are incredibly harmful - and often times deadly - to any diasporic people. Whether Jews, Roma, or refugees who were once settled.

It feels a bit propagandistic, and presents this idea that liberals can't be antisemities. In spite of how some of the biggest antisemities in history were liberals, including Tsar Alexander II and Henry Ford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.180.157 (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

EDIT:

Also I didn't notice the Americans bickering here. For clarification: I'm in Europe, when we say liberalism we refer to the politics often framed by enlightenment era philosophy. This includes what is colloquially referred to as conservatives and democrats in the US. So I'm not taking a side there, this is in fact aimed at both sides and those who represent similar politics in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.180.157 (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Many of us would dispute the suggestion that Tsar Alexander II and Henry Ford were liberals. Irrespective, the above is purely unsourced original research. If you can find a reliable source that make these claims, then please bring it here for discussion. Without any source, this cannot (and will not) be included in the article. RolandR (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not exactly a full takedown of liberalism, but at least in some countries the rise of liberalism brought with it an antisemitic zeitgeist History_of_the_Jews_in_Romania#1860s_and_1870s has several citations to sources backing up the prevalence of antisemitism among the Romanian liberal intelligentsia of the 19th century. I would expect that similar sources could be found for other countries as well. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you need evidence of that Europe was antisemitic? Remember those countries I mentioned before? Ever read about their stance on Jewish refugees in the 1930s? Liberalism was useless for people who tried to escape the holocaust. British media published headlines such as Hurrah for the blackshirts! and made every effort to antagonise and abuse Jewish people just in the exact same way they're treating refugees today, and this all happened with liberal migration policy. Here, the washington post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/17/what-americans-thought-of-jewish-refugees-on-the-eve-of-world-war-ii/?noredirect=on

Fewer than 5 percent of Americans surveyed at the time believed that the United States should raise its immigration quotas or encourage political refugees fleeing fascist states in Europe

Just first result, this is common knowledge for most people interested in history. There's an obvious whitewashing of liberalism's history of antisemitism here, and it's very much akin to holocaust denial, since the antisemitism of liberal countries directly condemned millions of Jews into death camps.

And in fact I got more, the philosophical architects of liberalism itself were antisemites. In the Natural History of Religion, David Hume writes that Jews are inferiour to Christians. Voltarie believed Jews were the direct descendants from Adam and Eve, and therefore called them adamites, and he described them as infecting Europe, which is the same kind of antisemitic rhetoric that existed throughout Europe after the enlightenment era in several liberal countries, and thus can be described as a liberal value. Same with Emmanuel Kant, who could be argued was the key philosopher for the liberal moral framework next to John Locke, also believed Jewish people were inferiour due to immutable traits passed on by birth.

Sources: Michael Mack Phd, Cambridge University, New York Times And Richard Popkin The Philosophical Bases of Modern Racism

The very roots of liberalism is steeped in antisemitism and may very well have influenced modern day antisemitism. How's that for poorly researched? Update: In my research I also found this http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk%3ADavid_Hume#Missing_anti-semitism_section So even wikipedia itself has liberal antisemities going around censoring articles like some sort of antisemitic nerd mafia.

Addendum: Since I will not rest until this matter is resolved, I will add more and more research here as I find it, and today I will discuss the effect the US had on antisemitism in Nazi Germany. According to Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law by James Q Whitman, Princeton University. the US government, a liberal government, had no qualms what so ever with helping the Nazis develop the archetecture of discrimination and dehumanisation that then permitted them to persecute Jewish people. In Great Britain, Jewish people were placed in London's East End. This was an act of segregation, and the East End was known for its poverty, social strife and police abuses. The east end was a ghetto for Jewish people in the 1900s and upwards, even today the East End is stigmatised as a bad part of town. Now is rounding Jewish people up and putting them in ghettos an act of antisemitism or not? My source? Wikipedia itself says so.

The area was notorious for its deep poverty, overcrowding and associated social problems. This led to the East End's history of intense political activism and association with some of the country's most influential social reformers. Another major theme of East End history has been migration, both inward and outward. The area had a strong pull on the rural poor from other parts of England, and attracted waves of migration from further afield, notably Huguenot refugees, who created a new extramural suburb in Spitalfields in the 17th century,[1] Irish weavers,[2] Ashkenazi Jews,[3] and, in the 20th century, Sylheti Bangladeshis.[4]

Is segregating Jews into ghettos only antisemitism when non liberals do it, or will you start reporting the facts responsibly? Also, my proposal here is that we change it from saying it's the opposite of liberal values, which is outright propaganda. Into something more unbiased and true, to say that it is against egalitarian values. Thereby recognising people and thinkers from all ends of the political spectrum who takes the responsibility to treat people fairly, and act with social justice in mind. 78.69.180.157 (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The vast numbers of poverty-stricken East European Jewish migrants presumably settled in East London because it was cheap and they had no money. That behaviour is true of all migrants in all countries in all periods and has little to do with race or religion per se. If you wish changes to the article, I suggest you prepare them in your sandbox and come back to this page to propose them when they have been finalised. Jontel (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

You don't have to tell me, I'm Roma. I live in a segregated area right now, among Yugoslavs, Africans and Afghanis. You say this is like some kind of big coincidence, but it seems we're always getting the worser end of the stick. It seems like whenever liberal governments have to choose between racism and economic reform, racism always wins, and then they shrug and claim it's a big coincidence. But coincidences are not patterns that exist throughout history. This is not equal treatment. When the white middle class migrates they're called expats, and get to live in nice places. I don't buy into this excuse, and neither does most of the people you're talking about. The economy is as manmade as the rest of society, and so are its outcomes. Also, like I said, my sole proposal is to change it from Liberal Values into Egalitarian Values I don't think such a simple change requires the sandbox, but rather simply a go ahead. 78.69.180.157 (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Which section number and name is it in the article - I can't immediately spot it. Thanks. Jontel (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The very first paragraph in the article:

Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews.[1][2][3] A person who holds such positions is called an antisemite. Antisemitism is generally considered to be a form of racism.[4][5] It has also been characterized as a political ideology which serves as an organizing principle and unites disparate groups which are opposed to liberalism.[6]

78.69.180.157 (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; I think there are a number of issues with that sentence and have removed it. Jontel (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you mistaking Wisse for someone else? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry. I found Ruth Weiss (writer) but can see now that it was Ruth Wisse. Still, I think her statement is something that is specific and arguable and would need elucidating: it seems too definite for a lead in an article covering such an extended period and geography.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jontel (talk • contribs)

I'm reading the essay now (it seems that the podcast is explicating an essay). In the essay she seems to be saying that it's uncommon to analyze antisemitism as a political philosophy, which suggests that yes, this citation/framing isn't right for the lede. It is possible, however, that we nonetheless can and should discuss the political functions of antisemitism in the lede (scapegoating/steam valve since it's claimed that Jews are so powerful, opposition to Jews as opposition to liberalism etc.) with Wisse as one of a number of sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can quite see that the general point can be made that, throughout history, antisemitic attitudes and actions in a specific time and place may not be only a sincere attitude but also a political tactic: to deflect attacks, attack allies of the Jewish community, strengthen the position of whoever is initiating the attacks, seize assets, reduce competition or for some other reason. Jontel (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that sounds reasonable (also I finially figured out the formatting thing), my main issue with having liberalism represent opposition to antisemitism is because biggest opposition to antisemitism have been done by Jewish people themselves. Liberalism in predominately white societies will often approach racism through the lens of white identity politics. One example is how, in the US, a lot of people say that racism is over because there's no more racism written into law. This isn't something people of colour experience, but rather the narrative of a white observer. Same is true about antisemitism, and most efforts of social justice. So it's important not to bring erasure and co-opting for the sake of political prestige. In my opinion you cannot credit a single ideology for the historical opposition to antisemitism. Some of it was indeed liberalism, but some of it was also socialism, and not to mention zionism. Along with several other ideas that influenced and shaped society. --78.69.180.157 (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

My view is that over 2000 years with various manifestations, it is oversimplistic to say that antisemitism is a political ideology, that it unites disparate groups more than any other prejudice or that it is opposed to liberalism, which itself has varied meanings in different regions and periods. So, I suggest dropping 'It has also been characterized as a political ideology which serves as an organizing principle and unites disparate groups which are opposed to liberalism.[6]' from the lead. Jontel (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand that, and I have a lot of respect for you for being willing to hear us out. Living in diaspora is tough, and life is a thing of synthesis. I hope you have a good future, and as my people say: Ashen devlesa. 78.69.180.157 (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• In my opinion, Wisse's credentials are more than sufficient for her information to be in the article. This means that there is now no consensus to remove it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Beyond My Ken: I agree that we can include Wisse's argument in the article, but since she herself points out that this is an uncommon way to be analyzing antisemitism, it might be a good idea to attribute. I suggest upthread that the political functions of antisemitism, in general, are something that it's worth discussing in more detail. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• I agree, attribution is fine, and also that discussion in the article of the political functions of antisemitism are appropriate. Isn;t Wisse also mentioned elsewhere in the article?

• ctrl-f tells me her idea is discussed in more detail under Manifestations. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• This is a case of seeing the wood for the trees. Of course Wisse's thoughts belong in the article, that is not the issue. The issue is due weight. This is a huge article and, not to disparage professor Wisse in any way, her single podcast from last year whilst important in its own right is a tiny contribution in comparison to the subject. She herself says it's an unusual analysis. Yet there it is right at the top, in the first paragraph of the lede. Her podcast shares that first paragraph with the Oxford and the Merriam-Webster dictionaries, the Encyclopedia Brittanica, the United Nations General Assembly, and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. That's ridiculous, of course her valid but niche viewpoint doesn't belong there. Nor in the rest of the lede, which rightly deals with overarching generalities of the subject.

Where does it belong? It is already also mentioned in the Manifestations section, which is better, but not quite right. It's in the introductory paragraph, which discusses various ways that various people have categorised the various flavours of anti-semitism. Her podcast doesn't do that, it specifically talks about the political functions of anti-Semitism. The introductory paragraph is followed by subsections, one of which is political. That is the natural place for Professor Wisse's podcast to be given its proper weight. I propose moving the passage dealing with Professor Wisse's podcast from the introduction to the Manifestations section into the political subsection, and (of course) removing it from the lede where it obviously cannot stay. Captainllama (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Captainllama: I think it's a little more complicated than that. It's not that Wisse is another voice supporting the existence of political antisemitism, such that she belongs in that section - it's that several of the manifestations as we currently describe them serve a political function. We say "economic antisemitism is that Jews are wealthy and greedy, racial antisemitism is that Jews are a lesser race"; Wisse says "threats of Jews taking over economic and cultural institutions stoked opposition to reforms of those institutions." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Quite so, as you say it is a little more complicated than that, emphasis on "a little". I do agree with what you say, which is in essence that she is asserting that the political manifestation encompasses other manifestations. It is still a political manifestation that she is articulating albeit one with larger parameters. As such the political subsection is its home, with an explanation (such as you yourself have articulated) of its wider scope than the other political manifestations stated therein. Her thesis is, if you like, a political manifestation "on steroids". I believe it belongs as a large part of the political subsection but I could live with it remaining in the intro to manifestations.

I assume you concur that it is wildly out of place in the lede. Captainllama (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it's fundamentally a different way of framing the situation than our organizing of the Manifestations section currently uses and I would not support moving it under "Political". –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2019

Meaninf of semitic: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Semitic_people

A member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs.

My argument is simple, how can the word antisemitism be used as anti Jewish, when the definition of the word Semite/Semitic describes a group of people speaking a language. so if the you add the "Anti" t Semitic it must mean a group of people who do not speak a particular language. This page is inaccurate and 141.0.147.90 (talk) 10:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

NO. This has been discussed exhaustively, several times. And every time, the consensus has been to recognise that the term antisemitism, while its etymology may be challenged, means. and has always meant, racism directed against Jews. There is a link above to the archives where these discussions are stored. RolandR (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

'racism directed against Jews' hardly makes sense since the jews aren't a race. 31.48.245.78 (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Wrong definition?

Antisemitism [...] is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews. That seems plausible if 'semite' mean 'jew', but it doesn't does it? 31.48.245.78 (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Yawn. "Antisemitism" means antagonism towards Jews. It doesn't matter other than etymologically what "semite" means in isolation. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Content disputes are not vandalism

@RolandR, Fidelioas, and Île flottante: Content disputes are not vandalism. Unfounded accusations of vandalism constitute personal attacks. Please work this out here on the talk page, not edit summaries. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

this has already been raised. Making an extra post is spam/superfluous to utility. In any case I still disagree with the original edit. Île flottante (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Île flottante, I raised this on your talk page as a behavioural issue. The talk page of the article is the correct place to discuss content disputes. In terms of the content dispute, I'm in favour of removal. It's not exactly the most illustrative image, and I think the section has enough images as it is. Cjhard (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Using terms like ‘behavioural issue’ really isn’t conducive to a good discussion. It implies you think you’re perhaps my teacher with a right to discipline me, which is extremely patronising and also quite plainly wrong. Given, however, that other editors disagree with me on this, I withdraw my objection to the original edit. Île flottante (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, and please desist from false accusations of vandalism; WP:NPA matters. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Suggested edit to the section on the 21st century situation

This sentence seems clumsy to me and needs punctuation and rephrasing:

"In Eastern Europe the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the instability of the new states has brought the rise of nationalist movements and the accusation against Jews for the economic crisis, taking over the local economy and bribing the government alongside with traditional and religious motives for antisemitism such as blood libels".

My suggestion is this:

"In Eastern Europe the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the instability of the new states has brought the rise of nationalist movements and accusations against Jews of responsibility for the economic crisis, of taking over the local economy and of bribing the government, along with traditional and religious motives for antisemitism (such as blood libels)".

I don't want to make the edit myself in case I have changed the sense in the wrong way.truthordare (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Try splitting it into two or more sentences. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2019

X - Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews and Arabs.

Y- Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs.

The definition above is incorrect - Semites are members of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs. - The current text states that it's just Jewish people, this is incorrect and could be construed as targeting.

Change X for Y Warpeye (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This has been discussed here multiple times. See the page archives, links are above. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2019

Change “ Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews.[1][2][3] “ to “ Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jewish, Arabic, Amharic, Tigrignia, Tigre peoples.” Sam Seeking Insight (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done This isn’t what the word means. See top of talk page. Île flottante (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Suggested edit: definition of antisemittism

shouldn't the definition include that antisemittism is considered hatred towards Jews based on the fact that they are Jews? Hating your neighbour (who happens to be Jewish) for stealing your car, is not antisemittic. However, hating him for his religious believes is. Wikipedia definition as of today: "Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews" My suggestion: "Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews, based on the fact that they are Jews"

81.167.68.89 (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request under the "21st-Century European antisemitism" Header

Hello,

Under the 21st-Century European antisemitism header is the following claim:

"This rise in antisemitic attacks is associated with both the Muslim anti-Semitism and the rise of far-right political parties as a result of the economic crisis of 2008.[219] This rise in the support for far right ideas in western and eastern Europe has resulted in the increase of antisemitic acts, mostly attacks on Jewish memorials, synagogues and cemeteries but also a number of physical attacks against Jews.[220]"

Neither of the sources cited support that claim. In the first case, citation [219] (shown here: ), there is a dead link; I've tried searching for the article online but I haven't come up with anything, i.e. I can't find the original nor can I find any copies of the article in question, or indeed anything citing the original article. In the second case, citation [220] (shown here: ), the cited ADL report does not substantiate the claim made. The ADL report is a survey of attitudes towards Jews among various major European nations. The questions in the report deal mostly with belief in Jewish stereotypes and perceptions of Jews. It does not include anything about the far right, still less anything about actual attacks on Jews.

This being the case, the claim made is a bare claim. As it stands, the claim looks like speculation to me (albeit plausible speculation, although that's not the standard of proof for Wikipedia as far as I know). The claim needs to be either properly substantiated or, in the event that no proof can be supplied, removed.

95.146.110.224 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2020

I would like to add an external link from an American magazine. The article first appeared in 1915 and seeks to explain the anti-semitism that existed in W.W. I Germany: http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/article-summary/jews_in_ww1_germany#.XpSqbIhKiLk 172.116.188.73 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:ELNO –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Change from Antisemitism to Antijewism

In the description it is written that it was first introduced in the mid 1800s by a jewish man from Germany. And no arab stepped his foot in Germany in the 1800s. This term was ok for up until now. This term have lost it's logical value, it is illogical. As there are other semites, arabs in palestine and in whole remaining world, who are very hostile against jews. Those arabs are hostile not because jews are semites, otherwise it would be very ridiculous. They are hostile due to a political reasons. I would to change the term to antijewism, or antijudaism if used in a religious context, as judaism is practiced mainly by jews and if outsider wants to accept it, he/she should go through very long and hard learning process of learning religion and culture of jews. And if he accomplishes everything well he is still looked upon as the jew of the 2nd, 3rd and etc. rank. My personal suggestion is to not to stick to dictionary definitions. It is ok for dictionaries to have such logical flaws as it gives an interpretation of the term. And even the interpretation is correct, the term cannot be used to point at to arabs as thay are themselves are semites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.139.137.29 (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

We follow WP:COMMONNAME; anti-Jewish prejudice is overwhelmingly referred to as antisemitism, despite the confusing etymology (which you can incidentally read about in this article). It would be a disservice to our readers to use a different term, as it wouldn't help them to understand what antisemitism does and doesn't mean when they see that term used in other places. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

A semite is specifically a person that speaks a semitic language. Therefore, it is prejudicial to only include Jewish people as Semites. Arabs should also be included in the description. Politics should not play any role in this; please make these changes accordingly. Thank you. Kareem Ebn El Galaa Arab 15:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kareemarab (talk • contribs) 15:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

See the section #Usage, and the above talk page section. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Missing book refs

John of Reading, in an edit summary a little while ago, commented "I'm assuming this quote is a translation". I checked the text, and noticed that this related to footnote 292 in the article, which refers to "Laurens 2002". However, there is no further reference to Laurens or this work in the article. In an attempt to locate the missing reference, I discovered that this footnote was added in an edit by Pluto2012 in May 2016, which added references to "Laurens 2002" and "Sachar 1961" without specifying the titles or adding them to the bibliography. This omission has apparently not previously been noticed. Although I could possibly research further and establish which books are intended, this may be mistaken - especially as page numbers are referenced. Pluto has not edited since May 2018, but it Was her 1961"?would be a great help if they could add the missing information. Failing that, is anyone in a position to definitively identify the works cited in this footnote? RolandR (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@RolandR: The quote contains the editorial comment "(progressivement)", suggesting that it is a translation from French. I got as far as discovering that Henry Laurens (scholar) is French and wrote a relevant book, La Question de Palestine II, Une mission sacrée de civilisation in 2002. That seemed enough for me to fix the typo. It might be the right author and book, or it might not. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@RolandR: @John of Reading: It is the right author and book. The quote comes from the beginning of a chapter "Hajj Amin er l'holcauste". I can't verify the page numbers because I only have the ebook version and the pagination is different. Zero^talk 02:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Zero, could you add the missing details to the article? And can anyone identify "Sachar 1961"? RolandR (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"Sachar 1961" is referenced from a caption talking about Haj Amin al-Husseini. That article's references include a book by a Sachar written in 1961. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I have checked Howard Morley Sachar's 1961 book Aliyah - the Peoples of Israel in the Open Library. The information cited is indeed on pages 230-1 of the book. But I don't understand Harvard referencing, and how to use this in Wikipedia. Perhaps one of you could add the details, and also point me to a guide on this referencing style. Meanwhile, I will see if I can finf the Laurens book too. RolandR (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I added the Laurens book. Zero^talk 14:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

And I've added the Sachar book. For an overview of this referencing style, try Help:Shortened_footnotes#Overview, and for detailed help see Template:sfn. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Update request

Can I request that the following: ‘Antisemitism is generally considered to be a form of racism.’ Be updated to ‘Antisemitism is racism.’

(No from of racism should ever be tolerated. Cloaking it, by referring to with another name, does not change that.) Sabrashicksa (talk) 08:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

What is incorrect about the sentence? "Racism" is a complicated term, with multiple definitions, some of them much broader than others. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Change "antisemitism" to "anti-Semitism"?

What the subject says. "Anti-Semitism" is more commonly used than "antisemitism", and "anti-Semitism" is the main definition on Wiktionary. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwiftestCat (talk • contribs) 20:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

J.: The Jewish News of Northern California [13]:

. . . it’s mainly in the United States that one still finds the hyphen. Most of Europe uses 'antisemitism.' It’s not hyphenated in Hebrew, either. So, in a sense, J. is joining the majority. Even the ADL, the venerable anti-hate organization, released a statement announcing that it was abandoning the hyphen. After 'reviewing the history and consulting with other leading experts,' the statement said, 'we have determined that this is the best way to refer to hatred toward Jews.'[14] Dropping the hyphen[15] in antisemitism is also a political statement with a deeper cultural significance, similar to capitalizing the word Black, which we adopted last month to acknowledge the reality of a shared Black culture and heritage. As the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance wrote in 2015 when it urged adoption of the one-word term, 'At a time of increased violence and rhetoric aimed towards Jews, it is urgent that there is clarity and no room for confusion or obfuscation when dealing with antisemitism.'[16] We agree. Changing the word won’t get rid of the phenomenon. But it will make crystal clear what we are talking about.

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 08:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Revert

@RolandR: I've reverted your edit, which reintroduced a grammatical error. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Matthew 27:25

Being for many Jewish leaders the main historic source of the Christian antisemitism, Matthew 27:25 shall be mentioned in this article and not in uniquely in the history of antisemitism and similar ones. To cite only this verse or the related 1 Thessalonians 2 means not to give a WP:NPOV.

Differently from Jewish-like and Jewish-oriented, is not so simple to find secondary sources for a comment on non-antisemite verse of the New Testament.

• Christians believe the whole Bible be inspired by the Holy Spirit God who entrusted ti the Evangelist to write a genealogy of Jesus for which is was the last descendant of king David and the last king of Israel.;
• Jesus was announced with the Jewish-Greek name of Jesus by the angel of God (Luke 1.27)
• Jesus recognized Himself as a Jewish being when He is called rabbi, when St Peter is renamed Cefa after having used a Jewish term for Jesus (Mt 16:13–23), when the Almighty God didn't stop Romans on putting the inscription INRI on the cross.
• Jesus confirmed all the Mosaic law to be part of His human and divine law (Mt 5:17–20);
• Jesus sent the Twelve in all the countries of the Earth after the Solemnity of Pentecost, but he didn't forgot Jesuralem and the Israelite, despite the deicide. They had the Seven deacons and the martyrdom of St Stephen.

All those elements converge in saying Jesus didn't deny to be Jewish nor he denied the Jewish history-traditions and the possibility of salvation for the Israelites. He instituted a new non-Levitic priesthood, but the same St Paul who talked of it, also spoke of the thomb of king David, like St Peter did. Sources are necessary to cite them in a WP:NPOV article.Philosopher81sp (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

If the topic is Christian antisemitism, don't you think you should instead go to the article Antisemitism in Christianity to make your suggestions? Dimadick (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dimadick:, I agree to move the discussion to Antisemitism in Christianity. With the unique exception of Matthew 27:25, we don't have the necessary sources to gve a [[WP:NPOV}}, I think the concern on Matthew 27:25 can stay in the WP article for the reasons detailed in the reply to Roscelese.Philosopher81sp (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Philosopher81sp: I'm having trouble parsing your comment, but based on what I can gather from it, it's irrelevant. Your personal analysis of a primary source like the Bible is not admissible, and even if secondary sources supported your claims or considered them meaningful in some way, they would not negate or refute the statements contained in the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Roscelese: So my edit concerning Matthew 27:25 is now supported by three different secondary sources. There are no reasons to revert it. As said in the first sentence of the discussion, a lot of Jewish leaders has affirmed Matthew 27:25 is the main historic source and cause of the Christian antisemitism, I think the first sentence is now adequately parsed. And I hope so. The remaining part of the topic concern the attempt to build up a WP:NPOV edit. At the moment, we have uniquely Jewish-like sources stating Christians had an radical antisemite pattern for many centuries. For the reasons and the biblical passages aforementioned, it isn't true. I mentioned them there, hoping it could help to find the necessary sources to be "capitalized" in the WP article..Philosopher81sp (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Philosopher81sp: I reverted your edit for the following reasons: It is unclear how Mt 27 or 1Thess 2 can contain "victim blaming", since they were written at a time when Christians hat no political influence and so could not make Jews their victims. Your sentence gives the impression that 1Thess 2 is a "Divine punishment". The discussion of Mt 27 and 1Thess 2 fills books of scholarly literature, so articles from newspapers are not adequate sources. And, most important: It is not "Jewish leaders" that stressed the importance of those two passages, but many independent historians and Christian theologians as well. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I find your proposed edit both difficult to understand and very distant from a neutral point of view. Your invocation of Christian scripture in such a way that implies they are some absolute, unquestionable truth like a Law of physics is troubling. This is definitively not the article to cover such a niche doctrinal question of Christianity. As Dimadick suggested, I too think that this train of thought is better suited to an article on Christianity such as Antisemitism in Christianity. Île flottante (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Race vs religion

Bernspeed (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC) I was saying that Judaism is not a race, because race and religion are different characteristics. However, somebody reverted the edit because according the revert comment/description, antisemites think that Judaism is a race even though the consensus agrees with what I am saying. But, I am not sure if we should say that it is generally considered a form of racism and saying can be is a more fair form. And, it said to write it in the talk before doing anything, so that is what I am doing.

@Bernspeed: Please sign your comments using four tildes. The hat note of the article points to two different articles about religion-based hatred against Jews. There are two sources given saying that antisemitism is a form of racism. I think that's enough to support the claim. Of course, what antisemites (or racists in general) say, has nothing to do with reality. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

That is why I said that maybe we should change it because racists have nothing to do with reality Bernspeed (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Since "races" don't actually exist, "racism" is not used in a literal sense, except insofar as that racists believe that races do exist, and their prejudices, hatred, and persecutions are based on it. In other words, races don't exist, but racism and racists do.

There is no need to change the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Abuse of the term.

This term is being abuse globally ! The jews are maximum 2% of the sémite people. The use of the term to describe hate and violence for jews only, make a big impact in the general opinion about jews (many thinks the jews are arrogant or stupid to use it). This term even used against Iranians, which many are Sémites like the rest of the middle east. I request to change the opening text to put spot light on that issue. Sea.eyal (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

To an extent, this is already in the article (in the 'Usage' section): From the outset the term "anti-Semitism" bore special racial connotations and meant specifically prejudice against Jews. The term is confusing, for in modern usage 'Semitic' designates a language group, not a race. In this sense, the term is a misnomer, since there are many speakers of Semitic languages (e.g. Arabs, Ethiopians, and Arameans) who are not the objects of antisemitic prejudices, while there are many Jews who do not speak Hebrew, a Semitic language. Though 'antisemitism' could be construed as prejudice against people who speak other Semitic languages, this is not how the term is commonly used. However, it isn't correct to say that this is misusing it - the term has a slightly unintuitive etymology, which could potentially confuse someone who had never heard it before, but its meaning in English is clear, and it's hardly the only word whose etymology gives it a meaning that doesn't line up with what you might expect ("Inflammable means flammable? What a country!") --Aquillion (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Please look at the red section in the header: "We know that the Semites...". It's red, so that even casual reader will notice it. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021

Do change article title (antisemitism). This article describes "antijewism". The current title référés to the Semites people which the jews are less then 2%.

This is misleading and generates hate. 66.249.156.26 (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Antisemitism has a well established meaning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Slander of Charles Lindbergh and America First

"In the early 1940s the aviator Charles Lindbergh and many prominent Americans led The America First Committee in opposing any involvement in the war against Fascism. During his July 1936 visit to Nazi Germany, a few weeks before the 1936 Summer Olympics, Lindbergh wrote letters saying that there was "more intelligent leadership in Germany than is generally recognized". The German American Bund held parades in New York City during the late 1930s, where members wore Nazi uniforms and raised flags featuring swastikas alongside American flags."

Opposition to the entrance of the United States to the war in Europe is not proof of antisemitism. This is really a slander unless someone can provide specific evidence of Charles Lindbergh's antisemitism. If it exists (preferably in his own words), then quote and cite it here. Otherwise it should be removed from this article. To follow in the next sentence with material on Bund is guilt by association. Seki1949 (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this text is unsatisfactory. According to the article on Lindbergh in "Antisemitism, A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejuduce and Persecution", editor Richard Levy, the case that Lindbergh was an antisemite is limited to one speech he made. The author expresses doubt over whether it is enough; I have no opinion on that. Opposition to US entry into the war is not by itself proof of antisemitism. Zero^talk 20:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Removed text referencing Charles Lindbergh as antisemitic as un-sourced without RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seki1949 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I just restored the text and added the sources given at America First Committee. Seems to be based on RS. --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Reformation Anti-semitism and Anti-Judaism

I added a section on "Reformation", with links to relevant articles. This is meant to be a starting point for editors. Please refactor and expand. There are existing articles that cover this ground, that should at least be referenced. To this day, German neo-nazi websites quote Martin Luther admiringly, and to overlook his contribution to anti-semitism and his suggestion of what became the nazi "final solution" is a major oversight. The Lutheran church has formally rejected some of his more egregious demands, such as the one that Jews should be put in concentration camps. Jaredscribe (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Removed "Indology"

I just removed the section "Indology". The main reason is that it doesn't seem relevant. If it were relevant for this article, it should be mentioned in a history of antisemitism, not just in a book on the history of indology. Additionally, the section has more problems: It gives no details on when German indologists promoted antisemitism (before or after the Holocaust ?). It leaves the reader with a lot of questions: Why should indologists manipulate their research "with the objective of fueling European antisemitism" ? How can equating Jews with Brahmins fuel antisemitism ? How can this result in anti-Brahmanism ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

You are being a bit naive here frankly. The Nazi obsession with the Aryans is well known. Putting it simply, on that view Brahminism messed up the Aryan Vedic religion with a whole load of non-Aryan stuff, including large amounts of detailed rules, which they compared with Jews, as another stick to beat the Jews with. There was, and is, quite a lot of anti-Brahmin feeling within Hinduism, which they tried to encourage (at a considerable distance) and latch on to. Obviously, it was before the Holocaust (after WW2 anyone with those views had to shut up) . Whether it is "relevant" or WP:UNDUE here is a question, but the material, though over-compressed, is not nonsense, & well-referenced. You having "a lot of questions" is not a reason just to remove a referenced section. Johnbod (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

"Antisemitism" is such a huge topic that it's much more likely that such a detail would emerge in the context of "indology" rather then in the much broader content of antisemitism. I have restored the information, as it was sourced and relevant, and OUP is a pretty damn reliable publisher. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't like the section at all. (1) It is unsatisfactory that the only citation is a range of 138 pages in a book which mentions the word "anti-semitism" only in footnotes with one exception that refers to a previous century. (2) Where does "arbitrarily" come from; I don't find it in the source and it is also implausible as fringe theories nearly always have an internal non-arbitrary "logic". (3) Where does "with the objective of fueling European antisemitism" come from? The closest I can find is on page 307 which is more nuanced: "If it is true that German researches into ancient Indian texts played a formative role in the growth of anti-Semitism, it is equally true that those researches, from their very inception, were already shaped by German anti-Semitism." Note that this says it played a role, not that it was an objective. (We can reasonably assume such an objective existed, but our assumptions are not a replacement for a citation. Where does the source state it?) (4) The source does not mention "Indo-Aryan migration" under that name; if it is there under another name page numbers need to be provided. (5) "This identification required equating Brahmins with Jews"—where is that in the source? The closest I can find is comparison, not equation (p335). I looked at every occurrence of "Jew" in the book. (6) On page 21 the author notes that the German Indologists included a significant minority of Jews until the Nazi purge of Jewish scholars. In summary, this section is far below the required standard and it is not sourced. Zero^talk 03:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the sentence spanning pp 3-4, where he says he is not giving "yet another contribution to the genre of..." shows there is considerable literature on this. I can't see (on preview) beyond p. 38 but from the introduction it is clear that much of the authors' complaints are that German Indologists came with an existing European agenda which was hostile to the Old Testament/Jewish element in Christianity, and applied that to early India. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Aryanism and antisemitism are not identical concepts, especially over longer time periods (note that quite a lot of the book is devoted to the mid-19th century). If there is literature relevant to this page we have to find it. I don't think this heavy academic tome is going to suffice. Zero^talk 09:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

ADL edits

I just restored the statement about Iranian antisemitism which seems to have been inserted by an editor with a COI connection to ADL. After looking at the relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Anti_Defamation_League_citation_advocacy, I want to thank Graywalls for drawing attention to a serious problem. But in itself, the statement is relevant, and I wouldn't like to see it removed with the sole objective of discouraging further COI edits. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced its DUE in an article on antisemitism in general (as opposed to antisemitism in Iran or in school textbooks), but if we keep would be worth adding a secondary source e.g. [17][18] BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I've added those refs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The very first sentence - need correction.

The last word of the very first sentence should be replaced ("Jews" <- "Semites") E.g the first sentence should be: "Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Semites" Sea.eyal (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. "Anti-semitism" is a euphemism to suggest that it isn't really about Jews. A better term would be "Jew-Hatred" but it would fly in the face of long usage. Cecropia (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

Antisemitism is a movement against semit people, and here it is written in the context of anti judaism and that is not correct.

Please explain how you came to this conclussion with facts.

Thank you Gzkras (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Cause section needs to be expanded upon greatly

After reading through all of this material it seems that hardly any reason is given as to why antisemitism occurs. I would assume not everybody that practices antisemitism is irrational so it would be nice to know their reasons behind doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.67.183 (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks like that section has been tagged as needing expansion for ten years, and I agree that it would be important to expand it. As a concerned reader/editor, you can take action on this yourself. If you have ideas of specific content to add, feel free to go ahead and propose it here on the talk page! (Also, just a reminder to please sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~. Thank you!) Aerin17 (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Antisemitism against non-Jews

@Enthusiast01: Although now sourced, in my opinion your insertion of antisemitism against non-Jews still has a serious problem: The lede should summarize the article, not introduce new ideas. As far as I can see, the problem of antisemitism against sympathetic non-Jews is not discussed in the article in any depth that would merit mentioning it in the lede. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I don’t agree that the lede summarises the article. At any rate, other contributors may expand the point in the rest of the article. There are plenty of examples of non-Jews standing up for Jews, and suffered the price for it. Enthusiast01 (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, MOS:LEDE says right at the beginning that the lede summarizes the article, and the idea is repeated in the section MOS:INTRO. --Rsk6400 (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Rsk6400 is correct. This is not to say that we can't cover it, just that it doesn't belong in the lede unless/until it is covered in the body. I do think there is something to be said on this topic, and not just that antisemitism targets non-Jews who are supportive of Jews. The Nazis frequently denounced opponents as Jewish even when they were not, either playing on a very tenuous connection to Judaism or just making something up. Contemporary antisemitic conspiracy theories often include non-Jews. (Very often it is Bill Gates. They are obsessed with him.) When a non-Jew is attacked on the basis of a false belief (or bad faith claim) that they are in some way Jewish then that is also a manifestation of antisemitism. We don't want to overdo coverage of this, for risk of diluting the key fact that antisemitism primarily targets actual Jews, but I think it is legitimate to slightly expand the coverage of antisemitism against non-Jews beyond the single mention that we currently have. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the lede; it's a relatively minor manifestation of Jew-hatred. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Current situation

Anybody updating this page who can help keep current antisemitic attacks updated. Just an example, I was reading through the section on France and I think the trial of Sarah Halimi is a notable example. I would edit it myself, but I am fairly new to Wikipedia and I get totally lost at what is considered "historical 21st century" and what is considered "current situation". Any clarification or is better to merge the two sections and just separate 21st century antisemitism by region? Like I said, I am new user so I don't want to make any radical changes. Thanks! --RCrew92 (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Rcrew92 23 May 2021

Template_talk:Antisemitism_sidebar#On_the_Jewish_Question-BRD

If you have an opinion, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Ilhan_Omar#RFC has an RFC

Talk:Ilhan_Omar#RFC has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Benevolent human (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hyphenation

It is not "also known as anti-semitism." The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance rejects the hyphenation, as it is a misguided attempt to discredit the hatred of Jews. I demand that that is removed or edited to state "often called by the misnomer anti-semitism" Xamgerg (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

My goodness; you "demand" it, do you? What if I refuse?

And do you really mean "misguided attempt to discredit the hatred of Jews"? Do you think it's misguided to discredit any kind of hatred, or just of Jews? What does a hyphen have to do with Jew-hatred?

MrDemeanour (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

See also section

An editor added Critical race theory to the "See also" section and another removed it saying it is "Unsourced, unrelated, not in article". I restored, saying it doesn't need sourcing, it is related, and doesn't need to be in the article. It has been removed again, the editor saying "Unrelated. Take it to talk."

Antisemitism is essentially racism. Critical race theory is a theory of racism. They are self-evidently related, whatever one might think of either subject. Captainllama (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Ninth Century Francia

I'm looking to add a section on the origins of anti-semitism in West Francia, using the research of Warren Pezé's 'Amalaire Et La communautée Juive De Lyon À propos de l’antijudaïsme Lyonnais à l’époque Carolingienne’ that places ninth century Lyon as a hot spot for brewing anti-semitic ideologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubbyavocados (talk • contribs) 14:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Wording

The opener…

   directed against all Semitic people

… should IMO be changed into…

  directed against all peoples once considered Semitic

… to account for that "Semitic people", just like the linked article makes clear ("was a term", "now largely obsolete outside […] linguistics"), is an outdated term no longer in use for serious texts. — 84.163.110.146 (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 October 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MichaelSeigel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

No mention of the Roman-Jewish wars in the section on the Ancient World

The Roman Jewish wars were pivotal moments in Jewish history, especially Hadrian's renaming of Judea and the banishment of the Jews from Jerusalem. There is also a lot of scholarly discussion in regards to whether or not Hadrian perpetrated genocide. TablemannDanny231 (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, upon further investigation I see "rebellions" has a hyper-link, but surely a sentence or two should be given to describe the events? Especially considering this demographic shift is what really started the Jewish diaspora in the huge form it exists in today — Preceding unsigned comment added by TablemannDanny231 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2022

change Tunisia, as the only Middle Eastern country under direct Nazi control during World War II, was also the site of racist antisemitic measures such as the yellow star, prison camps, deportations, and other persecution. In 1948, approximately 105,000 Jews lived in Tunisia" to "Tunisia, under direct Nazi control during World War II, was also the site of racist antisemitic measures such as the yellow star, prison camps, deportations, and other persecution. In 1948, approximately 105,000 Jews lived in Tunisia"

"as the only Middle Eastern country" removed TheLime1 (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Why? Is it untrue, or do you just not like it? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

tunisia is a north african country , its not in the middle east! TheLime1 (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done According to our article Middle East, the whole of Libya lies between Tunisia and the Middle East. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Eternalism/contextualism debate

Not sure where this fits in the article but I think this should be added somewhere:

The study of antisemitism has become politically controversial because of differing interpretations of the Holocaust and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. There are two competing views of antisemitism, eternalism and contextualism. The eternalist view sees antisemitism as separate from other forms of racism and prejudice and an exceptionalist, transhistorical force teleologically culminating in the Holocaust. Hannah Arendt criticized this approach, writing that it provoked "the uncomfortable question: ‘Why the Jews of all people?’ . . . with the question begging reply: Eternal hostility." Zionist thinkers and antisemites draw different conclusions from what they perceive as the eternal hatred of Jews; according to antisemites, it proves the inferiority of Jews, while for Zionists it means that Jews need their own state as a refuge. Most Zionists do not believe that antisemitism can be combatted with education or other means.

The contextual approach treats antisemitism as a type of racism and focuses on the historical context in which hatred of Jews emerges. Some contextualists restrict the use of "antisemitism" to refer exclusively to the era of modern racism, treating anti-Judaism as a separate phenomenon. Historian David Engel has challenged the project to define antisemitism, arguing that it essentializes Jewish history as one of persecution and discrimination. Engel argues that the term "antisemitism" is not useful in historical analysis because it implies that there are links between anti-Jewish prejudices expressed in different contexts, without evidence of such a connection.

References

• Consonni, Manuela (2022). "'Upping the Antis': Addressing the Conceptual Ambiguities Surrounding 'Antisemitism'". Society. 59 (1): 25–33. doi:10.1007/s12115-022-00665-4.
• Judaken, Jonathan (2018). "Introduction". The American Historical Review. 123 (4): 1122–1138. doi:10.1093/ahr/rhy024.
• Ury, Scott (2018). "Strange Bedfellows? Anti-Semitism, Zionism, and the Fate of "the Jews"". The American Historical Review. 123 (4): 1151–1171. doi:10.1093/ahr/rhy030.

(t · c) buidhe 23:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• I think it needs some copy editing, but coverage of the scholarly divide seems like it would best fit as an additional subsection at the end of the current Origins and usage section. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

  To be clear, this intends to replace the three paragraphs Corphun just restored on this topic here (promoting eternalist viewpoint). (t · c) buidhe 04:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

  Zero0000 This is what I'm proposing as a replacement for these three paragraphs. (t · c) buidhe 06:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with buidhe, the three paragraphs restored by Corphun are poorly sourced, i.e. they are based on randomly chosen sources, in part primary sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Sub-section on Palestine

Re this edit I think that you need a consensus to remove longstanding information from the article. Regarding the sources, there is no prohibition on using reliable newspapers. If you think that better sources are needed you should've tagged it with {{Template:Better source needed}} so that other users can look for them. Alaexis_¿question? 07:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem, other than that there seems to be consensus not to keep the per-country breakdown, is that the text (not counting the image caption) is almost entirely devoted to claims from the Israeli government, which cannot be considered NPOV or balanced. (t · c) buidhe 08:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

You can't use the consensus not to keep the per-country breakdown to remove just one country's subsection. You are welcome to improve the section by adding different perspectives. Alaexis_¿question? 08:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

What was there should have been removed on grounds of being substandard to the point of embarrassment. Zero^talk 09:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with books by Howard Sachar and Henry Laurens (scholar) which were used in that section? Alaexis_¿question? 09:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Part of it is a focus on one person who is cynically used as a surrogate for all Palestinians. The other part is just Israeli government propaganda. Most of the country-specific sections have long been terrible and I fully support getting rid of them. Zero^talk 12:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Alaexis: I agree with you. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Definition

Here is what I'm proposing as a replacement for the current definition section, which is long, rambling and doesn't adequately inform the reader of different definitions.

Antisemitism is difficult to define, although the basic meaning is hatred of Jews. There are multiple conceptions of antisemitism, which has been defined as the ideology and political movement started by Marr, the rejection of Jews as a distinct collective, an individual prejudice against Jews—ranging from mild to extreme—and a deep-seated aspect of Western civilization or modernity. Anti-Zionism and sometimes criticism of Israeli government policies have also been described as antisemitic, which some call new antisemitism. Other actions such as violence against Jews or Jewish sites, or Holocaust denial are uncontroversially considered antisemitic. The Working Definition of Antisemitism has been adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and some countries, although it is one of the most controversial definitions of antisemitism. The definition's examples focus on Israel and have been used to censor criticism of Israel. Other definitions include the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism and the Nexus Document.

• Consonni, Manuela (2022). "'Upping the Antis': Addressing the Conceptual Ambiguities Surrounding 'Antisemitism'". Society. 59 (1): 25–33. doi:10.1007/s12115-022-00665-4.
• Waxman, Dov; Schraub, David; Hosein, Adam (2021). "Arguing about antisemitism: why we disagree about antisemitism, and what we can do about it". Ethnic and Racial Studies: 1–22. doi:10.1080/01419870.2021.1960407.
• Ruth Gould, Rebecca (2020). "The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism: Defining Antisemitism by Erasing Palestinians". The Political Quarterly. 91 (4): 825–831. doi:10.1111/1467-923X.12883.
• Soyer, François (2019). Medieval Antisemitism?. Amsterdam University Press. ISBN 978-1-64189-008-3.
• Beller, Steven (2007). Antisemitism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-157947-9. (t · c) buidhe 11:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is disjointed and confusing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Could you clarify? It's a lot less disjointed and confusing than what the article currently has in the "definition" section—read it. (t · c) buidhe 11:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I have read it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

What are you proposing for the section that would be an improvement on the current version? (t · c) buidhe 11:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not proposing anything. I'm merely stating that in my opinion, your proposal isn't an improvement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: not an improvement. See MOS:FIRST. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Dr.Pinsky You must be confused. This is not a proposed change to the lead section, but the body section titled "definition". (t · c) buidhe 21:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Andy and Pinsky that this is not an improvement. The current version is better. In addition to the convolution, I expect to reject any proposal for the section that leads off by stating that antisemitism is hard to define. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If RS says it's hard to define, Wikipedia should note this, regardless of editors' opinion on the matter.

I suggest that you provide a constructive suggestion for improving the article, if you don't agree with my proposed version. (t · c) buidhe 18:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to see the specific Waxman quotation, which is in a source I can't access. I don't believe that "different people have come up with different definitions, and some people disagree about whether or not specific things are antisemitic" is accurately paraphrased as "antisemitism is difficult to define," and I think it's inappropriate for an article on antisemitism to lead off by suggesting that we don't really know what it is or if anything counts as antisemitism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure, Waxman et al. states: "antisemitism today is not always easy to identify or even define. Because there is no single, easy way to define or detect antisemitism, responding to antisemitism is inevitably complicated and contentious. While some cases of antisemitism are clear-cut, many are not. Antisemitism, like racism, is not always easy to spot. In this article, we argue that identifying antisemitism can be difficult and often contentious because there are different ways of thinking about antisemitism, and these different approaches can yield different conclusions about whether something is antisemitic or not. Moreover, even the same approach to thinking about antisemitism can be applied in different ways, and result in very different conclusions regarding whether particular phenomena (rhetoric, arguments, statements) are or are not antisemitic. In short, people can disagree in good faith over whether or not something is antisemitic".

Other sources say similar things, for example:

• Soyer states: "“Antisemitism” is certainly a nineteenth-century term that defies any facile attempt to define it."
• Kenneth L. Marcus states: "Defining antisemitism has always been complicated by the disreputable origins of the term, the discredited sources of its etymology, the diverse manifestations of the concept, and the contested politics of its applications."
• Judaken says, "There are many problems with data collection on incidents of antisemitism, not least being how ‘antisemitism’ is defined. This very definition is at the heart of the clashes about the significance of antisemitism today"
• Linda Maziels says that defining antisemitism is "arguably one of the most contentious issues in the contemporary discourse on the subject"
• Albert Lindemann: "Efforts to define anti-Semitism have been so numerous and inconclusive as to invite ridicule."Anti-Semitism before the Holocaust, p. 21?

I don't agree that "we don't really know what it is or if anything counts as antisemitism" and I don't think my proposed edit suggests that. Rather, there are some forms of antisemitism that almost everyone can agree on, and other things that are highly controversial whether they are antisemitic or not.

I'm here to improve the article so any constructive suggestions are welcome! (t · c) buidhe 21:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The new version is indeed more concise, however there are quite a few issues with it. What does it mean that Antisemitism is defined as "a deep-seated aspect of Western civilization or modernity"? Did Marr really *start* it as an ideology? Possibly it would be easy to correct them. This version also exaggerates the controversy regarding the IHRA definition which has been adopted by many bodies all over the world. Saying that "criticism of Israeli government policies have also been described as antisemitic" is a bit of a strawman, usually it's not the criticism per se which is considered antisemitic but double standards applied to Israel and other countries. Alaexis_¿question? 05:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Alaexis, thanks so much for your comment.

1. I agree, a rephrase would be more clear here. How about "a deep-seated discourse in Western culture"? This is what people are talking about when they refer to antisemitic tropes.
2. That is what the cited source says: "As with communism, it is definable as a self-styled ideology and political movement, set up in 1879 by Wilhelm Marr, as the ‘Antisemites League’, to combat ‘Semitism’ (hence the often used, but ill-advised, orthography of ‘anti-Semitism’)"
3. The cited source says "The IHRA definition is one of the most contentious documents in the history of efforts to combat antisemitism." Other sources agree, for example:
   • this paper: the "IHRA definition has a particularly chequered history and has attracted enormous controversy".
   • "the new definition of antisemitism had been the stimulus for the debate in the following year in which Achille Mbembe became the catalyst for a new Historikerstreit and a debate about the role of the Holocaust in German remembrance culture.", by Aleida Assmann in Journal of Genocide Research
   • This 2018 paper describes it as "a controversial definition of anti-Semitism", in part because of its use to censor criticism of Israel
   • This 2021 paper calls it "a controversial definition that equates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism"
   • "a controversial definition of antisemitism, empowering government agencies to investigate potentially discriminatory speech in addition to actions" in American Jewish History
   • Amos Goldberg in Society says that this "definition of antisemitism... refers to some of the fundamental components of the Palestinian narrative anchored in the post- and anti-colonial moral-historical narrative, as antisemitic... this definition is most effectively employed to limit free speech on almost every critical position toward Israel and Zionism. The IHRA definition and its spirit have in fact made almost any Palestinian allegations or argument, even those pertaining to the occupied territories and the siege of Gaza, immediately suspect of antisemitism"

Etc. Although it enjoys institutional support in a minority of the world's countries, it doesn't seem to be used as much in academic analysis of antisemitism.

1. This is based on the cited source, which says: "In a twenty-first-century context, “antisemitism” has been used to define, alternatively, a refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the existence of a Jewish homeland (the State of Israel), criticism of Zionism as an ideology and movement, or indeed sometimes even criticism of Israeli government policies in Gaza and the West Bank." Although double standards are one basis upon which some criticism of Israel is deemed antisemitic, it's not the only one. For example, some people believe that supporting Palestinian right to return is inherently antisemitic, although it wouldn't be a double standard if (as many supporters do) one supported right to return of all refugees in a comparable situation. Some (including the WDA) consider comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany inherently antisemitic, although it's not clear how that's a double standard since Nazi analogies are common in Western culture. (t · c) buidhe 07:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, given the loads of books and papers that have been written about the topic, it's not too hard to find the criticism of any given concept. When I say that it exaggerates the controversy I mean that it makes it seem as if other mentioned definitions are somehow less contentious (which is doubtful. Also, does this belong to the Definition section? Surely any concept can be used to censor those you don't agree with (you can accuse them of blasphemy, racism, etc., depending on the place and time), but does it mean that such abuses belong to the definition of said concepts?. Alaexis_¿question? 11:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Even supporters of the WDA acknowledge the controversy, for example see here and here. I'm not sure how you measure controversy over the JDA, since it doesn't have as high a profile and is not intended to be used as an instrument of censorship. Right now the article gives a lot of prominence to individual critics, but the 350 signatories represent a significant percentage of the total number of scholars in related fields worldwide. In my proposal, I tried to cover both institutional support for the WDA and the controversy over it.

The many incidents of censorship is one of the main reasons that the WDA is controversial (along with defining mainstream Palestinian political positions as antisemitic, as Goldberg points out) and a major aspect in coverage of the WDA. To the best of my knowledge, none of the other definitions has been used for censorship. If this article is going to be comprehensive, I think it also needs to cover the view that some define antisemitism in such a way as to shield Israel from certain criticisms and limit discussion of Palestinian rights. (t · c) buidhe 12:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not denying the controversy, I'm questioning the weight you're proposing to give it in the *Definition* section. Compare it to other articles about race or ethnicity-based prejudices. Alaexis_¿question? 07:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Alaexis You bring up a great point. There are two ways of considering antisemitism, one is as a subset of ethnic, racial or religious-based prejudice (explicitly supported by the JDA) and another as a sui generis phenomenon (this is the approach taken by the IHRA).

The difference in definitions is related to exceptionality in addressing antisemitism vs. other types of prejudice, which is not adequately addressed in the article at present. For example, to the best of my knowledge there is no international definition of anti-Black racism adopted by multiple countries. US and UK have a special envoy to deal with antisemitism, but not one for Islamophobia, anti-black racism, anti-Romani racism, etc. This way of dealing with antisemitism has been criticized. That said, the place to cover such aspects is probably a different section of the article. (t · c) buidhe 14:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe, am I correct in understanding that your proposal is to replace the entire existing 'Definition' section of the article (almost 800 words) with your 150-word text? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but I think my version could be expanded. The current section places undue weight on one definition (the WDA) and quotes from multiple writers who have somewhat idiosyncratic definitions. It would be better to synthesize an overall summary of different definitions, which is what I was attempting to do. (t · c) buidhe 21:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You are proposing to synthesise your own summary definition of something you emphasise is 'difficult to define'? What makes you think you can do that any better than those responsible for the 'idiosyncratic definitions' you seem to be objecting to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The proposed version isn't my personal view, it's what reliable sources say on the matter.

Why do you think that the currently quoted individuals are representative of scholarly views on the definition of antisemitism? They aren't. (t · c) buidhe 23:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Given the difficulties involved in trying to arrive at a concise definition of the term, I'd have thought that most individual views would likely be 'unrepresentative'. Not that I consider myself qualified to say what is or isn't. What qualifications do you have to arrive at such a conclusion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not editors' qualifications—for good reasons. That is why I looked at some high-quality sources that provide overviews on different views on the concept of antisemitism and how it is defined (see the references list). I don't believe that Lewis' definition, for example, is at all commonly held. (t · c) buidhe 23:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia is (or at least should be) based on reliable sources. And when reliable sources differ on something (as self-evidently seems to be the case here), Wikipedia should indicate this, by presenting the reader with what the various sources have to say on the subject, in a balanced way (balance of course being hard to define...). What Wikipedia shouldn't be doing, per policy is arriving at its own conclusions regarding the matter concerned. Which is what you have told us you are trying to do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. The proposal I gave covered different ways that antisemitism has been defined and conceptualized, and does not arrive at any original conclusions that are not in the cited sources. (t · c) buidhe 00:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you didn't mean to suggest that Wikipedia should "synthesize an overall summary of different definitions", why did you write exactly that? And then go on to present yourself as being able to decide what is or isn't 'representative' on the subject?

Frankly, at this point I don't think there is much point in continuing this discussion further. Evidently you don't consider some of the viewpoints in the article as it stands 'representative'. Some may well not be, but they need each to be discussed on their own merits, not dismissed wholesale because an unqualified contributor has cobbled together an alternative selection of statements - at least one of which seems not to be a definition of antisemitism at all, and one of which appears to be asserting as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, a distinctly-controversial viewpoint on censorship. You have no support for your proposal, and I see very little prospect of you ever getting any. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Except that the cited RS does exactly that—cover all the relevant definitions rather than just some quotes randomly selected by Wikipedia editors. It makes more sense to cite sources that are directly about the definition because that minimizes the chances of cherry-picking. I don't understand the status quo bias.

Is it really a seriously contested assertion that the WDA has been used to censor criticism of Israel? There are several known cases mentioned in the cited source, are they all just made up? I expect you to provide sources to back up all your claims. (t · c) buidhe 03:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

What claims? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

For starters, that there is a dispute over whether the IHRA definition has been used to censor criticism of Israel. (t · c) buidhe 13:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You have yourself just written above that "the WDA is controversial". Which is clearly correct. And why, in a Wikipedia article on antisemitism, in a section discussing definitions of the term - a section noting that there are many differing perspectives on what constitutes antisemitism - Wikipedia should not be asserting its own editorial judgement on this specific controversy as fact. Not least because regardless of whether this judgement is valid or not, it isn't a definition of antisemitism. It is a statement about censorship. It is off-topic for a section on definitions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

??? I've provided multiple sources that say the definition has been used to censor criticism of Israel. You haven't provided a single one to contradict this. It's a simple yes/no question that is not related to difficulty in defining antisemitism. Per NPOV, it is appropriate to state a fact in Wikivoice unless it is seriously contested. (t · c) buidhe 13:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

"...not related to difficulty in defining antisemitism". Yup. Because it isn't a definition of antisemitism at all. It is instead a criticism of one of the ways such definitions have been used. Off-topic for the section. You complain above that "The current section places undue weight on one definition (the WDA)", yet seem at the same time keen to emphasise this definition - or rather one of the consequences of it - in a manner that detracts from a proper discussion of the broader topic itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Of course, censorship of criticism of Israel is a decades long issue since before the WDA existed. However, I do not think this distracts from the fact that the WDA has itself been used in a variety of censorship efforts. My version of the article reduces the space dedicated to the WDA compared to the current article by nearly 90 percent to avoid undue weight.

I'm not tied to any particular wording, but this censorship is tied up with specific ways of defining antisemitism so I think it is appropriate to cover here. (t · c) buidhe 14:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Clearly we aren't going to agree as to relevance of, and emphasis on, this particular issue here, but I'm not going to argue the toss further, since as I have already made clear, I consider your proposed new 'definitions' section in general to be worse than what we have now, and I don't even understand why we are being presented with a fait-accompli binary choice between what we have now and a new section written by a single contributor. That isn't how collaborative editing is supposed to work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe, when you say that the JDA is "not intended to be used as an instrument of censorship," perhaps you mean that thus far 100% of the time anyone has cited it, it's to excuse and defend something that other people have called antisemitic? At any rate, this does not appear to be a productive discussion given your resistance to revising your rejected proposal. This is clearly not an appropriate place to grind your axe about the IHRA. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I've said multiple times that I'm here to improve the article, not grind any axes. I suggest you WP:AGF and make constructive suggestions for improving the article based on reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 07:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Per section basis?

Rsk6400 I still don't think this is a good article organization, for a number of reasons. First of all, the article is already above the recommended size for readability, removing the by country section helps keep it under the limit. Second, I do not think it's possible to give a good overview of antisemitism in each country within the size restrictions of WP:Article size. Third, I think the racism article is a better model for organization, which does not have a by country section but instead a separate article racism by country. (t · c) buidhe 08:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

After taking a second look and thinking about your points (article size, organization of article racism) I don't object any longer, I'd only ask to wait until this discussion is 24 hours old, so that other editors may have a chance to comment. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Just fwiw, we need a couple or more paragraphs on the overall trends of antisemitism in current world. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. (t · c) buidhe 06:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

If we go down this road then a new article Antisemitism by country should be created (similar to Racism by country) and the removed information should go there. Alaexis_¿question? 09:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

We already have Geography of antisemitism that covers antisemitism per country. (t · c) buidhe 09:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. Alaexis_¿question? 09:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe, why are you removing information when the discussion is not over? Alaexis_¿question? 09:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll respectfully disagree. Most of the well-known discrimination articles have 'by country' sections, whether it is Antiziganism, Anti-Hindu sentiment, Discrimination against atheists, Anti-Chinese sentiment, Anti-Indian sentiment, Anti-Arabism, Anti-Iranian sentiment, Anti-Turkish sentiment, Anti-Albanian sentiment etc. I think an RfC should be held first before the whole portion is deleted. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Most of these articles don't have length issues, or cover prejudices that have only been reported in a relatively few countries. If they were expanded more it could make sense to separate off by country article. (t · c) buidhe 22:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The removal of 110k of well sourced and relevant text is unacceptable. Many editors worked hard on that for years.Tritomex (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It's in Geography of antisemitism now. Alaexis_¿question? 09:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

"too long to read" is not a good criticism. Most people are not here to read EVERY country- instead the vast majority will read their region or country of interest, and it is good to have neighboring countries to compare with. Rjensen (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

A) It is a good criticism as it pertains to readability. This an encyclopedia, full of what are supposed to be discrete encyclopedic entries, not treatises.

B) There is a specific guideline for this at WP:SPLIT - anything over 100,000 bytes is cruising for a splitting. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Alaexis: But wait ... why has only 22,000 bytes been copied over? Was there already that much duplication? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Good question. I haven't checked. Alaexis_¿question? 12:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: could you explain this [19]? I am not seeing any consensus. Thank you. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Well I thought it was the talk above, but now I'm confused, because the material hasn't clearly gone to Geography of antisemitism yet. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

External links

Why isn't there anything in the External links section at the moment? Mcljlm (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Removed in this edit. [20] Since this seems to have been entirely undiscussed, feel free to restore it. Though I'd suggest that some trimming is probably appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Sergey Lavrov

"On Sunday, Putin's top diplomat sought to justify Moscow's absurd goal of "de-Nazifying" Ukraine -- a baseless portrayal of the country, which is led by a Jewish president -- by claiming Adolf Hitler had "Jewish blood" and that "the most ardent anti-Semites are usually Jews.""

I guess it's too "in the news" for this article, but wow. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, agree that it is too recent and detailed for this high-level article for now, but :( Freelance-frank (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Atm it's got a paragraph at his article, so it's on WP, anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Needs rewording

"They have undoubtedly had a difficult Jewish problem, but why is it necessary to handle it so unreasonably?", acknowledgement on Lindbergh's part that he agreed with the Nazis that Germany had a "Jewish problem." - the "acknowledgement on Lindbergh's part that he agreed with the Nazis that Germany had a "Jewish problem" bit is an opinion, that of the author of the cited source. So it needs to be reworded to reflect that. 92.1.144.176 (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Content copied from anti-Middle Eastern sentiment

@Dr.Pinsky, Vitamortisachla, and Altanner1991: I restored the version as of 2 June. I think that the text that Altanner1991 copied from anti-Middle Eastern sentiment gives undue weight to single studies, single authors, and one single country (i.e. the U.S.). In fact, the most horrific instance of antisemitism, i.e. the Holocaust, had nothing to do with the U.S., so IMHO this article should not cover US antisemitism in too much detail. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The sources include Washington Post and Boston Review, which are reliable secondary sources. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/boston-review/ Altanner1991 (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't doubt the reliability of the sources. I just doubt that we should have so much text about the U.S., see e.g. WP:BALASP. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm okay with the texts being cut down, but I'm against removing them entirely. Hiding of information wouldn't be fair to neutrality of the encyclopedia. Pinging AndyTheGrump: If he could spare some time, I'd like to hear his perspective. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree: it would be better to at least have *some* USA content. It might be worth noting that the USA has more neo-Nazis than almost any other country. Altanner1991 (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

No, there is already enough content for the US.--Vitamortisachla (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Given the state of the American far-right it makes sense to have as much content as possible. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

"As much content as possible" is contrary to the goal of writing an encyclopedia article on any subject. Articles should be concise, with content selected with regard to quality and weight. Zero^talk 09:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Aside from rhetorical talking points, there is no sufficient balancing reason to believe that those added portions were lacking in notoriety or weight. Few answers were given, other than blanket statements such as "too much text". Altanner1991 (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

That is no different from saying "Given the state of the American far-left it makes sense they would want to have as much content as possible"! The advice Zero said in response is correct. 92.1.144.176 (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't cut it; those are reliable sources, and the weight is due. Why on earth would you say the holocaust is the last topic of antisemitism? Antisemitism continues today and yes even to a great extent, in the United States of America. Altanner1991 (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like to point out that half the neo-Nazis today live in the United States, and the other half live in Russia. Major WP:NPOV issues with the removal of US-related content. Altanner1991 (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I am changing my stance as the content was indeed not worthy enough. Thank you. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Pejorative connotations

I wonder in view of Yehuda Bauer's quote user:Rsk6400 if "the term antisemitism acquired pejorative connotations" should be in this instance "the terms anti-Semite and anti-Semitic acquired pejorative connotations". I suggest that as someone who emails authors and publishers whenever I see the hyphen used and removes the hyphen if I see it in WP articles. Mcljlm (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's necessary. VQuakr (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

VQuakr, sorry for reverting you, but the section clearly speaks about the term. The idea is that before 1945, antisemites had no problems calling themselves "antisemites", i.e. using the term for themselves, while since 1945 the term is considered an insult (much like "racist" or "white supremacist"). Mcljlm, of course we cannot change direct quotes, but since the terms with hyphen and those without have exactly the same meaning, and both spellings have been used before 1945, I don't see why we should not consistently spell "antisem." outside quotations. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Rsk6400 isn't it the adjective and the person it describes, as in the examples you give, rather than the ism which acquired pejorative connotations? Mcljlm (talk) Mcljlm (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not about the word as a word (which is rare). It's about what the word means; the normal role of language. VQuakr (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Mcljlm, all those terms acquired negative connotations, meaning it became very rare that a person said "I'm antisemite", or "I support antisemitism". VQuakr, the concept of antisemitism has been a hateful ideology from the beginning. There has never been a change in that. The only difference was that the word (the term) became pejorative in the sense I described above. "Term" is also used in the status-quo version, so my edit was simply applying MOS:WAW. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

No, the word isn't pejorative; its meaning is. This isn't a case of WAW. VQuakr (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The Yehuda Bauer quote seems to pretty clearly be about the word as a word, Nobody says, 'I am anti-Semitic.' You cannot, after Hitler. The word has gone out of fashion. I can't access the cited source right now, but given Bauer's other work, which unambiguously takes the perspective that antisemitism still exists today, I would be genuinely shocked if the source didn't confirm this reading. It's also worth noting that we currently have well-cited claims in the lead establishing that the German term Antisemitismus was originally coined as a more-politically-correct euphemism for Judenhass, a precedent for the non-pejorative origin of the term, irrespective of the reprehensibility of the content it represents. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, sounds like I'm in the minority. Thanks for weighing in. VQuakr (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Insufient source for antisemitism related the russian invasion of ukraine

Hello the claim has only one source that being a guardian article

In Eastern Europe the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the instability of the new states has brought the rise of nationalist movements and the accusation against Jews for the economic crisis, taking over the local economy and bribing the government, along with traditional and religious motives for antisemitism such as blood libels. Writing on the rhetoric surrounding the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Jason Stanley relates these perceptions to broader historical narratives: "the dominant version of antisemitism alive in parts of eastern Europe today is that Jews employ the Holocaust to seize the victimhood narrative from the 'real' victims of the Nazis, who are Russian Christians (or other non-Jewish eastern Europeans)".[228] He calls out the "myths of contemporary eastern European antisemitism – that a global cabal of Jews were (and are) the real agents of violence against Russian Christians and the real victims of the Nazis were not the Jews, but rather this group."[228

"the dominant version of antisemitism alive in parts of eastern Europe today is that Jews employ the Holocaust to seize the victimhood narrative from the 'real' victims of the Nazis, who are Russian Christians (or other non-Jewish eastern Europeans)".[228] He calls out the "myths of contemporary eastern European antisemitism – that a global cabal of Jews were (and are) the real agents of violence against Russian Christians and the real victims of the Nazis were not the Jews, but rather this group."

I have never heard the view in russian antisemitism that russian christians were the real victims of the holocaust 

In russia neo-nazis deny the holocaust whilst antisemitic politicians like zhirnovsky have given up on it. I want people to provide extra sources or remove the part

Also for some people putin calling zelensky a ”nazi” isn’t antisemitism it’s a lie to envoke ww2 he would do it no mater what etnicity or political ideology the leader of ukraine has. Zelensky is objectively a centrist liberal. 176.72.99.98 (talk) 04:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

She doesn't say they believe that Russian Christians were the real victims of the Holocaust. The narrative she's describing basically says that a lot of Russians/Ukrainians died at the hands of Nazis (or Soviets, if we are talking about nationalist Ukrainians) and therefore Holocaust is not such a big deal. This is important and I don't think it's covered elsewhere in the article. Regarding the connection with the war, I think we need a better source than an opinion piece from The Guardian. More generally, the section should reflect the level of antisemitism which is much lower in the Eastern Europe than in Western Europe (Ukraine and Russia had 38 and 4 antisemitic incidents in 2021, compared to 589 in France [21]). Alaexis_¿question? 06:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The source you gave explicitly states: "Documentation of antisemitic incidents in Russia is lacking, leading to an unclear picture of the state of antisemitism in the country." I can't see how that supports your claim that antisemitism is "much lower in ... Eastern ... than in Western Europe". Rsk6400 (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not just about Russia, you can see that the incidence of violence and vandalism (per capita) is also much lower in Ukraine than in Germany, the UK and France. Alaexis_¿question? 05:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Title "anti-Semitism" looks more academic

Did Wikipedia editors discuss why not call the article just "anti-Semitism" as Britannica? Are there present other academic sources calling that "Antisemism"? PoetVeches (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length here, and a consensus was reached that the unhyphenated term, which is increasingly being used by both academics and activists, was the appropriate usage in Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

And note that this is a peculiarly English problem. Nearly every other Wikipedia uses an unhyphenated form - the only exceptions I could find were the Welsh and Irish language versions. RolandR (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I found also on online Cambridge dictionary all the forms (antisemitism, also anti-Semitism, anti-semitism) so it looks no problem re academism. PoetVeches (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Source for lead change

@Dottasriel2000, which source are you relying on for your inclusion of Abyssinians for your recent edit? I do not see it in Bein, the closest reference, nor do I see them mentioned elsewhere on the page. Freelance-frank (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Objections to the usage of this term as obsolete and exclusionary

Please add the following to the lede:

Objections to the usage of the term, such as the obsolete nature of the term "Semitic" as a racial term and the exclusion of discrimination against non-Jewish Semitic peoples, have been raised since at least the 1930s.

2601:547:B05:5F8:FD87:C7FB:46F1:6688 (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

References

This is covered in the second paragraph of the lead and more generally in Antisemitism#Etymology. Anything missing? Freelance-frank (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

No comment on including the proposed sentence verbatim, but I think the article could be more clear about the term "Semitic people". The sentence in the lead:

The root word Semite gives the false impression that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic people, e.g., including Arabs, Assyrians, and Arameans.

That itself seems to give a false impression that "Semitic people" is a contemporary term for a group that includes modern Arabs, Assyrians, and Arameans (it wouldn't make sense that it refers to ancient ones). The linked article says that it's an obsolete, racialized term from the 19th century, that is no longer considered valid, and is "largely unused", except as "'a kind of shorthand' for ancient Semitic-speaking peoples.". On the other hand, the Wiktionary link does indicate that a "Semite" may be "a member of a modern people that speak a Semitic language," and this is backed up by various other online dictionaries. So there's some contradiction between this sentence and the "Semitic people" article. The "Etymology" section here doesn't really cover whether "Semite/Semitic people" is current or obsolete. The "Usage" section does have some discussion about the modern usage of "Semitic" as a language group, and on the other hand the rejection of "Semitism" as having any validity. Maybe that's enough, but the sentence in the lead doesn't seem to correspond with either of those, and uses "Semitic people" in a way that is contradicted by the linked article. 77.191.177.249 (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

This sentence is contradictory - it (correctly) objects to the use of the term "Semitic" as an ethnic descriptor, and then does exactly what it has just objected to. RolandR (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

"Semites" and "anti" version are separate words. The former is obsolete. The latter is standard among scholars and experts in the 21st century. The latter is the topic of this article. See scores of cited uses in scholarly journals published in 2022 at this page. Rjensen (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I saw that the proposed sentence is taken from Semitic people#Antisemitism, where it's been since 2016. The contradictory part "and the exclusion of discrimination against non-Jewish Semitic peoples" was added later, and isn't found in the cited sources; I made an edit request to remove it. Maybe there's some value in the citations though, and the idea of clarifying the status of the terms "Semitic people", "Semite", and "Semitism", regarding whether they are synonymous or not, and what their contemporary usage is, for example if "Semitism" is something different from "ancient Semitic peoples" or "modern Semitic-language speakers". 77.191.177.249 (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Please note that I just removed the words "and the exclusion of discrimination against non-Jewish Semitic peoples" from Semitic people, responding to the IP's edit request. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! 78.54.17.177 (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Antisemitism and xenophobia (anti-Polish sentiment)

It would be interesting to see the article explore the aspect where people, due to general xenophobic attitude are also classed as Jews and subjected to antisemitic abuse. For example, in the case of anti-Polonism (since Poland is a successor state to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in which most Jews lived in early modern era). This happened to Marie Curie who came from Warsaw (at the time a city with a very large Jewish population), and was subjected to antisemitic abuse. Is it possible that there is a link between Antisemitism and antipolonism? 51.155.213.25 (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that -- at least at one period of time -- a large number of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe might have provoked a generalized xenophobia aimed at Eastern Europeans -- not exclusively Poles -- because they were assumed to be Jewish, especially if they were from the "lower classes". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Dreyfus Affair

Shouldn't the Dreyfus affair be under the Persecution header as well as the tropes header? ModernMephisto (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

On the click box that links you to the new articles within the "Antisemitism Series". Dreyfus should be under Persecution/Persecuted. ModernMephisto (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikilink

I edited the wikilink "came to power" in the Section 3.11 20th century sentence starting "In Germany, shortly after Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power" so that the link led directly to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power#Seizure_of_control_(1931%E2%80%931933) instead of via the Redirect from Machtergreifung (indicated by "Adolf Hitler's rise to power (Redirected from Machtergreifung)" at the top of the page. I'd be grateful if Rsk6400 or someone else could explain why he reverted my edit, why the indirect link is better than the direct link. Mcljlm (talk) 11:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Mcljlm, according to my experience, links to sections are a bit problematic because section headings often change. After the section heading was changed, the link won't work any more. Also, since "Machtergreifung" is already a redirect, it might some day occur to somebody to make an article out of it. Also, I understood MOS:RDR and MOS:NOPIPE as supporting my edit. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems strange Rsk6400 to have a link to a non-English word which is unlikely to have its own article. Mcljlm (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Koreans

To editor Mureungdowon: The "See Also" section of articles is intended to provide links to other articles on topics with direct connection to the this one. It is not intended for listing articles on topics that editors think are somehow analogous, nor to provide editorial commentary on them. Note that except for the more broad topic of xenophobia, all the links so far are about aspects of antisemitism. If we want to add all the examples in the world of racial or religious persecution, the list would be very much longer. It isn't possible that your addition will be accepted and you should stop trying. Zero^talk 13:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

See Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea#See also and Anti-Korean sentiment in Japan#See also. (South Koreans' anti-Japanese sentiment is similar to Israel's anti-German sentiment. It has some justification. On the other hand, Japan's anti-Korean sentiment is as unjust as Germen's antisemitism.) During World War II, the hardest-hit people were Jews and Koreans. (Chinese and Russians should consider the proportion of the population) Koreans suffered without a country like Jews. South Korea is the only country in Asia to sign an FTA with Israel. South Koreans believe that anti-Semitism and Japan's anti-Korean sentiment are similar. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

This is an article about a specific form of prejudice, and one form only. It will remain so, since it is grossly inappropriate to single out one of the many other forms of prejudice because a contributor considers it 'similar'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed Lede Rewrite of March 2023

Here is the new draft that I WP:Boldly proposed. See my edit summaries for arguments in support of each proposed change, and you may respond to those in reply.

is an ideology that promotes hostility, prejudice, discrimination, incitement, or violence directed against Jews,[2][3][4] as a matter of racist hate.[5][6] A proponent is said to be an antisemite.

The compound term Antisemitismus was brought into common usage in the late 19th century by the Anti-semitic league, and was coined in Germany in 1879[7] as a scientific-sounding term for the traditional and religious Judenhass ('Jew-hatred'),[8][9][10][11][12] and this has been its common use since then.[8][13][14]

It is also applied to previous and later anti-Jewish incidents. Notable instances of persecution include the Rhineland massacres preceding the First Crusade in 1096, the Edict of Expulsion from England in 1290, the 1348–1351 persecution of Jews during the Black Death, the massacres of Spanish Jews in 1391, the persecutions of the Spanish Inquisition, the expulsion from Spain in 1492, the Cossack massacres in Ukraine from 1648 to 1657, various anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire between 1821 and 1906, the 1894–1906 Dreyfus affair in France, the Holocaust in German-occupied Europe during World War II and Soviet anti-Jewish policies. Though historically most manifestations of antisemitism have taken place in Christian Europe, since the early 20th century antisemitism has increased in the Middle East.

Antisemitism has historically been manifested in many ways, ranging from expressions of hatred of or discrimination against individual Jews to organized pogroms by mobs, police forces, or genocide.

The root word Semite gives the false impression that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic people, e.g., including Arabs, Assyrians, and Arameans, but in origin and common use, antisemitism refers to hate directed at Jews in particular

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Obvious first question: do you have a source for 'an ideology'? Because our article seems not to support this - antisemitism has roots running back many centuries, and has been seen in all sorts of varying contexts, in wildly differing societies. Antisemitism thus isn't a single 'ideology', it is a facet of many ideologies. The antisemitism that led to the expulsion of Jews from England in 1290 clearly wasn't motivated by the same ideology that led to the execution of thirteen Soviet Jews in in Moscow in 1952. Not without stretching the word 'ideology' beyond any normal usage of the term. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

In the proposed changes now reverted, i also broke up the '''Etymology''' section into '''#Racial pseudo-science''' and '''#The Anti-semitic league''', which more accurately describes the subject matter of that section. That has many many citations, some published by the anti-semites themselves, of the "Ideology" in question and what it promotes.

In common use, the term anti-semitism has since broadened, to cover much of what is also called Anti-Judaism or Religious antisemitism Jaredscribe (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

That in no way answers my question. The anti-Semitic league clearly had an ideology, but they neither originated antisemitism, and nor is their specific ideology the sole source of antisemitism in general. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

" incitement, or violence" I think this should be "incitement of violence". Incitement by itself is a synonym for instigation. Dimadick (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. It could be "incitement to" or "incitement of". With this, the word "hostility" could be dropped. I think "incitement to violence" is more accurate, and "hostility" downplays it.

re-proposed -"an ideology that promotes "prejudice, discrimination, and sometimes incitement of violence against Jews"

To be clear that not all anti-semites directly incite violence.

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Antisemitism is not 'an ideology', it is a facet of many ideologies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Antisemitism absolutely is an ideology, by the dictionary definition. An ideology is 'a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture.' That's Merriam-Webster, and if you look in any other dictionary, you will see the same or a similar definition. Racism, sure, that would be a facet of an ideology, with the ideology being antisemitism. Antisemitism, however, is a defined set of cultural and personal beliefs, practices, and views that combine to create the ideology of antisemitism. Many unrelated cultures and peoples share ideologies. Your argument is, to me, meaningless and overly semantic. 2600:8804:5409:DB00:68DB:28F:2FB4:C897 (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

No, it's a prejudice. Nowhere on this subject's MW entry is the word 'ideology'. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Lets not get too bogged down in this. It is fundamentally a prejudice but it has ideology built around it and it can be incorporated into various other, wider, ideologies. We can talk about these ideologies in the article but we should not be calling it an ideology in the initial sentence because that is not its fundamental nature. The proposal is dead in the water and I suggest we roll this section up to avoid wasting more time on it. DanielRigal (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Change the word antisemitism into antijewism

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.

---

It's more precise and talks about jews specifically.

It's similar to using antislavism when talking about a particular slav ethnicity. or antigermanism when talking about a specific germanic ethnicity.

antisemitism groups all semites together and jews use the word all the time, when, in fact, the conversation is about jews only not about all semites. it's not logical Dndm49 (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't invent words. And read the FAQ at the top of this page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The use of the word antisemitism to mean only discrimination against Jews may violate Wikipedia policies against racial slurs, since such usage is a denial of the semitic ancestry of Arabs. Westwind273 (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2023 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2023

The National Jewish Outreach Program (NJOP) does acknowledge the Jewish origin of the word, stating that the term “Antisemitism” came about (in its Germanic form) in 1860, when Moritz Steinschneider, an Austrian Jewish scholar, introduced the term "antisemitische vorurteile" (anti-Semitic prejudices). He used the expression in a piece he wrote countering the ideas of French philosopher Ernest Renan, who claimed that the Semitic race was inferior to the Aryan race. Ealexbtti (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. We already mention this in the etymology section. What are you requesting be added or changed? Cannolis (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Origin of the term

It is hardly known in the Anglosphere that Marr indeed popularized the term “anti-Semitism” by his book, but it was coined by a Jew named Moritz Steinschneider, from whom Marr took it: “He is considered the founder of scholarly Hebrew bibliography and, in the estimation of Judaist Günter Stemberger, was ‘the most universal Jewish scholar of his time.’ He coined the term anti-Semitism in 1860 in his criticism of Ernest Renan.” (German Wikipedia) 2A02:8109:1040:29C0:38D6:80CC:BC71:B212 (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

What source was used on de.wiki? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

http://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Antisemitismus#cite_note-Bein-3 Google also "steinschneider" with "antisemitism" together and you will find some sources, also the Dutch wiki says it (with source http://nl.wiki.x.io/wiki/Antisemitisme#cite_note-2), some examples https://www.abc.net.au/religion/john-safran-semites-and-antisemitism/13967962 and https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lJX96COzRA0J:https://www.jpost.com/tags/antisemitism&cd=8&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de (scroll down) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1040:29C0:38D6:80CC:BC71:B212 (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

If the world's foremost expert on horses coined the term "anti-mammal" to refer to a hatred of horses, how could it be stated that the term was coined CORRECTLY? How does the standing and recognition of the scholar who coined the term OVERRIDE the fact that such a usage would be utter nonsense? Moritz Steinschneider's "standing" in Hebrew scholarship is irrelevant since he made an error as egregious as equating "Semite" with "Jew", an error as egregious as would be equating "Mammal" with "Horse". Can we not even examine whether such a scholar SHOULD retain their status as the leading scholar in their field if they say something as contrary to common sense and common knowledge as "The word 'Semite' means 'Jew'" or "The word 'Mammal' means 'Horse'"? These statements are obviously false on their face, and those who would say such things are obviously undeserving of any standing they have to be CITED for their saying of such things. A "Semite" is now, and always has been, a member of an ethnic group that speaks a Semitic language. All Jews are Semites, yes, of course, but this idea that all Semites are Jews is nonsense of the most transparent kind and we are left to scratch our heads and wonder why anyone would use words in such a way. Does anyone even ASK why Moritz Steinschneider thought that the best word to describe prejudice against JEWS would be a word that any thinking person would mean prejudice against ALL Semites, both Jews and non-Jews? Does anyone ask if that makes SENSE, or is the question of whether it makes sense or not rendered moot by the "authority" of Moritz Steinschneider? I cannot begin to guess what Moritz Steinschneider's motive was in coining the word this way. But I DO know his motive wasn't to give prejudice against Jews an ACCURATE name. Something else was going on, and whatever it was, it's not straight-up and devoid of "spin". This is NOT how encyclopedias are supposed to work.2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

Misinformation

The definition states that Middle East is anti Semitic. This Couldn’t be further from the truth. As an Arab, I’ve never heard any antisemitism in my whole life living in the Middle East. However, there is an anti-Israel sentiment here which should not be confused with religion. That’s like judging all Muslims off the actions of the Saudi government. This is an inaccurate and unfair depiction of the Arab world. 2001:1670:18:33D0:3902:B441:E9A6:3793 (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Which definition? I don't see any such statement in this article. In any case, if you want to suggest a change, please state exactly which words you want removed, and what you want to replace them with. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Origin of the term and etymology:

It is simply not true that the term anti-semitism was first coined or used by Moritz Steinschneider in 1860 in a response to the views of Ernest Renan. The term 'anti-semitic', which is the adjective of the noun anti-semitism, was used as early as 1851 in Thomas Carlyle, The life of John Sterling, 1st edition, 1851 (1 vol.), London: Chapman and Hall. Moreover, Renan cannot be associated with a form of anti-semitism which can be depicted as a hostile reaction against Jewish people. Ernest Renan was neither Houston Stewart Chamberlain nor Arthur de Gobineau. 213.47.191.250 (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a nice find and it is interesting that it's in English rather than the expected German. OED has it, with the comment "Quot. 1851 appears to show an isolated use with uncertain significance, and long precedes the continental European movement of the 1870s and later". I found another one before 1860: Cambridge Independent Press, Feb 18, 1854, a commentary on an Act before Parliament, "Mr Disraeli cannot stand up in the Commons and accuse us of anti-semitic propensities and a desire to persecute his people". In this case the meaning is absolutely clear since Disraeli was famously Jewish despite having converted to Christianity. Zero^talk 02:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2023

Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism)[a] is hostility to, prejudice towards, or discrimination against Arabs, Jews or other people who speak a Semitic language. 2601:803:17F:9150:6166:915E:5311:3C23 (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Aside from the plethora of sources cited in the article demonstrating that antisemitism now specifically targets Jews, your source also reads "While there are varying groups who can be termed Semitic, antisemitism is specifically the hatred and persecution of Jews." Feel free to read this article and cited sources Cannolis (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the poster.

I disagree with Cannolis.

Antisemitism used to be exclusively associated with hatred and persecution of Jewish people. However, that has changed with the advent of the Jewish occupation of Israel and especially the creation of the State of Israel. The State of Israel, as Einstein and Arendt observed, had fascist tendencies; it has, in turn directed and projected its persecution and hatred onto to Semitic Palestinians. This has also fostered Jewish anti-semitism due to the erroneous conflation of Judaism and Jewish people with the crimes of the Israeli state.

This platform is hell bent on retaining the status quo and resisting all who speak the truth. Biolitblue (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Timeline of antisemitism has an RfC

Timeline of antisemitism has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. patsw (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit suggestion in Category "Origin and Usage", subcategory "Usage"

Can someone change the phrase "The term is confusing, for in modern usage 'Semitic' designates a language group, not a race..." to "The term has been characterized as confusing, for in modern usage 'Semitic' designates a language group, not a race..."

I think it sounds more encyclopedic to describe a term as being viewed as confusing, rather than just saying in Wikipedia's own voice that a term is confusing. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is confused....only scholars know about "Semitic language group" and everyone who follows the daily news knows "Antisemitism" is about the Jews. Rjensen (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

On the inclusion of the Jerusalem Declaration

@Misha Wolf This is a response to your reasoning for reverting my inclusion of the Jerusalem Declaration.

You mentioned 3 points, I shall address them.

1. An article by the Guardian specifically states that the Jerusalem Declaration was drawn up due to a 'lack of clarity in the IHRA definition'.
2. You are free to correct the number of authors of the declaration, if I did get it wrong. I apologize if I was mistaken. However, that does not mean you must revert my entire edit because of that small mistake.
3. By all means, mention the Nexus definition as well. I don't see why we can't include both definitions.

References

– Howard🌽33 23:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)