Misplaced Pages

Talk:Antisemitism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:20, 23 August 2014 editFleenier (talk | contribs)59 edits Requested move← Previous edit Revision as of 14:45, 24 August 2014 edit undoGregKaye (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,994 edits Requested moveNext edit →
Line 260: Line 260:
::::You find "antisemitism" unrecognizable? ] (]) 17:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC) ::::You find "antisemitism" unrecognizable? ] (]) 17:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
::::''The capital S... remains clearer for longer in poorer reading conditions in comparison to its lower case counterpart.'' So Greg, you must be in favor of converting all of Misplaced Pages to all caps, then? Do you understand how inane this new line of reasoning is? ] (]) 01:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC) ::::''The capital S... remains clearer for longer in poorer reading conditions in comparison to its lower case counterpart.'' So Greg, you must be in favor of converting all of Misplaced Pages to all caps, then? Do you understand how inane this new line of reasoning is? ] (]) 01:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::Here's what happened. I made a statement regarding the readability of "anti-Semitism", I was asked to qualify my claim in my "own words" (hmm, "own words") and I gave a straight forward reply. ] (]) 14:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
::''If so then the previous move from anti-Semitism to antisemitism was also unnecessary while also being in contravention with all of the quoted guidelines.'' File under "two wrongs don't make a right." ::''If so then the previous move from anti-Semitism to antisemitism was also unnecessary while also being in contravention with all of the quoted guidelines.'' File under "two wrongs don't make a right."
::''It moved from a more readable and recognisable term to version clearly out of synch with the rest of Misplaced Pages.'' Opinion and opinion. ::''It moved from a more readable and recognisable term to version clearly out of synch with the rest of Misplaced Pages.'' Opinion and opinion.
Line 277: Line 278:
:::::::'''The current''' discussion relates to the choice of title between anti-Semitism ''(more commonly used)'' vs antisemitism ''(less commonly used)''. Please, enough of the ] references to: Lady Gaga ''(more commonly used)'' and Stefani Germanotta ''(less commonly used)'' or Guinea pig ''(more commonly used)'' and Cavia porcellus ''(less commonly used)''. I could have easily quoted the John F. Kennedy ''(more commonly used)'' and Jack Kennedy ''(less commonly used)'' entry. They are all irrelevant. The current case describes two spellings: one more commonly used and the other less commonly used, one more in line with the style of presentation of similar Misplaced Pages titles and one less in line with the style of similar Misplaced Pages titles. The guidelines are clear. ] (]) 06:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC) :::::::'''The current''' discussion relates to the choice of title between anti-Semitism ''(more commonly used)'' vs antisemitism ''(less commonly used)''. Please, enough of the ] references to: Lady Gaga ''(more commonly used)'' and Stefani Germanotta ''(less commonly used)'' or Guinea pig ''(more commonly used)'' and Cavia porcellus ''(less commonly used)''. I could have easily quoted the John F. Kennedy ''(more commonly used)'' and Jack Kennedy ''(less commonly used)'' entry. They are all irrelevant. The current case describes two spellings: one more commonly used and the other less commonly used, one more in line with the style of presentation of similar Misplaced Pages titles and one less in line with the style of similar Misplaced Pages titles. The guidelines are clear. ] (]) 06:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::::At this point you are simply repeating yourself. There is no consensus for your proposed move, and repeating your position over and over is unlikely to persuade anyone who wasn't persuaded by its first iteration. ] (]) 17:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC) ::::::::At this point you are simply repeating yourself. There is no consensus for your proposed move, and repeating your position over and over is unlikely to persuade anyone who wasn't persuaded by its first iteration. ] (]) 17:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Come on, please! Look at the context of the above discussion. The use of ]s by way of comment and distraction have been employed with increased regularity.
:::::::::The “you '''must be''' in favor of converting all of Misplaced Pages to all caps, then?”  by: Vquakr is both absurd and insulting.
:::::::::Then there was the “as much as '''you think'''” by Fleenier. Why quote what I think, which is laughably unsubstantiated, and not what I said? This came in connection to an irrelevant mention of WP:MOSTCOMMONNAME which apparently ignored the use of: “... most commonly used” in the referenced text.
:::::::::“IDONTUNDERSTANDIT” was then presented, again by VQuakr, despite no reference being made to '''''any''''' actual misunderstanding on my part. The same author then mentioned “Guinea pig” despite the fact that a response made to similar comment remains unanswered.
:::::::::On top of this there was also the misrepresentation both of lead and dictionary content in: “as noted in the nomination, dictionaries recognize both alternates as acceptable”. '''None of the major dictionaries even makes mention of “Antisemitism”''': , ,.
:::::::::At the beginning of the discussion I made the request “Please don't derail” and, as mentioned, we read of “all caps”, “MOSTCOMMONNAME”, “DONTUNDERSTAND”, “Guinea pig(s)” and mind reading. Through it all there has not been ANY valid justification offered for the use of a title “antisemitism”. Do non-supporting editors really want to contravene Misplaced Pages policy for an argument that amounts to, “I want”? ] (]) 14:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

*'''Support''' ] (]) 18:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC) *'''Support''' ] (]) 18:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)



Revision as of 14:45, 24 August 2014

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Antisemitism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Antisemitism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Antisemitism at the Reference desk.
Former featured article candidateAntisemitism is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 12, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
October 13, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconReligion: Interfaith Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconJudaism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconJewish history Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEthnic groups High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconHistory High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEuropean history High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMiddle Ages High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconChristianity Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

By topic



This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.
Text and/or other creative content from History of antisemitism was copied or moved into Antisemitism with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Antisemitism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

Who is a Semite

Anti-Semitism isn't accepted as anti-Jewish. The Jewish population makes up a small percentage of Semites. Arabs are Semites. One could argue that Israel is antisemitic regarding it's treatment of Palestinians or Americans are anti-Semitic towards its treatment of Arabs or Muslims. http://en.wikipedia.org/Semitic_people Islam like Judaism is a Semitic religion, from Semitic land, by Semitic people, in a Semitic language. So technically a Palestinian Muslim is Semitic by origin, language, and religion. Just as a Palestinian Catholic is Semitic by origin, language, and religion. If we are going to talk about anti-Semitism we should encompass the population as a whole, especially since Misplaced Pages is meant to be educational - let's stop the ignorance here and the hijacking of identities. Let's be objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.217.232.241 (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yawn. Read the Antisemitism#Usage; regardless of what "Semite" may or may not mean, "antisemitism" refers solely to Jews. --jpgordon 14:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
it's still a major misnomer... unappropriated. also, it doesn't match the opening statement of the article. they disagree with each other... if this were an essay, i'd give it is zero. 76.64.45.152 (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Commonly used, incorrect and ignorant usage of terms is all too common today, and this is an example. Compare Homophobia. It is considered to mean a hatred of homosexual people. Homo means "same" and phobia means "fear". So homophobia means fear of people who are the same as you. 86.28.165.76 (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually homophobia means fear of those with the same fears as you... Sepsis II (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
To answer the very valid question posed above I would suggest a look at the Misplaced Pages description of Semitic people. In Biblical terms the Semites were the descendent (sons) of Shem, one of Noah's three sons. The Bible writers basically used the Semite title to describe one of the three population bases for the world. Ironically, a use of to apply exclusively to a single people is prejudice. The only parallel example to this that I can think of is when people from the the United States call themselves "American" ... but these "Americans" would rarely deny the equally American nature of other people born to equally American nations that range from Canada, through Mexico and right down to Chile and Argentina. That would be stupid. Gregkaye (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Your analogy proves the very point that there is no issue. Antiamericanism is not directed at Argentinians. Words mean what they are used to mean. See etymological fallacy. Paul B (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course there is an issue. There are 55 countries in the Americas with, in this case, the citizens of the United States contributing to an impressive ~third of the total population. Your mention of Antiamericanism must be viewed within the historical context of an active promotion of Americanism in the US. The song God Bless America even became an anthem. Noone would be more happy than me if a song God bless the Semites gained similar notoriety.
People from the US often call themselves "American". People from Israel and members of the Jewish diaspora typically call themselves Jews. Denying the right to the name "America" to two thirds of the population of the Americas would be stupid. Denying acknowledgement of Semite peoples of their Semitic identities is crazier still. Gregkaye (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
You just dig deeper into confusion. No-one is denying the right of Argentinians et al to use the word American. No-one is denying the "right" of Arabs et al to be called Semites. It's just that Antiamerican is a term that refers to negative views of the USA, not Canadians or Mexicans, and antisemite is a term that refers to Jews. Did you even bother to read etymological fallacy? Paul B (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2014
Paul B please read: WP:No personal attacks. A clear question asking "Who is a Semite" was raised above and I gave a clear answer. I then presented a POV related to the perceived effects of the use of terminology. There is, however, no confusion. The article admits, "the term was in fact coined in Germany in 1860 as a scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred")". At any time a linguistically accurate term could have been applied but the scientific sounding term was kept in currency. Issues that I think relate to this, intentionally or not, are monopolisation, and Spin. I have no dispute with the concept of etymological fallacy which isn't at issue. The term has always been used with linguistic inaccuracy. Anyone who believes in fairness, and equality will naturally have an aversion to prejudice. There is no question about that. I just personally think that increased clarity would be gained if an accurate term was used. (talk) 08:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye please read: WP:No personal attacks. You will find that criticising an editor is not a "personal attack". Also, you might read no. 9. None of your responses here are even relevant to the point at issue. Anti-semitic means anti-Jewish, in the same way that anti-American means anti-USA or Francophobic means anti-French (not anti Franks or Franconians), and Anglophobic means anti-English, not anti-Angles or people from Angeln. It is wholly misleading to present this as some sort of "issue" when it is not. Who is a Semite is a 'wholly different issue. What on earth have "Monopolisation" and "spin" got to do with anything? The word just means what it always meant and was intended to mean. Paul B (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You said, "You just dig deeper into confusion". I hadn't dug into confusion, I certainly hadn't dug deeper, I definitely hadn't just done one single thing. There was no justification for the attack. Gregkaye (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a non-reply. You were digging further into confusion, for reasons I already gave. Paul B (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

biased and misnomer

this article is heavily biased in several regards.

also, 'semite' is a misnomer, since jews don't have a monopoly on semitism.

in fact many arabs, if not most, living in the levant/gaza/aramea regions can trace their ancestry to semitic peoples.

semites are shemites... if you don't believe me: http://en.wikipedia.org/Shemites

Semitic peoples and their languages, in ancient historic times (between the 30th and 20th centuries BC), covered a broad area which encompassed what are today the modern states and regions of Iraq, Syria, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, the Sinai Peninsula and Malta, as well as parts of southern Turkey.

76.64.45.152 (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The article discusses this in the second paragraph already, and in more detail here: Antisemitism#Etymology. Best regards SK (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
No Sören, that section, which has no content of etymology, describes nothing more than a historic use of the misnomer. Gregkaye (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
No Gregkaye, it discusses what it means and always has meant. Paul B (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes Paul B what it describes is the historic and consistent use of the misnomer. It certainly has no content of etymology and you seem to agree. Gregkaye (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
This reply makes no sense. It is current usage. Paul B (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
From the beginning: Lead speaks of "Bias and Misnomer"; reply states that this was discussed in second paragraph and "Antisemitism#Etymology; I correct to say that the mentioned texts actually present the historic use of the misnomer; You add that "it discusses what it means and always has meant" (this statement in no way contradicted what I had said); I replied and agreed with your view in that the text "discusses what it (the misnomer) means". There was no disagreement.


Now I am not so sure about the "and always has meant" bit. The second sentence of Antisemitism#Etymology reads: As Alex Bein writes "The compound anti-Semitism appears to have been used first by Steinschneider, who challenged Renan on account of his 'anti-Semitic prejudices' ". The citation to Bein's work with page number was in the text and I thought it fair to add the quote to clarify what had actually been said. The section on etymology has long quoted Steinschneider who used the phrase antisemitische Vorureile (anti-Semitic prejudices) to characterise the French philosopher Ernest Renan's false ideas about how "Semitic races" were inferior to "Aryan races". At that time the issue was about the Semitic races and not just the Jews. Gregkaye (talk) 07:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The reply said the point was discussed in the second paragraph, which it was (and is). So why this pathological need ot contradict what is not in dispute, I don't know. Yes, it's well known that the compound "anti-semitic" was used with reference to Renan, but that was in the context of a phrase, not a proper noun designed to name a concept. We don't define words by when the first combination of letters were used. We wouldn't define, say "modernism" on the basis of the first time anyone ever combined the word modern with the suffix "ism". The term anti-semitism was coined as a proper noun or ideology, to refer to anti-Judaism, and that has been its meaning ever since. As it happens I have written about Renan, who is a complex and problematic thinker, and it's fair to say that he did have a notion of a racio-cultural identity that was in a general sense Semitic and not just Jewish. But that's irrelevant. The tern anti-Semitism is defined by its usage, and it was never used as a proper noun to refer to the general Aryan/Semite opposition envisaged by Renan. Paul B (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Please don't be archive happy

This talk page has 33 pages of archived. The first archived page has dates from Jan 2003 so that's 33 archive pages in 11 years 6 months.

Misplaced Pages:Archive says: It is customary to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when that page becomes too large. Bulky talk pages may be hard to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers. Notices are placed at the beginning of the talk page to inform all editors of an archive.

Archived pages that I flicked to contained as little as four topics. Issues surrounding antisemitism are unlikely to change and many topics are unlikely to become obsolete.

Misplaced Pages:CLOSURE can be used in cases where topics are resolved.

Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines provides much good information. for instance : When_to_condense_pages says: It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections. Gregkaye (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

If you are looking at archive lengths from 2004, you are 10 years too late to change the archive size. New archives are filled until they are 200kB long, which is a fair amount of text and right around where users with very poor internet connections start to have technical problems accessing the archives. What actionable change are you proposing to the archival settings? VQuakr (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks VQuakr for your correction. The thing that I found confusing was that this page, even with the addition of last comments, currently has a size of just 10.2KB and that total would have been lower when the last set of data was moved. The archive that is currently being filled contains just 27.2KB of information. The earliest recorded date within the archived material was, I think, in Feb 2014. The combined data total far less than recommended levels. By taking a look at Talk:Antisemitism/Archive_33&action=history we find that the premature archives seem to be being automatically made by User:Lowercase sigmabot III. The last archive was made on the 29 July 2014 of a discussion that was started on 19 March 2014 I personally don't have knowledge of bots and their function but this level of operation, to have made 5 archive actions when I would have thought none were needed, seems excessive. Gregkaye (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The behavior you are observing is completely normal and routine. VQuakr (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't see how that is possible but please explain. Gregkaye (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: Discussion continues at Misplaced Pages talk:Talk page guidelines#question related to settings in a talk page that control the actions of an archiving bot --Redrose64 (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye, I think it makes more sense to continue the discussion there, so please post follow-up questions there if you still have questions. VQuakr (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the settings that govern bot activities to more acceptable levels as related to guidelines of typical settings used by other pages. Settings are as follows

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 33
|minthreadsleft = 10
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Antisemitism/Archive  %(counter)d
}}

Archival action can still be performed manually and I ask that levels of action are undertaken in respect of Misplaced Pages guidelines. Gregkaye (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Are anti-israelites considered anti-semitic?

I was considering the war crimes by the state of israel. Many people protesting against this agressive behaviour of the state of israel are being called antisemitic by the media. Where is the border between being against jews and being against agressive occupation by the state of israel? Or should we disregard any borders between these concepts, just like the israeli people are disregarding the borders of their neighbor state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.238.229 (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I would hope that people would be reserve such "anti" feelings for issues related to specific behaviours and the specific people who support them. Its wrong to just see the Israeli people as one in this way. I've known Israelis that have joined the table to support Arab-Israeli peace projects and not every Israeli will support the excesses or contributory factors related to the current conflict. Gregkaye (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hate for gentiles who side with jews

Antisemitism can also include hate for gentiles who side with jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.44.38 (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Citations

See: Misplaced Pages:Citing sources. The Antisemitism article seems to be generally well written although, as noted above, with perceived bias. However, one major failing is the formatting and maintenance of several citations.

Here is a list, with comments, of early citations:

anti-Semitism – Definition... (comment: citation that, prior to edit, had misrepresented content as: Antisemitism)
Jerome A. Chanes... (comment: no online content, no quotation)
Rattansi, Ali. Racism: ...(comment: no online access to text, no quotation)
Rubenstein, Richard L.; Roth, John K. Approaches ...(comment: excellent)
Johnston, William M. ...(comment: excellent)
Lewis, Bernard. "Semites...(comment: on my check "page not found")
"Anti-Semitism", Encyclopædia Britannica, 2006. (comment: no online access to text, no quotation)
Johnson, Paul. A History...(comment: no online access to text, no quotation)
Lewis, Bernard. "The ...(comment: links to "Fatal error: Call to a member function get")
Report on Global Anti-Semitism" ...(comment: excellent)
Bein, Alex. The Jewish...(comment: excellent)
Falk, Avner (2008)...(comment: excellent)
Poliakov, Leon The History of Anti-Semitism...(comment: no online access to text, no quotation)
Marr, Wilhelm. Sieg des...(comment: links to: "The item you have requested had an error: Item cannot be found.")
Matas, David. Aftershock:...(comment: The author was expressing POV to an extent that would not be permitted on Misplaced Pages. I could see no clear connection to justify a page citation. However the author cites a source which might be checked and used.)
Lewis, Bernard (1999). Semites and Anti-Semites...(comment: no online access to text, no quotation)
Antisemitism. The Power of Myth...(comment: links to: "We’re sorry. The page you are looking no longer exists")
Bauer, Yehuda. "Problems of Contemporary Antisemitism...(comment: links to: "Page Not Found")
Almog, Shmuel. "What's in a Hyphen?"...(comment: excellent)
Prager, Dennis; Telushkin, Joseph. Why the Jews?...(comment: excellent)
Carroll, James (2002). Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews...(comment: excellent)
...
There are, in total, 270 citation references in the article and a number of them individually contain multiple citations. Can I suggest that interested parties validate citations listed and take appropriate action to any deficiencies. The subject of anti-Semitism/antisemitism is one of the more widely discussed topics within Western culture. There should be means to gain robust citations for relevant issues. Gregkaye (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason for you to expect that sources should be available from your desk. You might need to go to a library. I linked two 404 sources to archived versions; feel free to try to do them same should you encounter dead links. VQuakr (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I have made a number of edits of article content because page content remained unsubstantiated by associated citations. I've been doing my bit of fixing but, based on my experiences so far, I do not trust page content. There are many pages in Misplaced Pages with impeccable and verifiable citation. My suggestion is that this page becomes one of them. Your personal efforts to these ends are respected Gregkaye (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that Antisemitism be renamed and moved to Anti-Semitism.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.


Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current logtarget logdirect move

AntisemitismAnti-Semitism – All dictionaries call it anti-Semitism as demonstrated at: Cambridge: anti-Semitism, thefreedictionary.com: anti-Semitism, Merriam-Webster: anti-Semitism,Oxford: anti-Semitism, reference.com: anti-Semitism.
The term should be linguistically treated in the same way and with the same rules as a long list of terms including: Anti-Americanism, Anti-authoritarianism, Anti-capitalism, Anti-Catholicism, Anti-clericalism, Anti-communism, Anti-consumerism, Anti-intellectualism, Anti-fascism, Anti-imperialism, Anti-Mormonism, Anti-racism, Anti-Revisionism, Anti-Sovietism, etc. and with the same rules as the English language generally.
The fact that anti-Semitism/antisemitism is a misnomer or the fact that the term takes reference from a relatively large group (Semites) and applies it to a relatively small group of people (Jews) is not a justification for giving the term different linguistic treatment to the rest of the English language.
A number of related terms and titles have also been generated on Misplaced Pages including: Anti-Judaism, Anti-Zionism, (which were both extracted from the long list above) Criticism of the Israeli government, Persecution of Jews and Religious anti-Zionism. Curiously, when I listen to the popular Israeli radio station, Galgalatz, the only related term that I hear is "anti-Israeli", a term which optionally might be used here. Scholars and others continue to have options to make references with terms including those mentioned. A continued use of the misnomer: "anti-Semitism" has always been a matter of choice. I don't know how an escape from the conventions of the English language has also been an option. Gregkaye (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

as suspected. Gregkaye (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
So what? WP:COMMONNAME suffices; the rest of your arguments are just cluttering up the discussion. --jpgordon 15:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no yammering, clutter (other than spiked replies) or other problem here. Understandings of the nature and the use of terms are of clear importance in regard to their presentation. Relevant issues have been presented with logical progression. So Misplaced Pages has been very out of step with other presenters of published material. Please present content with respect. Please don't derail. Gregkaye (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Also irrelevant. WP:COMMONNAME suffices; that's all that matters. I'm agreeing with you and suggesting you've said enough on this issue. --jpgordon 17:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I've never understood the reasoning behind the change to antisemitism, though it's fair to point that it was discussed in detail at Talk:Antisemitism/Archive_23#Requested_move, and got a 16/4 majority in favour of the move, but that was back in 2006. It was raised several times since (see e.g. Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 28). The main argument was that the unhypenated form is more current and is used by scholars. A supplementary argument was that the hyphen implies that anti-semitism is opposition to the ideology of "semitism" rather than Semites, whereas the absence of the hyphen avoids that suggestion. I find this a rather weird argument, since no-one ever thought there ever was any such ideology as "semitism". Also, looking back at the discussion, the principal advocate User:Arvedui seems to contradict him/herself, initially aguing that hyphen is wrong because it implies that "Antisemitism is NOT an antonym or opposition to "Semitism", which does not actually exist". He then says "Antisemitism however has nothing whatsoever to do with being against Semites, except insofar as some Semites happen to be Jews." Well, yes, but you can't make that argument if you claim is that the hyphen implies that it's about the non-existent "semitism" ideology.
    The currency-in-usage argument has more force, but it needs to be supported. I can't see much evidence that it ever really was. The supposed rules of the English language are irrelevant. Either it's the most widely used current spelling or it isn't.
    Another point that needs to made is that any change to this article has knock-on effect for other articles that use "antisemitism" in the title. Misplaced Pages needs to be consistent. Paul B (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - the rule is to use the most common spelling for the title and it seems that it is the one with the hyphen (both by scholars or in general). That's strange and is a mistake given as mentionned per definition an "anti-semite" is not opposed to "semites" and "anti-Semitism" is just no-sense given there is nothing such as "Semitism". Langages are sometimes strange but that would be WP:OR to use favour the spelling "antisemitism". Let's wait for the correction of this mistake. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator. The use of Semitism is, intentionally or not, a form of identity theft. Israelis, Jews and Zionists all have strong individual identities as does Judaism. Its one thing to assume a designation that does not solely belong to you. Its another thing to then lessen that name in the process. Gregkaye (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
What? Your justification is incoherent and completely unbased in any Misplaced Pages policy or guideline. VQuakr (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
VQuakr, although put briefly, everything stated is clearly intelligible. The issue of identity is relevant here with further discussion at Talk:Antisemitism#Identity.
Gregkaye's arguments are utterly incoherent and nonsensical. Jews did not invent the term antisemitism. People who didn't like Jews invented it. The assertion that the use of Semitism is "a form of identity theft" is therefore ludicrous. How can you "steal" something if it isn't you that's taken it? Paul B (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Paul B Sorry for the late reply. If one person takes an object, another person moves the object and others then takes and uses the same object, its still theft. Maybe I needed to have clarified to my initial statement. The use of Semitism, no matter by whom it is done and whether by intention. or not, (is) a form of identity theft. You introduced the word "Steal" in isolation and in quotation marks which was misrepresentation. I said "The use of..." The issue, as far as I am concerned, is not "stealing" but possession. The French writer Ernest Renan used Semite, the Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider used antisemitische Vorurteile (anti-Semitic prejudices), the German journalist Wilhelm Marr is widely credited with coining Antisemitismus, German Misplaced Pages currently uses de:Judenfeindlichkeit ~Judeophobia. "To thine own self be true" Polonius from Hamlet Act 1 Scene 3, “It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.” ― W.C. Fields" Gregkaye (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Come to think about it I also think that "incoherent" is a little harsh. Any reader can make their own judgement on what I wrote. Gregkaye (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support - The guideline for article names identifies five key characteristics: recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency. The two proposed spellings share identical recognizability and precision. The unhyphenated spelling is more natural and slightly more concise (as noted in the nomination, dictionaries recognize both alternates as acceptable). However, as noted in the nom the hyphenated spelling is much more consistent with other similarly-titles articles. In contrast with many of the !voters here, I do not think WP:COMMONNAME applies - both spellings readily identify the subject so both meet the requirements of that section. VQuakr (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
The unhyphenated "spelling" is not more natural. Semite is a demonym no matter the size of the group of people referenced. The use of good English has relevance in an English encyclopaedia. Using your link, WP:CRITERIA we read: "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." In addition to the issue of hyphenation we can note that demonyms are capitalised. They always are and a similar standard of English should also be used here. As actually noted in the nomination, "All dictionaries call it anti-Semitism...:" . WP:COMMONNAME, i.e. that: "Misplaced Pages ... prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject", applies! Gregkaye (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME is about recognizability not alternate spellings (which, by your own dictionary sources, this clearly is). As such it does not apply here. Both alternate spellings are readily recognizable. Note the examples in the section you linked (ie "Lady Gaga (not: Stefani Germanotta)"). Your contention that one spelling is "good English" and the other incorrect is unsubstantiated, as confirmed by the very sources you linked. Your personal views about cultural identities are completely irrelevant. VQuakr (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME is about commonly recognizable names. Across the internet as a whole anti-Semitism is the spelling that has currency. It has a far higher rate of usage than antisemitism which clearly has an effect on recognisability. It also appears in a regularly used and recognisable hyphenated format that has consistent usage when the prefix anti is followed by people related words such as Semite. Anti-Semitism has high recognisability and, with Misplaced Pages preferring the most frequently used version, WP:COMMONNAME does apply. Good English is indicated in that when a prefix such as anti is followed by a demonym like American, British or Israeli, the word is hyphenated. At least this is the trend when used by a competent publisher like the Jerusalem Post. It is the format consistently used in all similar Misplaced Pages articles and, as such, Consistency in WP:CRITERIA also applies. Gregkaye (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
"...content hosted in Misplaced Pages is not for:
1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise."
Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for propaganda.
Anti-Semitism is the established spelling and should be used in the title. The advocacy of other uses can be presented neutrally in article content.
Gregkaye (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Propaganda, now? Good lord. VQuakr (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The list of good quality sources using the unhyphenated form is lengthy.
And yet, Re: The New Republic:
(: "did not match").  Re: The Guardian:
WP:COMMONNAME applies.  WP:SOAPBOX applies.  Anti-Semitism is the term with far greater currency!  Gregkaye (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
We do not have to feel that we are using an unusual form of the term. The unhyphenated form is perfectly recognizable. The more applicable policy here is simply WP:CONSENSUS. WP:COMMONNAME says "Use commonly recognizable names", which this certainly is. The examples given at WP:COMMONNAME all show radically divergent forms. This is not that sort of case, except by a liberal stretch of the imagination. Merely hyphenation is in question. This is not the difference between "Bill Clinton" and "William Jefferson Clinton". Ditto for every other example provided at WP:COMMONNAME. (There are 20 examples provided. None rely on as hair-splittingly minor distinctions as in this issue.) Bus stop (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:COMMONNAME: Misplaced Pages ... prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject
WP:SOAPBOX: Misplaced Pages is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise.
WP:CRITERIA: Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.  (Selection of Categories related to Antisemitism and Category:AntisemitismAnti-Asian sentiment, Anti-national sentiment, Discrimination, Orientalism, Prejudices‎, Racism)
Gregkaye (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC) with later additions.
  • Oppose as unnecessary. Both forms are very commonly used, and there is no confusion between the two. Between "antisemitism" and "anti-semitism" it's a distinction without a difference, certainly not enough of a distinction to be worth this much energy. In particular, by my reading, WP:COMMONNAME is a bit of a reach in this case, as it only barely grazes once against alternative spellings of the same word by saying that redirections are sufficient, without dictating which spelling should "win" the article. I can't get much worked up about very-common-usage-A-redirects-to-very-common-usage-B versus very-common-usage-B-redirects-to-very-common-usage-A. Might as well leave things as they are. Fleenier (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment If so then the previous move from anti-Semitism to antisemitism was also unnecessary while also being in contravention with all of the quoted guidelines. It moved from a more readable and recognisable term to version clearly out of synch with the rest of Misplaced Pages.
A lot of this discussion has focussed on WP:COMMONNAME which, despite a two:one ratio in favour of anti-Semitism, has been called into dispute.
The less disputable issue is WP:CRITERIA: in relation to Consistency. A listing relevant terminologies in Misplaced Pages is as follows: Anti-Arabism, Anti-Armenianism, Anti-Australian sentiment, Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia, Anti-Bihari sentiment, Anti-British sentiment, Anti-Canadianism, Anti-Catalanism, Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Chilean sentiment, Anti-Christian sentiment, Anti-Europeanism, Anti-Filipino sentiment, Anti-German sentiment, Antihaitianismo, Anti-Hinduism, Anti-Igbo sentiment, Anti-India sentiment, Anti-Iranian sentiment, Anti-Italianism, Anti-Japanese sentiment, Anti-Korean sentiment, Anti-Malay sentiment, Anti-Mexican sentiment, Anti Middle Eastern sentiment, Anti-Pakistan sentiment, Anti-Pashtun sentiment, Anti-Polish sentiment, Anti-Quebec sentiment, Anti-Qing sentiment, Anti-Romanian discrimination, Anti-Scottish sentiment, Anti-Serb sentiment, Antisemitism, Anti-Slavic sentiment, Antiziganism, Anti-Zionism, Anti-Western sentiment. Items on the list were not cherry picked but displays content as it came to hand. In fact, if the Consistency criteria were considered in isolation then the current subject would be anti-Jewish sentiment or something along these lines. Such terminology feature internal use of the COMMON NAME concerned. It would provide a basis for impartial analysis more directly related to the subject. As far as consistency is concerned in the current context the overwhelming use of the hyphenated and capitalised format should not be ignored. I personally do not think that any group should be set apart with special treatment. Any apparent disassociation of one form of prejudice from other forms of prejudice is, I believe, detrimental. Issues surrounding prejudice should be as transparent as is practically possible and, whenever there are issues discovered, they should be addressed. Gregkaye (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye—Is one term more "readable" or "recognizable" than the other? You say "It moved from a more readable and recognisable term to…" I realize this is not a forum for general discussion but I'm curious about this. In what way is one term more "readable" or "recognizable" than the other? Can you explain this in your own words? Bus stop (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Readable: Simply look at the two words and squint. The capital S, (the launch point into the word Semitic) remains clearer for longer in poorer reading conditions in comparison to its lower case counterpart. Recognisable: It fits in with the regular pattern of grammar used when placing prefixes in front of words such as America, Darwin or Semite as when generating forms such as Anti-American, Neo-Darwinism and Philo-Semitism. Its the familiar way that it's done. Gregkaye (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
You find "antisemitism" unrecognizable? Bus stop (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The capital S... remains clearer for longer in poorer reading conditions in comparison to its lower case counterpart. So Greg, you must be in favor of converting all of Misplaced Pages to all caps, then? Do you understand how inane this new line of reasoning is? VQuakr (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's what happened. I made a statement regarding the readability of "anti-Semitism", I was asked to qualify my claim in my "own words" (hmm, "own words") and I gave a straight forward reply. Gregkaye (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
If so then the previous move from anti-Semitism to antisemitism was also unnecessary while also being in contravention with all of the quoted guidelines. File under "two wrongs don't make a right."
It moved from a more readable and recognisable term to version clearly out of synch with the rest of Misplaced Pages. Opinion and opinion.
A lot of this discussion has focussed on WP:COMMONNAME which, despite a two:one ratio in favour of anti-Semitism, has been called into dispute. A name used a third of the time is a common name. I am far from alone in noting that WP:COMMONNAME does not help you as much as you think it does. Note that the guideline is named WP:COMMONNAME, not WP:MOSTCOMMONNAME.
The less disputable issue is WP:CRITERIA in relation to Consistency. It is not up to Misplaced Pages to bring order to the English language, but to reflect its actual usage. At this point you must realize that there isn't sufficient consensus to go forward with the move you propose.
Fleenier (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing "wrong" in getting things right.
It's "up to Misplaced Pages" to be maintain "consistentcy": Anti-Arabism, Anti-Armenianism, Anti-Australian sentiment, Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia, Anti-Bihari sentiment, Anti-British sentiment, Anti-Canadianism, Anti-Catalanism, Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Chilean sentiment, Anti-Christian sentiment, Anti-Europeanism, Anti-Filipino sentiment, Anti-German sentiment, Antihaitianismo, Anti-Hinduism, Anti-Igbo sentiment, Anti-India sentiment, Anti-Iranian sentiment, Anti-Italianism, Anti-Japanese sentiment, Anti-Korean sentiment, Anti-Malay sentiment, Anti-Mexican sentiment, Anti Middle Eastern sentiment, Anti-Pakistan sentiment, Anti-Pashtun sentiment, Anti-Polish sentiment, Anti-Quebec sentiment, Anti-Qing sentiment, Anti-Romanian discrimination, Anti-Scottish sentiment, Anti-Serb sentiment, Antisemitism, Anti-Slavic sentiment, Antiziganism, Anti-Zionism, Anti-Western sentiment - Philo-Semitism.
WP:COMMONNAME: "with Misplaced Pages preferring the most frequently used version," (as my representation of: "Misplaced Pages ... prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject")
Gregkaye (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Quote marks suggest quotes. You aren't quoting but you are using quotation marks. Bus stop (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Quotation amended above. Gregkaye (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Wrong quote. VQuakr (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Greg, how is it possible that you still do not understand that guideline, given that your misinterpretation of it has been repeatedly pointed out? At some point, WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT comes into play. VQuakr (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
VQuakr, I have always been in full agreement with the topic of WP:COMMONNAME. In fact, following your first comment on the subject I responded with a clarification of the topic as relating to "commonly recognizable names". This response is still up there and you are still at liberty to reply. My point was and still is that the text states: "Misplaced Pages ... prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject". It does not state that: "Misplaced Pages ... prefers to use a name that is less frequently used to refer to the subject" which would make no sense. This point has not been refuted. Do you understand? Gregkaye (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The reply you linked above shows what you want WP:COMMONNAME to say but in no way addresses its actual content or the replies I linked in my previous post. As such, it did not merit a response - there was no point to refute. Are you laboring under the unfortunate impression that whoever writes last is correct? To repeat a final time, that policy tells us to, given two alternates, select an article title that is more recognizable ie "Guinea pig (not: Cavia porcellus)." In this context, the two alternate spellings being discussed have completely identical recognizability. You can continue to disagree, but that speaks only to your competence and not to any actual policy content. VQuakr (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The current discussion relates to the choice of title between anti-Semitism (more commonly used) vs antisemitism (less commonly used). Please, enough of the red herring references to: Lady Gaga (more commonly used) and Stefani Germanotta (less commonly used) or Guinea pig (more commonly used) and Cavia porcellus (less commonly used). I could have easily quoted the John F. Kennedy (more commonly used) and Jack Kennedy (less commonly used) entry. They are all irrelevant. The current case describes two spellings: one more commonly used and the other less commonly used, one more in line with the style of presentation of similar Misplaced Pages titles and one less in line with the style of similar Misplaced Pages titles. The guidelines are clear. Gregkaye (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
At this point you are simply repeating yourself. There is no consensus for your proposed move, and repeating your position over and over is unlikely to persuade anyone who wasn't persuaded by its first iteration. Fleenier (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Come on, please! Look at the context of the above discussion. The use of Weasel words by way of comment and distraction have been employed with increased regularity.
The “you must be in favor of converting all of Misplaced Pages to all caps, then?”  by: Vquakr is both absurd and insulting.
Then there was the “as much as you think” by Fleenier. Why quote what I think, which is laughably unsubstantiated, and not what I said? This came in connection to an irrelevant mention of WP:MOSTCOMMONNAME which apparently ignored the use of: “... most commonly used” in the referenced text.
“IDONTUNDERSTANDIT” was then presented, again by VQuakr, despite no reference being made to any actual misunderstanding on my part. The same author then mentioned “Guinea pig” despite the fact that a response made to similar comment remains unanswered.
On top of this there was also the misrepresentation both of lead and dictionary content in: “as noted in the nomination, dictionaries recognize both alternates as acceptable”. None of the major dictionaries even makes mention of “Antisemitism”: Cambridge, Merriam-Webster,Oxford.
At the beginning of the discussion I made the request “Please don't derail” and, as mentioned, we read of “all caps”, “MOSTCOMMONNAME”, “DONTUNDERSTAND”, “Guinea pig(s)” and mind reading. Through it all there has not been ANY valid justification offered for the use of a title “antisemitism”. Do non-supporting editors really want to contravene Misplaced Pages policy for an argument that amounts to, “I want”? Gregkaye (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Identity

WP:FORUM, WP:NOR

A personal view of prejudice:

If, on a personal basis, I was treated negatively there is no doubt that I would call any such negative treatment into question. There is no justification for abuse, discrimination and/or prejudice. In a situation in which such treatment were applied to me I would, amongst other things, have every right to state, in the clearest possible terms, how any perceived abuse, discrimination and prejudice was being applied to me.

However, and again on a personal basis, one thing that I would not want to do is to unnecessarily bring the name of a Grandfather or any other of my ancestors into the discussion. This would tend to be my stance even if the situation hadn't been made complicated by family dispute. The use of an ancestor's name would tend to confuse matters and, in my personal case I am able, to take the analogy further.
I am familiar with the changing of names with Kusakabe having been the Japanese surname of my paternal Grandfather. He lived in China with his English wife and, following the end of WWII, the parts of the family that moved to the United Kingdom assumed the name Kaye. Ironically, in a bid to avoid possible prejudice, the UK side of the family changed from a Japanese name to a name that was commonly assumed by Jews.

I am proud of my family background and yet, if I were to personally receive negative treatment, I would not describe the treatment as anti-Kusakabe. I would be even less likely to do so if I had otherwise developed a number of other terms by which I could refer to myself. A de-capitalisation of my Grandfather's name would further be unthinkable.

Despite a difference in the periods of time involved, this has pretty much been the story of "anti-Semitism" al-be-it with different progression. The term "anti-Semitic prejudice" was originally used in a more generalised reference to the Semitic peoples. Anti-Semitism has since been applied almost exclusively to Jews. This is despite the availability of more specific reference points such as Israeli, Jew, Judaism and Zionism. Even when one of these references might be accurately used, anti-Semitic terminologies are regularly evoked. There are now calls for the hyphen to be removed despite its regular use in parallel situations and the removal of capitalisation despite the use of Semitic as a demonym.

Away from a context such as this discussion, no-one would ever use the terms such as "antiisraeli", "antijewish", "antijudaism" or "antizionism". Such a change would be unjustified. "Semite", as used as a stand alone word, is defined as a demonym. The simple reason for this is that it makes reference to a group of people. "Semite", as used in anti-Semitism, remains a demonym. The only difference is that it is taken to refer exclusively to a subsection of the Semitic people. Nothing, linguistically, has changed. A demonym is still being used. A use of antisemitism is linguistic and social nonsense. Gregkaye (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

. --jpgordon 15:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye. You are spoiling a perfectly sensible argument for the use of the hyphen, with a frankly absurd and confused ideological agenda, which does nothing to create clarity on this talk page. In fact you are mirroring the strange illogical arguments of those who argued against the hyphen for similar, albeit reverse, ideological reasons. The argument for using the hyphen is simply that it's the most common usage. That's all that's required per WP:NAME and that's all that matters. Even consistency with other anti-x terms is irrelevant. If "antisemitism" were the most common spelling, that would be the one we should use. It wouldn't matter one jot if every other anti-x word is spelled with a hyphen. It also doesn't matter that someone once used the phrase "anti-Semitic agenda", because that's not how it was first established in discourse. We don't determine meanings by finding the first ever usage of a combination of letters and then giving copyright on it. That's ludicrous. Words means what they are used to mean in discourse. That's a basic fact of linguistics.
What is most ridiculous about this endlessly repeated "debate" is the absurd idea that it is somehow "unfair" to other Semites that they are "excluded" from the term anti-semitism. Think about just how silly it would be if Argentinians and Colombians constantly complained that they were "excluded" from being subject to anti-Americanism, as though they would want to associated with it. What this is really about is a resentment of the special position that anti-semitism has had in Western culture, and a feeling from Arabic peoples that they are not accorded the same respect because "anti-Arabism" is a term almost no-one ever uses. It's about being excluded from discourse. Fair enough, perhaps, though one can make a good case that the reality is that there is little or no specifically anti-Arab sentiment. The Western bias is again Islamic identity, irrespective of ethnicity. But obsessing about the word anti-semitism is missing the point entirely. It happens to be a word that means "anti-jewish". That's what it is always used to mean, and that's what continues to mean. There is no exclusion of other semites, because there is no such thing as a general opposition to "semites". People who use it don't care about the etymology, because etymology is irrelevant. Words just mean what they mean. It doesn't matter that the word "hysteria" originally meant "womb condition" or that "homophobia" literally translates as "fear of sameness". We know what it means and that's all that matters. Paul B (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
p.s. There are numerous anti-x words that don't take a hyphen: Antinomianism, Antinatalism, Antispasmodic Antidepressant and of course the famous Antidisestablishmentarianism. Paul B (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Those words don't have relevance to a correct use of demonyms. Gregkaye (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no such thing as correct use in your sense. Correct use is established use. Nothing else. And your point is spurious anyway. Where is this rule to be found? In usage. Nowhere else. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Really? Questions that might be asked are why so few dictionaries even reference antisemitism and why, after all this time, its still underlined in red in the edit. Gregkaye (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

On 16 August 2014 User:VQuakr placed this discussion in a collapsible box beneath the title WP:NOR. WP:NOR states: (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)
I don't think that your stated position of "weak support" could get any weaker. WP:NOR "does not apply" although WP:GAMING might.
The application of WP:FORUM, although disputable here, seems to fit a presentation of "antisemitism" pretty well. Gregkaye (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the content above. I wasn't aware of WP:SOAPBOX issues at the time and had forgotten the info in the page header. Gregkaye (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Definition of antisemitism should use recognised dictionary sources only

Antisemitism (also spelled anti-Semitism or anti-semitism) is prejudice, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as a national, ethnic, religious or racial group.

Antisemitism (also spelled anti-Semitism or anti-semitism) is hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.

The amended text is from the dictionary definition referred to at The original text does not appear in either citation, and the citation at is not a dictionary or neutral linguistic source.


Demonwebb (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antisemitism
  2. http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/education-outreach/Brief-History-on-Anti-Semitism-A.pdf
Why do you think that the source for the definition must be attributed to a dictionary? VQuakr (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Antisemitism definition here is exclusive to the Jews.

Antisemitism definition here is exclusive to the Jews. Semites also include Palestinians and other Arabic ethnic groups.

Antisemitism should not only be exclusive to the jews but to the entire semitic race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxellRay09 (talkcontribs) 06:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Antisemitism does not mean "opposition to Semites." See Antisemitism#Usage and Etymological fallacy. VQuakr (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed and long settled. Fleenier (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Categories: