Talk:Philosemitism

message: The word Judeophile/Judeophillia should link to this page when entered in the search bar.  I don't know how to do that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.144.11 (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Judeophile

message: The proselytes of the Roman era should be mentioned here, but I don't know much about them -- Error
:Some info at Proselyte and Godfearers. 75.15.199.8 (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman Proselytes?

message: I've added the above to the article--Google is a great re-search engine as well (as a search engine).
:Ludvikus 14:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Philosemitism]]

message: None of the cited authors have a WP pahe?
:Can anyone please start stubs for them?
-----
*And should we not have a REDIRECT on this term?
:Ludvikus 15:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My google search produced this result: "Results 1 - 10 of about 9,280 for Philosemite. (0.21 seconds) ." So I'm putting in a REDIRECT on it to this article, as well as modifying the opening paragraph to include it. Ludvikus 15:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Philosemite]]

message: I am a gentile, who found the word here accidentally on a search.    I like the word and consider myself one; I am in awe the history of the Jewish People, their determination and survival. I am aware of and appreciate Jewish contributions to jazz and science, to name a few.  I believe, however, that the previous version misses a target audience, that of Gentiles, and have made minor (I believe) edits to the first paragraph, to reflect that.  I didn’t feel right about checking the ‘minor’ box, though, and didn’t.
Misc other comments:  Para2, I could not link to the referenced Commentary opinion.  Para3, I know little specific about it, but I find the statement ‘His detractor Norman Finkelstein agrees’, to be incomprehensible unless an explanation is added.  Para4, nothing. Para5, last sentence, If by this you mean the "Righteous Among the Nations" and similar people, at various historic times, then I believe their role could be better highlighted in a more complete narative of the historic context of the word.   The titles of the first three books would tend to support this view.  I think deletion of 'so called' would be appropriate. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Wider Audience 

message: I think this article should be AfD'd.  This term is a non-notable neologism; On the Islamophilia page I made a joke about having a wikipedia page called this as well, then I was shocked to see such a page actually existed.  Do we really need an encyclopedia page for every bizarre compound word that someone uses in passing, when there is no clear history of scholarly literature specifically discussing the term or phrase as a meaningful construct?  csloat (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I think I withdraw the objection; I just read a good chunk of this article on the topic and it seems I am just ignorant of a scholarly discussion that exists on this topic.  There seems far more here than the "Islamophilia" topic that brought me here in the first place.  My apologies :) csloat (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD? 

message: Nietzsche didn't declare his love for all things Jewish.  instead his anti-anti-semitism was directed at Jew-haters and the kind of people who were Jew-haters.  they are two different things.  one might very well be indifferent to Jews and Jewish culture but also hate anti-semitism, after all, although i wouldn't go so far as to claim that Nietzsche was indifferent to Jews and Jewish culture.  but many of his seemingly philosemitic statements are actually merely jabs at anti-semites and in particular the kinds of backward nationalist Germanophile xenophobic statist morons who were also anti-semites in Nietzsche's time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.29.203 (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nietzsche was a heavy duty philosopher, so one should be careful making broad statements about him. Lots of people have opinions about Nietzsche that are often not traceable to the writings of Nietzsche himself. Somewhat to their defense, it is not easy to read Nietzsche. 75.15.199.8 (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet Nietzsche certainly did appreciate at least some aspects of Jewishness. Baruch Spinoza was hands down one of his most significant influences. Nietzsche wrote, "The Jews, on the contrary [to Rome], were the priestly nation of ressentiment par excellence, in whom there dwelt an unequaled popular-moral genius: one only has to compare similarly gifted nations—the Chinese or the Germans, for instance—with the Jews, to sense which is of the first and which of the fifth rank." It's so ironic that the Nazi party couldn't get enough of that guy. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, yes, appreciate your contributions, all three of you. I am NOT a Nazi apologist, nor am I one of those self-hating Jews. I removed an unsourced pejorative (a single phrase in a lengthy sentence) referencing Nietzsche from the JudeoChristian article just now. It links to philosemitism. There is an American (anglo-sphere?) leftist, John Zerzan, who wrote a scathing critique of post-modernism, considering it to be nihilist. Like me, he perceives Nietzsche as a complicated but vigorous modernist and anti-anti-Semite.--FeralOink (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nietzsche as anti-anti-semite 

message: This article articulates the liberal view, but not the conservative evangelical view, particularly those of Christian Zionists. This article should be expanded to include this. --Confession0791 talk 23:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispensationalism

message: There are more specific sections of philosemitism. Article expansion? --Houdinipeter talk 22:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosephardism

message: There's one reference in the "Jewish response" section, and it goes to theforward.com and says "editorial" without linking to the actual editorial, so it's very unclear what the actual Jewish response is. Likely needs a whole rewrite! --Prince Ludwig (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish response 

message: First line of the article, uhm, that seems rather contradictory. 2001:818:E970:4100:5190:C869:C05E:23B9 (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree.  I don’t like the “let’s lead with nonsense” approach 72.83.103.199 (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Due to this strange recent edit, which completely changes the meaning of the paragraph. Should it be reverted? 96.246.240.43 (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a strange edit, sources for this article *already* supported that wording. Making the connection more explicit was intentional since I've seen plenty of people misunderstand what philosemitism is in recent weeks. Liz-wiki-en (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Liz-wiki-en, could you please point to the sources that support this claim? Several of the cited authors suggest that philosemitism may share tropes with antisemitism (G. Daniel Cohen, Martin Wein, Bennet Kravitz, and Liron Nagler-Cohen), but none describe philosemitism as a form of antisemitism as far as I can see. These are two distinct claims, and do not necessarily follow from each other. Thanks, Swadge2 (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

text: I'm aware of this argument, and am aware that there is a lot of informal discourse around it, but we do need reliable sources to include it in this article. There needs to be enough to add a whole section on it. As for the lead, at best, there's going to be a line saying something like "philosemitism is regarded by some as a benevolent form of antisemitism", but outright defining philosemitism as a form of antisemitism is going to fail NPOV. Ibadibam (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: fair enough. will scrounge up adequate sources when i have the spoons for it if no one beats me to it. Liz-wiki-en (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosemitism is anti-semitic?