Talk:Antisemitism/Etymology

message: Arguments for accepting the existance of a minority usage generally revolve around pointing at the minority usage and saying "LOOK! IT'S RIGHT THERE!".
=== Mistaken usage ===
Not valid because the writers are incompetent:
=== Political usage ===
Not valid because it's a deliberate political ploy:
: Jewish people and most Christians never use the term "anti-semite" to mean anything other than hatred of Jews. The Germans who invented and popularized this word also never used this word to mean anything different. However, anti-semitic people themselves deliberately mis-use this word, to try and confuse the issue. That deliberate misuse is what the entry is trying to clarify. The attempt at change confuses the issue further. RK
=== Rare usage ===
Not valid because it's too rare:
: Just because one lone author mistakenly uses this word does not constitute rewriting an encyclopaedia entry. If that were any measure of anything, we'd have to say that no words have any set meaning, because just about every word is used by a tiny number of people in a sense that it was never meant to be used. RK
What a load of crap. Another eample of Jews trying to hijack the English language.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.11.64.37 (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good argument that the minority usage is potentially confusing and a bad idea. However, I'm not sure that it's a good argument that when the word is used in this (bad, confusing) way, that this use should not be considered as valid. Perhaps it is, since it effects the chances of that usage ever becoming used outside a tiny minority. Martin 21:21, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments 

message: Not valid because it's too rare:
: Just because one lone author mistakenly uses this word does not constitute rewriting an encyclopaedia entry. If that were any measure of anything, we'd have to say that no words have any set meaning, because just about every word is used by a tiny number of people in a sense that it was never meant to be used. RK
What a load of crap. Another eample of Jews trying to hijack the English language.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.11.64.37 (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rare usage 

message: Another argument against the minority usage is practical.  If all usage for "anti-Semitism" is changed to the current minority usage, during the transition there will be confusion as to what it means.  After the transition, it will simply be dropped from the language, since anything that "anti-Jewish-ism" and "anti-Arab-ism" have in common can be covered by another concept; that Jews and Arabs are both Semitic has no relevance outside of fields like linguistics and anthropology.  Also, both during and after the transition, there will be confusion to the meaning of the word "anti-Semitism" in pre-transition texts.
For all of this confusion, what benefit do we get?  Take the argument that "he" shouldn't be the gender-neutral pronoungeneric third person pronoun]], because it affects the way we think and view the world; making such a change would cause a lot of confusion and trouble, but might be worth it if using "he" does have the claimed affects.  What affects does the current usage of "anti-Semitism" have, that changing it would bring about benefits? -- Khym Chanur
: I think that's a good argument that the minority usage is potentially confusing and a bad idea. However, I'm not sure that it's a good argument that when the word is used in this (bad, confusing) way, that this use should not be considered as valid. Perhaps it is, since it effects the chances of that usage ever becoming used outside a tiny minority. Martin 21:21, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practical arguments 

message: Wikipedia states that the term anti-Semitic is a misnomer, a euphemism, a source of endless, harrowing, unnecessary debate, and not a neutral term.  The solution is for Wikipedia to stand back and take a neutral position:  make the main entry "anti-Judaism" (which has none of those problems) and cross-reference it to "anti-Semitism".  Korky Day 20:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A practical solution from a new contributor, 2006 April 7 

message: Isn't anyone going to comment on Anti-Judaism as a neutral term?  (See above section.) Korky Day 08:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Judaism