Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 23

message: Should this page make a note of the misuse of the term? What I mean is that any criticism of Israel, it's actions and policies can be and is oft labeled as anti-semitic - in an attempt to quell criticism - or the use of the term as a "weapon" against (political) opponents who might've made a fleeting non-positive comment about Israel?
Examples: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/20/news/spain.php, http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=132&fArticleId=284155, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1744960,00.html
I also found this and this which are pretty interesting reading considering the misuse of the term. -G3, 02:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most Jewish organizations equate anti-Zionism (in the sense: "against a Jewish state"), to anti-Semitism ("against Jews"). Poltical criticism of Israeli policies, specifically with treatment of Arab populations, is rarely seen as anti-Semitism, even by proliferate organisations like ADL Masterhomer  06:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not what I implied, I merely pointed out that one de facto use of the term is as a political weapon instead of a legitimate term and as such the misuse should be noted under the article because it exists and is relatively common, partly because of the misconception and partly because of easy political or media gain offered by cheap (as in easy to make, hard to dissolve) accusations. This article, in my opinion, presents a good opportunity to differentiate legitimate criticism for the often controversial policies advocated or actions committed by state of Israel from antisemitism. Then there's the apparent hyperbolic vector in North American media also (eg. http://torsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Coren_Michael/2006/08/12/1750501.html ). - G3, 23:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse? 

message: The official chronology of the Norwegian parliament for 1851 can be found at http://www.stortinget.no/om_stortinget/Jodepara/Kronologi_1851.html It can provide a citation for the correct claim in the text that the prohibition of Jews in the country was lifted in 1851, but it is in Norwegian, and so, I don't know if it is appropriate to link. Some more experienced editors may have a look at it, I suppose.
: I can understand a bit Norwegian and as far as I can tell it's under the entry for "13. juni" (June 13). The part "Jøder ere fremdeles udelukkede fra Adgang til Riget" (Jews are henceforth locked out from access to the kingdom" (I think)). It was cut with a 93 against 10 votes. // Liftarn
::That is correct. There were also various other legal proceedings to facilitate the change, and the other dates on the same page refer to these. The final royal sanctioning of the changes happened on 24 September, 1851. By then, BTW, Sephardi Jews had been admitted free rights of travel, settlement and work for about 6 years already.... -- Olve 15:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Norwegian Parliament 

message: So, the NAS section of this page is almost entirely devoted to a long quote by Martin Luther King.  That's nice, but MLK is not even mentioned on the NAS page itself, and our description of NAS is little more than "MLK was against it."  I am wondering if there would be support for (1) moving the quote over to the NAS page, and (2) presenting a brief synopsis of that page in place of the quote. Ethan Mitchell 01:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Consitency with NAS

message: The Crusades were a series of several military campaigns sanctioned by the Papacy that took place during the 11th through 13th centuries. They began as Catholic endeavors to recapture Jerusalem from the Muslims but developed into territorial wars.
A mob of mainly untrained and uncontrolled civilians, known as the People's Crusade accompanying the first Crusade attacked the Jewish communities in Germany, France, and England, and put many Jews to death. Entire communities, like those of Treves, Speyer, Worms, Mayence, and Cologne, were slain during the first Crusade by a mob army. About 12,000 Jews are said to have perished in the Rhenish cities alone between May and July, 1096. Before the Crusades the Jews had practically a monopoly of trade in Eastern products, but the closer connection between Europe and the East brought about by the Crusades raised up a class of merchant traders among the Christians, and from this time onward restrictions on the sale of goods by Jews became frequent. The religious zeal fomented by the Crusades at times burned as fiercely against the Jews as against the Muslims, though attempts were made by bishops during the First crusade and the papacy during the Second Crusade to stop Jews from being attacked. Both economically and socially the Crusades were disastrous for European Jews. They prepared the way for the anti-Jewish legislation of Pope Innocent III, and formed the turning-point in the medieval history of the Jews.
This really does need a reference:
"...perished in the Rhenish cities..."
Needs a clear who|what|where,...
Rhenish 
Rhen
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/Rhenish >;
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/Rhen >.
Please.  Thank You.
Hopiakuta 22:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Crusades

message: What's "nas"?
I do not find that, nor Dr. King, anywhere?
What does that comment refer to?
Thank You.
Hopiakuta 22:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding the comment preceeding mine:

message: If Anti-Semetism is the father (or mother article) of anti-semitism, shouldn't it be a bit more balanced with regards to current vs historical, and by country, again current vs historical. Also since the Islam and anti-semitism is daughter/son article, and I may never get to it... shouldnt it again have some real data inside of it... that is relevant. Also anti-semetism by country has only western nations... I cannot see how this is a fair & balanced article regarding anti-semitism if we are missing half + of the world.</br>
Also did anyone note that Christianity and anti-semitism is quite detailed for having a main article and yet the islam on is one section. </br>
Suggestions </br>
•Etymology and usage </br>
••Defintion </br>
••Anti-Zionism vs Anti-semitism</br>
•Historical anti-semitism</br>
••Religious </br>
•••Christianity (in brief - it already has an article)</br>
•••Islam (in brief - it already has an article)</</br>
••Country</br>
•••List of countries, an overview please...if it is longer make another article</br>
•Current anti-semitism</br>
••Countries (religions at one time were very unified pan-nationalist entities, today that would be less so - also to keep the 'fair & balance' in mind - by country is more relevant, as this keeps any current religious POV out of (or at least minimize) the arena</br>
If we can do something like this, then it would actually be useful as a reference. </br> Keep the historical as a minimum, because it is essentially root material for any current situations that might occur.</br>
Obviously a lot of work done here, and just my opinion, that we could make it more relevant with a little structural rework.</br>
My mantra : If a person could only read ONE article on anti-semitism... what would this article inform them about? </br>Note, article is 112 vs the preferred 32 size, so based upon this about 3/4 of the article should be moved, redefined, or cut.</br> Greroja 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page style

message: This article is getting waaay too big. There is a tonne of stuff we could get rid of.220.239.134.188 04:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way too big 

message: First of all I didnt remove edit or reword anything. I simply moved the majority of the work into three major sections as defined in the first part.</br>
The anti-semetism christianity section is huge and over-represented, and non-representational of what is happening currently in the world. Please create new articles and move the info away, or if its already duped in another article please make a link.</br>
The Anti-Semetism Islam section, as well as racial could be better summarized and light in info. Please add. </br>
Moved ALL the countries and anti-semetism to a new article under construction call Anti-semitism around the world.</br>
Greroja 21:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: why d'you say that it is non-representational? There still are antisemitic incidents in Christian communities in Lebanon, East-Europe, Greece, Cyprus, Spain and others. Just that antisemitism in USA has gone down, but USA is hardly representative of Christians.Shiva's Trident 10:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ReOrganization

message: :Does the "Hitler's Cross" business in Mumbai count as an anti-semitic incident? I say that it doesn't for 3 reasons:
*The proprietor, Puneet Sablok, was unaware of the magnitude of offense that this would cause the Mumbai Jews.
*Upon dialogue with Mumbai Jews, Sablok changed the name.
*Jewish advocacy groups have expressed satisfaction with the resolution.
Now, anti-semitism is defined (in TFA) as 'prejudice or hostility towards Jews'. Sablok did not have any prejudice or hostility (none was discovered or reported) but his naming the restaurant was largely due to ignorance which, when corrected, caused the name change. Does an incident established as borne out of ignorance count as anti-semitic by the article's definition of the term?Shiva's Trident 12:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitler's Cross Incident

message: I notice that the surname \"Judefeind\" still exists in Germany.  Are there any other anti-semitic surnames in Europe? --Slashme 08:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, far too many to list. Mostly Dutch and German. Ry0d0x 13:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surnames 

message: This reference in the opening section is, in my opinion, just a slur on the left and I am very surprised at the way it has been presented as undisputed fact here - I am going to make an edit and see how it flys. --SandyDancer 22:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is; that's the whole point of it. It doesn't even have the basic honesty to admit that the very existence of "new anti-semitism" is a highly disputed ideological claim.  Palmiro | Talk 22:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't insult me, Palmiro. The "whole point" of the edit was not to make a "slur on the left." (Why would I care about doing that?) The "whole point" of the edit was to include this new concept in the list. And I made it clear it is a concept, not an established phenomenon; and also that part of the concept is that it comes simultaneously from the left, far right, and Islamism. If you feel it's a slur, why pick out the left? Or don't you care about alleged slurs on anyone else? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "New Anti-semitism" 

message: This definition is in contradiction with contradiction with the categorization definition being proposed on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  SighSighSigh 04:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition is in contradiction with categorization criteria

message: Please provide references for any current ban in Germany, France, or Belgium. To the best of my Knowledge, the German high court issued a special ordinance permitting ritual slaughter by way of exception as long as it was covered by religious obligations in 1997 [|1].  Also I believe there is a lot of misinformation going around; for example: [|2].
Jimmy1988 16:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure there are people who have claimed the ban on ritual slaughter is based on anti-Semitism rather than animal welfare concerns. There was a simmilar case in the US about the ritual slaugher of animals in Santería, see Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. // Liftarn
Yes, there certainly are people who claim that the ban on ritual slaughter is based on anti-semitism, islamophobia or whatever. But people make lots of crazy claims and that some people have made certain claims is not automatically a reason for presenting those claims more or less as well-estabilished facts, as is done in this article.
Unless someone can find compelling evidence that anti-semitism is the reason that Sweden and other countries have bans on ritual slaughter, this part of the article should be removed. Anti-semitism is a very emotional term, and one shouldn't accuse people of being anti-semitic unless one has very good reasons to do that. Certainly not in a wikipedia article.
Settembrini 00:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bans on kosher slaughter

message: Someone has added this sentence to the definition of "Religious anti-Semitism":
:The concept that Jews believe themselves to be the Chosen People which can be found offensive and lead to anti-semitism.
This doesn't appear to be the definition of Religious anti-Semitism at all, but rather an unsourced justification for anti-Semitism. Can someone please source this? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious anti-Semitism is the concept of a Chosen people? 

message: I changed
In recent years some scholars of history, psychology, religion, and representatives of Jewish groups, have noted what they describe as the new anti-Semitism. Proponents of the term often associate it with the Left rather than the Right, and argue that the language of anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel are used to attack the Jews more broadly.
to
In recent years some scholars of history, psychology, religion, and representatives of Jewish groups, have noted what they describe as the new anti-Semitism, which they often associate with the Left rather than the Right, and argue that the language of anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel are used to attack the Jews more broadly.
in order to tighten up the text, but User:SandyDancer reverted me with the comment "that wasn't a "tighten" - it changed the meaning". I'm baffled; how did that change the meaning in any way? Jayjg (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tighten vs Change in meaning 

message: this article is too long.  Except for a few sentences, all of the material of the section Anti-Semitism and the Christian World needs to either be moved to an article of its own or moved into articles that are referenced in this article.  The material need not be repeated twice--in the referenced article and here. 
Thanks Hmains 04:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  too long 

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was Move Duja 08:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe the slippery-slope argument is a valid one here, especially since it's been well established that antisemitism is and always has been simply a synonym for anti-Jew, regardless of ethnic background. -- Arvedui 04:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I checked Google as well before making the proposal, but I don't think the test is reliable in this case since the first few pages of results contain both "antisemitism" and "anti-Semitism" as highlighted terms (matches). There's no way to know what exactly it's counting when it gives the higher number. In any case, the wider usage isn't always the correct one. -- Arvedui 04:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To get the numbers, try comparing the results from antisemitism -"anti-semitism" and -antisemitism "anti-semitism". That's where I got the 7-1. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that seemed to work a bit better, though if you check, the ratio is actually closer to 4:1. Nevertheless... -- Arvedui 09:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry to be unclear, I wasn't saying that a Semitism page doesn't exist in Wikipedia, but that it doesn't exist as something to be opposed to, in the sense that one could pair fascism/anti-fascism, communism/anti-communism, Catholicism/anti-Catholicism, etc.  In the words of Yehuda Bauer (quoted in the main article), "Antisemitism, especially in its hyphenated spelling, is inane nonsense, because there is no Semitism that you can be anti to." The disambig page seems to bear this out, as two of the links are Semitism in the sense of being Semitic, while the only one with even a faint claim on the term "Semitism" is apparently a non-Jewish phenomenon (it would be like calling a native Londoner an "Anglophile") which anti-Semitism is not directly opposed to.  Omission of the hyphen simply emphasizes the fact that "antisemitism" should correctly be read as a single unified word which means "anti-Jew", and not as a meaningful root-word with an opposing prefix attached. -- Arvedui 09:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are just babbling nonsense as far as the English language goes.  Like I said, an anti-toxin isn't any different from antitoxin.  And "anti-Semite" redirects to "anti-Semitism".  Furthermore, "anti-Americanism" doesn't mean that the people are opposed to "Americanism" or even "Americanisms" (the first meaning on the disambiguation page would take an s in plural, the second would not); it means they are against America and/or Americans.  Nor does "anti-Hellenism" describe some group that is against "Hellenism".  That's the argument you are making, and to me I've never seen anything sillier.  Gene Nygaard 22:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, you are precisely making my argument for me, demonstrating exactly the kind of confusion the hyphenated term tends to lead to. Anti-Americanism *is* the state of being anti-American, while anti-Hellenism *is* opposition or hatred of Hellenic culture (and appears to be mostly founded on an urban legend in any event, but that's beside the point). Antisemitism however has nothing whatsoever to do with being against Semites, except insofar as some Semites happen to be Jews. As my previous note said, omitting the hyphen is not meant to "change the meaning" but merely to emphasize the essential unity of the term. I don't know how I could be any clearer. Naturally, I'm not holding my breath for you to change your vote, but thank you for helping me illustrate the problem to others. --Arvedui 23:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As Humus sapiens (as well as the article itself) pointed out, both terms are "correct". However, I (as well as various prominent scholars in the field) think the unhyphenated term is at least marginally less "problematic" than the other, thus my proposal to use it here. --Arvedui 20:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Google shows nearly 2 million hits for the unhyphenated term (not "widespread" enough?), and as I've said a few times now, both terms are "accepted", though one is clearly preferred by many of the most prominent academics studying the field (for what I think are quite good reasons). As Wikipedia policy itself points out, the wider-used term is not always the correct one. --Arvedui 20:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Drjon, "antisemitism" is not a neologism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: With respect, I don't agree that arguing for this change is any more trivial than arguing over whether to use AD or CE, for example. What is important isn't the existence of a functioning redirect, but the attempt to emphasize that antisemitism has nothing conceptually to do with "Semitism", an increasingly wide-spread misconception the talk section directly below this one conveniently demonstrates (yet again).  Yes we would be reversing the redirect but that happens all the time, and I don't understand why that would be a meaningful objection.  The effort involved is probably the best argument against (given the extended size of the article), but even that would be relatively simple given the search/replace command in any decent text editor...  I recognize from the way the voting is going that it appears I'm going to lose this battle, but I still thought it was a point worth raising, and I maintain that it would be a worthwhile thing to do even if it only slightly helps to undermine the recurring yet entirely spurious argument below. -- Arvedui 09:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
====New anti-Semitism====
It would seem that, from the arguments presented here, that most of the proponents would logically insist that new anti-Semitism ["anti-Semitism has expanded from hatred of Jews (classical anti-Semitism) to hatred of Jewish national aspirations (new anti-Semitism)"] would have to retain its hyphen and capital letter.  I won't hold my breath for that to happen, however.  Gene Nygaard 13:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning at all here. Could you please explain more clearly? --Arvedui 23:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "Category:Antisemitism" currently redirects to "Category:Anti-Semitism", including from the bottom of this article.  None of the article (and there are many) that are categorized as belonging to "Category:Anti-Semitism" have been changed to link to the new, improved category.  I hope that those who insisted on the name change will also take on the extra work associated with the name change, and correct these resultant problems.  --SFDan 12:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_2#Category:Antisemitism. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
* Support for reasons listed above. (Assuming I get to vote!) --Arvedui 02:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe the slippery-slope argument is a valid one here, especially since it's been well established that antisemitism is and always has been simply a synonym for anti-Jew, regardless of ethnic background. -- Arvedui 04:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I checked Google as well before making the proposal, but I don't think the test is reliable in this case since the first few pages of results contain both "antisemitism" and "anti-Semitism" as highlighted terms (matches). There's no way to know what exactly it's counting when it gives the higher number. In any case, the wider usage isn't always the correct one. -- Arvedui 04:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To get the numbers, try comparing the results from antisemitism -"anti-semitism" and -antisemitism "anti-semitism". That's where I got the 7-1. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that seemed to work a bit better, though if you check, the ratio is actually closer to 4:1. Nevertheless... -- Arvedui 09:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry to be unclear, I wasn't saying that a Semitism page doesn't exist in Wikipedia, but that it doesn't exist as something to be opposed to, in the sense that one could pair fascism/anti-fascism, communism/anti-communism, Catholicism/anti-Catholicism, etc.  In the words of Yehuda Bauer (quoted in the main article), "Antisemitism, especially in its hyphenated spelling, is inane nonsense, because there is no Semitism that you can be anti to." The disambig page seems to bear this out, as two of the links are Semitism in the sense of being Semitic, while the only one with even a faint claim on the term "Semitism" is apparently a non-Jewish phenomenon (it would be like calling a native Londoner an "Anglophile") which anti-Semitism is not directly opposed to.  Omission of the hyphen simply emphasizes the fact that "antisemitism" should correctly be read as a single unified word which means "anti-Jew", and not as a meaningful root-word with an opposing prefix attached. -- Arvedui 09:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are just babbling nonsense as far as the English language goes.  Like I said, an anti-toxin isn't any different from antitoxin.  And "anti-Semite" redirects to "anti-Semitism".  Furthermore, "anti-Americanism" doesn't mean that the people are opposed to "Americanism" or even "Americanisms" (the first meaning on the disambiguation page would take an s in plural, the second would not); it means they are against America and/or Americans.  Nor does "anti-Hellenism" describe some group that is against "Hellenism".  That's the argument you are making, and to me I've never seen anything sillier.  Gene Nygaard 22:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, you are precisely making my argument for me, demonstrating exactly the kind of confusion the hyphenated term tends to lead to. Anti-Americanism *is* the state of being anti-American, while anti-Hellenism *is* opposition or hatred of Hellenic culture (and appears to be mostly founded on an urban legend in any event, but that's beside the point). Antisemitism however has nothing whatsoever to do with being against Semites, except insofar as some Semites happen to be Jews. As my previous note said, omitting the hyphen is not meant to "change the meaning" but merely to emphasize the essential unity of the term. I don't know how I could be any clearer. Naturally, I'm not holding my breath for you to change your vote, but thank you for helping me illustrate the problem to others. --Arvedui 23:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As Humus sapiens (as well as the article itself) pointed out, both terms are "correct". However, I (as well as various prominent scholars in the field) think the unhyphenated term is at least marginally less "problematic" than the other, thus my proposal to use it here. --Arvedui 20:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Google shows nearly 2 million hits for the unhyphenated term (not "widespread" enough?), and as I've said a few times now, both terms are "accepted", though one is clearly preferred by many of the most prominent academics studying the field (for what I think are quite good reasons). As Wikipedia policy itself points out, the wider-used term is not always the correct one. --Arvedui 20:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Drjon, "antisemitism" is not a neologism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Add any additional comments:
The proposal, though I am sure well-intentioned, is trivial.  What is important is that people can enter Antisemitism and they are re-directed to the proper article.  I see nothing that would lead to any confusion or difficulties for readers or editors of Wikipedia, so i see no reason to change the name.  If we did, we would just be reversing the redirect (i.e. we would still have to have a link for Anti-Semitism because many spell it this way, we would just add the automatic redirect to the same article without the hyphen).  I do not see that it is worth the effort.  Let's talk about ways to improve the contents or clarity of the article instead, shall we? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, I don't agree that arguing for this change is any more trivial than arguing over whether to use AD or CE, for example. What is important isn't the existence of a functioning redirect, but the attempt to emphasize that antisemitism has nothing conceptually to do with "Semitism", an increasingly wide-spread misconception the talk section directly below this one conveniently demonstrates (yet again).  Yes we would be reversing the redirect but that happens all the time, and I don't understand why that would be a meaningful objection.  The effort involved is probably the best argument against (given the extended size of the article), but even that would be relatively simple given the search/replace command in any decent text editor...  I recognize from the way the voting is going that it appears I'm going to lose this battle, but I still thought it was a point worth raising, and I maintain that it would be a worthwhile thing to do even if it only slightly helps to undermine the recurring yet entirely spurious argument below. -- Arvedui 09:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
====New anti-Semitism====
It would seem that, from the arguments presented here, that most of the proponents would logically insist that new anti-Semitism ["anti-Semitism has expanded from hatred of Jews (classical anti-Semitism) to hatred of Jewish national aspirations (new anti-Semitism)"] would have to retain its hyphen and capital letter.  I won't hold my breath for that to happen, however.  Gene Nygaard 13:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning at all here. Could you please explain more clearly? --Arvedui 23:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "Category:Antisemitism" currently redirects to "Category:Anti-Semitism", including from the bottom of this article.  None of the article (and there are many) that are categorized as belonging to "Category:Anti-Semitism" have been changed to link to the new, improved category.  I hope that those who insisted on the name change will also take on the extra work associated with the name change, and correct these resultant problems.  --SFDan 12:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_2#Category:Antisemitism. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: It would seem that, from the arguments presented here, that most of the proponents would logically insist that new anti-Semitism ["anti-Semitism has expanded from hatred of Jews (classical anti-Semitism) to hatred of Jewish national aspirations (new anti-Semitism)"] would have to retain its hyphen and capital letter.  I won't hold my breath for that to happen, however.  Gene Nygaard 13:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning at all here. Could you please explain more clearly? --Arvedui 23:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New anti-Semitism

message: Don't forget to move the main category and other categories. Psychomelodic  14:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Category:Antisemitism" currently redirects to "Category:Anti-Semitism", including from the bottom of this article.  None of the article (and there are many) that are categorized as belonging to "Category:Anti-Semitism" have been changed to link to the new, improved category.  I hope that those who insisted on the name change will also take on the extra work associated with the name change, and correct these resultant problems.  --SFDan 12:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_2#Category:Antisemitism. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't forget to move the category 

message: Semite refers broadly to speakers of a language group which includes both Arabs and Jews. However anti-Semitism is specifically in reference to Jews and many anti-Semites are pro-Arab.
This seems to me to be circular reasoning. Can it be reworked? Here's a proposal:
Semite refers broadly to speakers of a language group which includes both Arabs and Jews. However, the term anti-Semitism is specifically used in reference to attitudes held towards Jews. Many anti-Semites are pro-Arab.
Comments? Drjon 14:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 14:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know why the last clause has to be there at all; it's pretty much irrelevant. Also, rather than "specifically used in reference to", why not the more accurate "defined as"? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why the "many anti-Semites are pro-Arab" sentence is there either. It's unsourced gratuitous POV-pushing. Jayjg (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More relevantly, what does it mean to be "pro-Arab"? Does that mean belief that Arabs have a right to exist or to live? If so, then I am "pro-Arab", but I am also "pro-Israel". So perhaps "pro-Arab" should be replaced by something more appropriate, such as "opposed to the existence of Israel"? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the phrase should just be deleted. It's unsourced opinion, POV-pushing, and doesn't add anything. Jayjg (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess it's about peoples whose ancestors spoke Semitic languages. Jayjg (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, keep in mind when the term was coined Jews still widely used Hebrew in their prayer books, religious texts, responsa, etc. Jayjg (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology and usage 

message: I'm not going to start a move vote, but I am concerned about the votes to move often saying a variant of "Antisemitism seems to be the term preferred by scholars." This is unproven and I think probably incorrect. On Google Scholar "Anti-Semitism" -antisemitism gets 21,000 hits while "antisemitism" itself gets around 9200. At the University of Oxford's site "Anti-semitism" -antisemitism gets 16 pages, but "antisemitism" itself gets only six pages. However the B'nai B'rith does prefer the non-hyphenated word as Anti-Semitism receives 39 responses with Antisemitism receiving 52 at their site. The Simon Wiesenthal Center also does. If the reason is the preference among thise victimized by this I'm fine with that. I just wish that had been more clearly stated earlier so I wouldn't have been arguing on incorrect premises.--T. Anthony 05:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While both spellings are acceptable, the unhyphenized version is a little less confusing. From what I've seen, it is indeed the preferred version among the victimized group. And as we can see, some groups on the other end have shown interest in mudding the matter. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: It does seem strange that the Antisemitism has dozens of articles (including a comprehensive "Antisemitism in Japan" article ..) when there is only a three sentence Antigypsyism article (Antiziganism), and that was only created a couple of weeks ago. What is the reason? A similar situation occurs with the 'Porajmos' and 'The Holocaust' articles. (Why is Holocaust afforded a 'The', but not Porajmos?). Yours, Rimbul.
:Basically, because more Jews edit here than Roma, and more antisemites than antizigans. The good news is that if you wish to edit/contribute such articles, you won't be tied up arguing with a bunch of dorks. Gzuckier 17:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with Roma