Talk:Anti-Semitism

• Talk:Anti-Semitism (archive 1)
• Talk:Anti-Semitism (archive 2)
• Talk:Anti-Semitism (archive 3)
• Talk:Anti-Semitism (archive 4)
• Talk:Anti-Semitism (archive 5)
• Talk:Anti-Semitism (archive 6)...

For a summary of past discussion of etymology and usage issues, see Talk:Anti-Semitism (etymology)

Martin, as you are describing the debate, it is agreed that hatred of Jews is "anti-Semitism," whereas "antipathy" toward Jews is considered by some not to be "anti-Semitism." A quick look at Webster's dictionary gives me a definition of "antipathy" as "a deep, habitual dislike, aversion." "Hate" is defined as "intense dislike, extreme hostility." In other words, you want to make the distinction between "deep, habitual dislike" (not anti-Semitic) and "intense dislike" (anti-Semitic). That's not a question of NPOV or not. That is pure rhetoric. (It can also be used to justify certain anti-Semitic behaviors. For example, when Jews were denied membership in country clubs in the United States, was that only because of deep habitual dislike, or was it intense dislike?) Danny

Can you stop at a word-book definition, if the words hate and love have a broader usage in USA than in many other countries?
-- Ruhrjung 11:58 21 May 2003 (UTC)

It sounds to me, Danny, like you accept the existence of this debate, but you feel that these particular choices of words (ie, "antipathy") are sub-optimal in expressing it - would that be accurate? Martin

What's gained by a definition of Anti-semitism which is that very narrow that most anti-semitism by a normal usage (think of the Dreyfus affair) are excluded? Ruhrjung 12:02 21 May 2003 (UTC)

I added some stuff - the debate is not between "deep, habitual dislike" and "intense dislike", rather it is between "intense hostility" and "prejudice" Martin

Your claim is actually intensely inaccurate Martin. I do not at all accept the debate. Now, let me see if I am getting this straight. Intense hostility is anti-Semitic but prejudice isn't? What exactly does that mean? (That is a rhetorical question. It means nothing). A prejudice against people because they are Jewish is an anti-Semitic prejudice. Danny

I removed "generally speaking." When it is not generally speaking does it not mean that? I also removed:

There is some debate over how widely the term anti-Semitism should be applied. Some dictionaries suggest that anti-Semitism refers only to intense hatred, while others broaden the definition to include any form of anti-Jewish prejudice. For example:

• Merriam-Webster: "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews..."
• Cambridge International Dictionary of English : "the strong dislike or cruel and unfair treatment of Jewish people"
• American Heritage Dictionary: "Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews..." or "Discrimination against Jews..."
• Cambridge Dictionary of American English): "hate or strong dislike of Jews..."

The first definition states "hostility" or "discrimination." The second states "strong dislike" (in other words, hatred) or "unfair treatment" (i.e., discrimination). The third one states "hostility or prejudice" or "discrimination". Only the fourth, which happens to be a different edition of the second (both are Cambridge), says only "hate or strong dislike" without discrimination. For one thing, you are reading far too much into these definitions. For another, you are then claiming that the "Cambridge Dictionary of American English" says hatred but not discrimination, so hatred of Jews is anti-Semitic, but discrimination against Jews is not. Then what is discrimination against Jews? THe Nuremburg Laws were discriminatory, but since they do not fit the final Cambridge definition, are you saying they are not anti-Semitic? Danny

I would call discrimination against Jews "anti-Jewish discrimination". Some discrimination against Jews I would call anti-Semitic. Some I would not. Single-faith schools do not admit people who are not of the relevant faith. In the case of a non-Jewish single faith school, this is discrimination against Jews. I would not call that anti-Semitic, though I would call it misguided. The Nuremberg Laws[?] were based in hatred and fear, and I would call those anti-Semitic.

Since you do not approve of my use of the dictionary definitions, I will try to find you alternate references. But first, I'm going to quote you from Talk:Anti-Semitism (archive 5):

I also agree with [stevertigo] that the term anti-Semitism often has "too wide a context" (your term). For me this means that the term is bandied about too freely (I would even go so far as to say as a hyperbolic phrase used to score political points, but that is just my POV). That is why I believe that a carefully worded definition is so important". Danny 00:56 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

What you were saying back then, it seems, is that some people use the term anti-Semitism widely ("bandying it about"), and that you disapprove of this usage. And I agree with you that a carefully worded definition is important. However, I think it is important to acknowledge that some people use the term more "freely" than others, as you yourself have said!

Regarding "generally speaking", see my comments above: when one "speaks broadly", one speaks in generalities and simplifies details. Here, we are simplifying details by not speaking (yet) of the considerable debate, which you yourself have taken extensive part in, as to the meaning of the word anti-Semitism. If you can think of a better way of putting this, please do. Martin 15:05 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Martin, that is nonsense. No Jewish person claims that it is discrimination that Christian schools that teach Christianity only accept Christians as students, and not Jews or others. That is not discrimination; that is religious freedom. No Jews, Muslims or atheists can force Christians to violate precepts of their religion. Similarly, no one should ever accuse Jews (or Muslims, etc.) of discriminating against others if their own religious schools are meant to teach members of their own faith! That is not what Danny meant when he was talking about people discriminating against Jews. You are making a strawman defense. When people discriminate against Jews, that is anti-Semitic. When you claim otherwise, you adopt the Neo-Nazi-like revisionism that Stevert and the Nation of Islam are trying to force upon us. They are trying to rewrite the dictionary to make anti-Semitism acceptable. Please don't fall for this childish form of wordplay. RK

Please don't compare wikipedia contributors to neo-Nazis. Martin

Sadly, Stevert used finely honed linguistic tactics characteristic of Neo-Nazis in many of his Wikipedia statements on Jews; his arguments were designed to mislead those who know little of the subject. Given your statements on this issue (especially on the ADL), it is clear that you have little or no knowledge of Judaism, anti-Semitism, or the Jewish community. As such, you were a prime candidate to fall for his propaganda. This is not meant as an ad homenim attack. I am saying that you must not rewrite the dictionary in order to deny the existence of most forms of anti-Semitism. As Ruhrjung points out "What's gained by a definition of Anti-semitism which is that very narrow that most anti-semitism by a normal usage (think of the Dreyfus affair) are excluded?" RK 22:55 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that when you said that I've "adopted neo-Nazi-like revisionism" that you didn't mean this as a personal attack. However, it felt like a personal attack, just as it felt like a personal attack when you called my position "ridiculous", "irrational" and "indefensible" above. Well, I'm tired of you insulting me RK. If you can't speak to me politely, don't speak to me. I sure as hell won't be listening. Martin 23:17 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Martin, your odd ideas about Jews (e.g. that the secular ADL somehow only accepts adult male Jews!), your attempts to rewrite away most forms of anti-Semitism as not being anti-Semitic, and your uncritical acceptance of Stevert's Jew-baiting were of concern to me. Despite your lack of knowledge on this subject, I have repeatedly tried to work with you. In fact, I like to think we have worked together successfully in the past. However it seems to me that - on this issue - your lack of knowledge, combined with your slightly confused ideas about anti-Semitism, prevents you from adding to this topic in any helpful way. I guess we will have to cooperate on other articles. RK 23:37 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Question about the usage of the word "semitic": I have read and understood that Semites include Arabs, and thus anti-semitism (as a racial term) would include bias against both Jews and Arabs. Is there strong opposition to writing this alternative understanding of Semitism into the article? If not, I'll get to work, but I'm not especially interested in getting involved in an editing war on this page which seems to be somewhat controversial. Silver Maple

Yes, for four reasons:

1) racial categories are largely products of 19th century European ideology. They are not scientific and certainly shouldn't be applied historically as if they were scientific -- or as if they are used in a logical (consistent) way.

2) properly, "semitic" refers not to races but to languages. Yes, Arabic and Hebrew are both semitic languages. Of course, two people living in completely different parts of the world, who do not share any ancestors *well, until 40,000 years ago, let's say), may speak a "semitic" language, and read the same books -- and even share values. But this is not "race."

3) the person who coined the term "anti-semite" and "anti-semitism" singled out Jews. There is no logical reason, or is there any strong empirical correlation, that supports the notion that because one hates Jews one will also hate Arabs, or vice-versa.

See the paragraph (which is the result of a couple of edits back and forth):

A seemingly similar type of hostility has increased in Western Europe during the latter half of the 20th century, as a growing number of Arab and/or Muslim refugees and immigrants has arrived and come to constitute visible, often ghettoized, minorities in larger towns and cities. Several populist political parties have recently gained victories on anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiments. Critics of politicians such as Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, Pim Fortuyn in The Netherlands and Pia Kjærsgaard in Denmark, sometimes brand them as "anti-Semites". Even if these political forces really are hostile towards the Jewry, which some of them without doubt are, such a usage is not advisable in English. It confuses the matter rather more than it contributes to clarity, as with many other emotionally charged words. Ruhrjung 10:47 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Inter alia outside of a few people here at Wikipedia I have never heard anyone claim that anti-semitism means hatred of Arabs. You say this is an alternative understanding -- well, whose understanding is it? I have never heard any representitive of the Arab-American Anti Discrimination Committee characterize racism against Arabs as "anti-semitic," for example. Conversely, what term would you use to describe hatred specifically targeted at Jews? I guess we could have an article on "Jew-Hatred[?]," except anyone reading such an article would think "Oh, this is about 'anti-semitism.'"

4) there is another term for someone who hates both Jews and Arabs and expresses his or her hatred in racial terms. It is "racist."

Slrubenstein

My refactoring (written back in early Feb) of the "anti-Semitic =?= prejudice against Semites" argument is at Talk:Anti-Semitism (etymology). Worth reading (thinks me). Martin 23:47 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

rm answered question - thank you Slrubenstein

Where has anyone seen evidence that Saudi Arabia bans Jews from entering? I would remove that mention of it if no evidence is found. --mr100percent[?]