it also narrows the term down to only apply to people of the Jewish faith. Surprisingly, this same dictionary does not use the previously mentioned ethnic groups in its definition of anti-semitism.
Semitism is defined by the mainstream Merriam-Webster Dictionary as Cite error: There are tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).“1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic” Cite error: There are tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). The article lacks credibility simply by narrowing the term's scope to only apply to people of Jewish descent (which differs from people of ancient Hebrew descent). Gramscis cousin Talk Stalk 09:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Reply The attitude of editors on this subject does not seem to me to be in the spirit of Wikilove and as a result I may indeed lose interest in this page. Also my suggestion regarding the widening of the discussion remains valid even if you don't agree. I accept that the second part of my point as picked up by jpgordon was incorrect but I stand by the fact that the hyphenation is under dispute and is a NPOV issue whatever the resolution. Anderson ( talk) 08:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Reply I am not a ' troll' I made a good faith edit. I recommending ignoring the trolls, they usually lose interest before long. jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Where does it say that? It doesn't say it anywhere. Where does it say that? It does include that criticism of Israel cannot be regarded as antisemitism so long as it is "similar to that leveled against any other country", which strikes me as rather the opposite of your claim. Gramscis cousin Talk Stalk 15:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Reply article also unquestioningly accepts that any opposition to the policies and actions of the state of Israel especially in relation to their treatment of the Palestinian people is by definition anti-semitic. I won't be provoked into an edit war on this but its clear from the section below that the hyphenated is spelling is both disputed and widely regarded by editors as non-NPOV and there are any number of other issues that could be included to give a wider non-NPOV view of the subject for example the similarities between ant-semitic cartoons of Jews and equivalent ones of Arabs. I will be removing the tag accordingly.- Woland ( talk) 14:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Gramscis cousin Talk Stalk 13:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Reply The article certainly does not unquestioningly accept anything (other than mainstream scholarship that is) and regardless of your POV, consensus has been reached on this issue. I am going to tag the article accordingly. Indeed the use of the title 'antisemitic' rather than the common dictionary usage 'anti-semitic' in the title betrays a non-NPOV approach that pervades the entire article. The article also unquestioningly accepts that any opposition to the policies and actions of the state of Israel especially in relation to their treatment of the Palestinian people is by definition anti-semitic. What am I missing? It seems that the use of the "Talk to the Hand" template only dismisses an important counterargument rather than confront it.
Even if all terminology is defined by usage, the etymology section does not give a clear and balanced perspective on what the common usage is, to say nothing of the fact that most practitioners of the Jewish faith since the existence of modern English have not been of predominantly ethnic Hebrew (Semitic) ancestry. The article and much of its Talk page appear to be taking the relatively well-defined ethnolinguistic term Semite, admitting it includes Arabs as well as Hebrews, and then completely ignoring it when defining anti-Semite as one who is prejudiced against followers of a particular religion.
Perhaps there was a lengthy debate that is no longer on the talk page or a better-written etymology section that is no longer present, but right now it just appears that some editor felt that their way was the right way and they used the Stop template with "We know Arabs are Semites" as an occupatio tactic.
Neooffice incorrect background color full#
It links to the etymology section but this is full of assumptions and citation-challenged statements so there really isn't a strong consensus. The warning at the start of the talk page doesn't address the issue, it simply dismisses it.
0 kommentar(er)
