Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1998, says that Anti-Semitism is "Opposition to, or hatred of, Semites, esp. Jews.".
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Can the Wikipedia say that a certain person is anti-Semitic? Or must an article step back and say only that the person is "regarded as anti-Semitic?"
Well, this may not be helpful in the important borderline cases, but some people declare themselves to be anti-Semitic.
Does it serve our neutrality policy to say rather that such a person is "universally regarded" or "all but universally regarded" as anti-Semitic?
In some cases, yes. But we need not add these sorts of qualifiers unless there does exist someone (noteworthy) who says otherwise. "Although the Institute for Historical Change is all but universally regarded as anti-Semitic, the Institute itself denies it, claiming instead blah blah blah." Compare with "Both critics and defenders of The Institute for Changing History agree that it is anti-Semitic." Or "KillTheJews.com is an openly anti-Semitic website."
(All examples made up just now. Real examples exist, of course.)
If someone ever quotes a Wikipedia article in a newspaper or book, should they be able to say, "According to Wikipedia, Joe Blow is anti-Semitic".
It's possible, but because the term is "hot", it's unlikely.
"According to Wikipedia, Joe Blow is a Canadian citizen." Of course, if Joe Blow _denies_ it, or if there is any significant opposition, then we should "go meta" and not assert it ourselves, even if we think it's true.
Is there any difference between stating that a certain person studied at a university and stating that the person "is anti-Semitic"?
Perhaps I am making a fact-value distinction:
- studied at the university (fact)
- is anti-Semitic (value judgement)
I see the point you are making, except that being anti-Semitic isn't always a value judgment, and is sometimes just a simple fact. It turns out, of course, that in the vast majority of cases, the label is at issue.
Some people legitimately say "I'm not anti-Semitic, I just oppose the specific policies of the Israeli government." Other people illegitimately say "I'm not anti-Semitic, but I don't want Jews in my neighborhood."
But I guess there are some people who openly embrace the term.
I'm not really asking for a chorus of opinions from the list, but an authoritative, once-and-for-all pronouncement from the Founders.
Not my style, exactly, for better or worse. :-)
So how's this for a non-authoritative, tentative and subject to change pronouncement:
In almost all cases, it's better to go meta with a contentious label like anti-Semitic. This need not involve soft-pedalling the issue.
------------
Here's another possibly contentious term: "white supremacist". The difference here is that the term is not as often applied to people who don't accept the term. Saying that the KKK is a white supremacist organization is uncontroversial, even though the term does carry with it, to normal people, a negative moral judgment.
Here's a real website: http://www.jewwatch.com/ I only mention them to condemn them and hold them up for ridicule. They are anti-Semitic, and I'd feel comfortable with the Wikipedia saying so.
--Jimbo