Talk:Philosemitism

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jewish culture Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish cultureTemplate:WikiProject Jewish cultureJewish culture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Judeophile

The word Judeophile/Judeophillia should link to this page when entered in the search bar. I don't know how to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.144.11 (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Proselytes?

The proselytes of the Roman era should be mentioned here, but I don't know much about them -- Error

Some info at Proselyte and Godfearers. 75.15.199.8 (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philosemitism

I've added the above to the article--Google is a great re-search engine as well (as a search engine).

Ludvikus 14:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philosemite

None of the cited authors have a WP pahe?

Can anyone please start stubs for them?

And should we not have a REDIRECT on this term?

Ludvikus 15:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My google search produced this result: "Results 1 - 10 of about 9,280 for Philosemite. (0.21 seconds) ." So I'm putting in a REDIRECT on it to this article, as well as modifying the opening paragraph to include it. Ludvikus 15:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Wider Audience

I am a gentile, who found the word here accidentally on a search. I like the word and consider myself one; I am in awe the history of the Jewish People, their determination and survival. I am aware of and appreciate Jewish contributions to jazz and science, to name a few. I believe, however, that the previous version misses a target audience, that of Gentiles, and have made minor (I believe) edits to the first paragraph, to reflect that. I didn’t feel right about checking the ‘minor’ box, though, and didn’t.

Misc other comments: Para2, I could not link to the referenced Commentary opinion. Para3, I know little specific about it, but I find the statement ‘His detractor Norman Finkelstein agrees’, to be incomprehensible unless an explanation is added. Para4, nothing. Para5, last sentence, If by this you mean the "Righteous Among the Nations" and similar people, at various historic times, then I believe their role could be better highlighted in a more complete narative of the historic context of the word. The titles of the first three books would tend to support this view. I think deletion of 'so called' would be appropriate. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD?

I think this article should be AfD'd. This term is a non-notable neologism; On the Islamophilia page I made a joke about having a wikipedia page called this as well, then I was shocked to see such a page actually existed. Do we really need an encyclopedia page for every bizarre compound word that someone uses in passing, when there is no clear history of scholarly literature specifically discussing the term or phrase as a meaningful construct? csloat (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think I withdraw the objection; I just read a good chunk of this article on the topic and it seems I am just ignorant of a scholarly discussion that exists on this topic. There seems far more here than the "Islamophilia" topic that brought me here in the first place. My apologies :) csloat (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nietzsche as anti-anti-semite

Nietzsche didn't declare his love for all things Jewish. instead his anti-anti-semitism was directed at Jew-haters and the kind of people who were Jew-haters. they are two different things. one might very well be indifferent to Jews and Jewish culture but also hate anti-semitism, after all, although i wouldn't go so far as to claim that Nietzsche was indifferent to Jews and Jewish culture. but many of his seemingly philosemitic statements are actually merely jabs at anti-semites and in particular the kinds of backward nationalist Germanophile xenophobic statist morons who were also anti-semites in Nietzsche's time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.29.203 (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nietzsche was a heavy duty philosopher, so one should be careful making broad statements about him. Lots of people have opinions about Nietzsche that are often not traceable to the writings of Nietzsche himself. Somewhat to their defense, it is not easy to read Nietzsche. 75.15.199.8 (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Nietzsche certainly did appreciate at least some aspects of Jewishness. Baruch Spinoza was hands down one of his most significant influences. Nietzsche wrote, "The Jews, on the contrary [to Rome], were the priestly nation of ressentiment par excellence, in whom there dwelt an unequaled popular-moral genius: one only has to compare similarly gifted nations—the Chinese or the Germans, for instance—with the Jews, to sense which is of the first and which of the fifth rank." It's so ironic that the Nazi party couldn't get enough of that guy. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, appreciate your contributions, all three of you. I am NOT a Nazi apologist, nor am I one of those self-hating Jews. I removed an unsourced pejorative (a single phrase in a lengthy sentence) referencing Nietzsche from the JudeoChristian article just now. It links to philosemitism. There is an American (anglo-sphere?) leftist, John Zerzan, who wrote a scathing critique of post-modernism, considering it to be nihilist. Like me, he perceives Nietzsche as a complicated but vigorous modernist and anti-anti-Semite.--FeralOink (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dispensationalism

This article articulates the liberal view, but not the conservative evangelical view, particularly those of Christian Zionists. This article should be expanded to include this. --Confession0791 ^talk 23:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philosephardism

There are more specific sections of philosemitism. Article expansion? --Houdinipeter ^talk 22:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish response

There's one reference in the "Jewish response" section, and it goes to theforward.com and says "editorial" without linking to the actual editorial, so it's very unclear what the actual Jewish response is. Likely needs a whole rewrite! --Prince Ludwig (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philosemitism is anti-semitic?

First line of the article, uhm, that seems rather contradictory. 2001:818:E970:4100:5190:C869:C05E:23B9 (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. I don’t like the “let’s lead with nonsense” approach 72.83.103.199 (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Due to this strange recent edit, which completely changes the meaning of the paragraph. Should it be reverted? 96.246.240.43 (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a strange edit, sources for this article *already* supported that wording. Making the connection more explicit was intentional since I've seen plenty of people misunderstand what philosemitism is in recent weeks. Liz-wiki-en (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz-wiki-en, could you please point to the sources that support this claim? Several of the cited authors suggest that philosemitism may share tropes with antisemitism (G. Daniel Cohen, Martin Wein, Bennet Kravitz, and Liron Nagler-Cohen), but none describe philosemitism as a form of antisemitism as far as I can see. These are two distinct claims, and do not necessarily follow from each other. Thanks, Swadge2 (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I'm aware of this argument, and am aware that there is a lot of informal discourse around it, but we do need reliable sources to include it in this article. There needs to be enough to add a whole section on it. As for the lead, at best, there's going to be a line saying something like "philosemitism is regarded by some as a benevolent form of antisemitism", but outright defining philosemitism as a form of antisemitism is going to fail NPOV. Ibadibam (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough. will scrounge up adequate sources when i have the spoons for it if no one beats me to it. Liz-wiki-en (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Japan

Shouldn't parts from the Jewish settlement in the Japanese Empire article be included in the Asia section? The Japanese acceptance of the Protocols as genuine followed by the odd conclusion that they should ally with the supposedly rich and well-connected jews certainly follows the philosemitic characteristics of otherizing and stereotyping mentioned here. — jonas (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nietzsche

"The concept of philosemitism is not new, and it was arguably avowed by such thinkers as the 19th-century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who described himself as an "anti-anti-Semite."" --- This statement in the article seems a little weird since, both etymologically and (more importantly, because sometimes etymology is misleading) according to the linked article, "anti-anti-Semite" simply means an opponent of anti-Semitism, and it's absurd to say that that's the same thing as philosemitism. Therefore, even if Nietzsche described himself that way, it seems irrelevant to the rest of the sentence, so the relative clause would need to be deleted, or perhaps "who" should be replaced with "even though he" to show that the two assertions are in tension with one another. 89.160.9.7 (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]