Talk:Timeline of antisemitism

I propose several modifications to the prologue to the Antiquity section, for these reasons:

(1) Second Temple Judaism is not the same as "modern Jewish Religion".

(2) Yahwism is the (relatively) recent term for the form of Judaism practiced during the First Temple period (and before). The use of this new term doesn't completely dissociate it from Judaism; many still consider it a form of Judaism, as reflected in the term "First Temple Judaism".

(3) I haven't found a good reference for the term proto-Judaism.

(4) The current wording could be misinterpreted as implying that Persia ruled over Israel.

(5) A better source is needed for the claim that the Israelites returned to Israel after the (Achaemenid) Persian Empire conquered the (Neo-)Babylonian Empire.

I propose the following replacement:

Note: Several of the following events took place earlier than the term "antisemitism" is generally applied. Some even took place when the Israelites and Judeans practiced an early, non-monotheistic form of Judaism known as Yahwism,^[1] First Temple Judaism, or First Temple Israelite religion. However, these events feature heavily in the history which is described in the Old Testament, which was foundational to the later establishment of Second Temple Judaism, following the return of the Israelites from Babylon after it was conquered by the Persian Empire.^{[2][3][citation needed]}

Dotyoyo (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussing Ottoman antisemitism is not a problem, using clearly biased sources is. Robert Spencer is an Islamophobe (according to his own Wikipedia page). His work should not be used as a source for the Ottoman deportation of Jews from Safed to Cyprus in 1576. There are three other sources for that event that do not appear to have this reliability issue, which makes it even more egregious that this biased source is there too (what could possibly necessitate citing an Islamophobe when there are quite a few reputable academic sources talking about the same event, including the other three sources that appear to be works by respected scholars and don't use the words "the Palestinian delusion"). 42.111.124.12 (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages aren't reliable. Do you have a better source? Andre🚐 20:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

That Wikipedia page has been subject to intense debate over this very issue, and 7 high-quality, published academic sources have been highlighted on the talk page that categorise Robert Spencer as either anti-Muslim or Islamophobic. To pick just one, there is "The Language of Islamophobia in Internet Articles", published in Intellectual Discourse, the peer-reviewed, flagship journal of the International Islamic University Malaysia, which states that Robert Spencer is "a prolific Islamophobic writer" who has described the Qur'ān as "the jihadists' Mein Kampf". Labelling a vitally important text in a religion practiced by over a billion people as a Nazi text, even in the hands of fundamentalist terrorists, is very clearly Islamophobic. 42.111.124.12 (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Andre🚐 21:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. 42.111.124.12 (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

its to tale them apart 2600:480A:4A51:9300:FC87:9108:850A:1C01 (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Second-class citizens forced to wear badges. A system of institutionalized discrimination against Jews and Christians. Special taxes and segregated living areas. A taxonomy of otherness. While dhimmis were granted some degree of protection, their legal standing and social status were significantly inferior to those of Muslims Andre🚐 20:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

debatable and isn't this ccontroversial? you literally says dhimmi were granted some degree of protection so this is not anti semitic as they were protected right? 2600:480A:4A51:9300:FC87:9108:850A:1C01 (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Some aspects of the issues are debatable of course, but that does not mean these portions do not belong on the page about events which involve discrimination against Jewish people so long as we have reliable sources about them. If there are other sources that disagree with that characterization or want to add nuance as well we can add that too, but I am inclined to think these events belong here some way or another. The sourcing can certainly be improved. Some prefer to call it anti-Judaism. They were granted some degree of protection, but that certainly does not obviate the discrimination and second-classness. Andre🚐 21:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

is it really "second classness" if you get protection, dhimmi means protected people

and please tell me what if these jews reverted to islam? what happened would they still get different belt 2600:480A:4A51:9300:FC87:9108:850A:1C01 (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is second class. The sources do not really disagree on that point as far as I know. And forcible conversion can and did happen, but that does not make it less anti-Jewish. Andre🚐 22:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)