Talk:Philo-Semitism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Roman Proselytes?

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)