Talk:Antisemitic trope

"Well poisoning hoax"

someone should add a section here about Israeli poisoning of Palestinian wells and causing widespread sickness and death

page for reference = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well_poisoning#:~:text=Israel%20poisoned%20the%20wells%20and,that%20was%20foiled%20by%20the

Thank you FelixRicher (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Having seen your message, it is clear that article has exactly served its purpose. Steven1991 (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Changing source on well poisoning hoax

Is it possible to choose a different source for the summary on the well poisoning hoax (the 14th citation)? I believe the citation leads to a pro-Zionist website; another article published from them covering a university student rally used the word genocide in quotations (to deny its occurance). Throwaway200 (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Throwaway200, reliable sources are allowed to have their own point of view, and favoring Zionism does not lead to the conclusion that the source is unreliable, any more than a published source opposing Zionism means that source is unreliable. Nor does calling into question the point of view that Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza render a source unreliable. Cullen328 (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "pro-Zionist"? Steven1991 (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Minor clarifications regarding Demonization in other religions or movements

The word "insecurity" is in quotes, but I'm having problems finding where in the 3 given sources it's specifically used.

Secondly, can I remove the links in who & accused? They read as clear WP:EASTEREGGS. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

His Jewish community or the Jewish community?

The article currently reads: "The UC rejected AJC's criticisms as "distortion" and "obscurations", especially by Mose Durst, a convert from Judaism who became the president of the Unification Church of the United States, who accused his Jewish community of "insecurity" and being "hateful".

I changed the possessive pronoun to "the" so the last sentence would read "who accused the Jewish community". Steven changed it back commenting "Mose Durst was Jewish: https://www.dialogueireland.ie/dicontent/resources/dciarchive/zinterviewdurst.html. A Jew is both a racial and religious identity". Well I would say it's both an ethnic and religious identity (and also cultural) rather than "racial" - but in any case it's irrelevant since regardless of whether or not they are part of the community one would more commonly use the article "the" rather than a possessive pronoun. Wellington Bay (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm having problems parsing the sentence as a whole. Is it saying the UC rejected criticisms made by Mose Durst or criticisms of Mose Durst? I assume the latter due to his membership, but I've read this sentence ~20 times & am still confused.

To now comment directly on your question though, was the accusation specifically directed towards his local community or the Jewish community as a whole? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was about to add that the passage is very poorly written and confusing. I'm trying to figure out which source actually mentions Durst. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

They're name dropped here & wrote this. Sources 326 & 327 respectively. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I think the passage means by Durst as per this article by him[1] - the problem is the quoted words "insecurity" and "hateful" appear nowhere in this source, nor does this source mention Rabbi Rudin at all so it's not clear it is a response to him. Nor does the Time Magazine article that mentions Durst use these words[2] so it appears we have quotations that are not properly sourced or that are not in the source that they are attributed to. I'm going to remove the passage about Durst - if someone can find an actual quote by him in response to the AJC's criticisms they can put him and the correct quotes back in. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

For the poor phrasing, it is regretful and I apologise for it. Steven1991 (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The passage also says "Despite the UC's claims, Sun Myung Moon held an interfaith march with Louis Farrakhan, the most influential antisemite in America, in Washington D.C." - The claim that Farrakhan is the "most influential antisemite in America" needs to be attributed, otherwise it's an assertion by wikipedia itself. This appears to be an editorial comment by whichever Wikipedia editor added it as none of the cited sources make this claim. The closest I can find is Abraham Foxman calling him an "unrepentant bigot" in the Washington Post article and the NY Times article stating "Mr. Farrakhan, whom critics denounce as a race-baiter and anti-Semite" but neither article says he is the "most influential antisemite" in the US. I think it may be necessary to go through this article carefully and check it against the sources since it appears editors have been inserting their own editorial comments. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Steven1991: It looks like you added the claim that Farrakhan is the "most influential antisemite in America"[3] Was this an editorial comments or is it in one of the sources that's cited at the end of the sentence? I couldn't find it in any of the sources which leads me to remind you not to insert your personal views or editorial comments into Wikipedia articles. If someone did say this about Farrakhan than it needs to be attributed and you can't write as if this is a fact asserted by Wikipedia, you should say something like "Farrakhan, whom X describes as the 'most influential antisemite in America'". Please read the WP:NPOV policy as well as WP:V. Wellington Bay (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

David Duke and Pat Buchanan probably have been more influential than Farrakhan. It was true before October 7, 2023, that Farrakhan was the most influential person who could be considered to be at least vaguely "left", but not sure that's true any more. Definitely omit that wording from the article... AnonMoos (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Scare quotes

@Steven1991: Can you please stop using scare quotes ie Messianic "Jews". Your edit note says "but “Messianic Judaism” is not considered as Judaism but an Evangelical Christian movement – this is discussed in its relevant Wikipedia article." If you read the article Messianic Judaism you will see that the article isn't titled Messianic "Judiaism" and doesn't put Jews or Judaism in scare quotes at all. Scare quotes are a way of editorialising and expressing scorn and should be avoided as POV. Some ultraorthodox reject the state of Israel as contrary to the belief that there cannot be a state before the Messiah returns. Does this mean we should be writing "Israel" in scare quotes? Most Christians believe the Mormons are a heretical un-Christian sect. Does that mean we should write Church of "Jesus Christ" and Latter-Day Saints? Please try to write neutrally. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

In the context of their own articles, scare quotes are not appropriate. However, when they are placed in other articles not directly related, quotes are sometimes needed to avoid causing confusion or granting the objects legitimacy we are not supposed to. I believe that not a few folks would say that it is wrong to put National Socialism in quotation when it shows up in articles not directly related to Nazism. Whether quote use is not neutral, it depends on context, and sometimes individual perceptions. Steven1991 (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but simply state my points. If such quote use is not desirable, then – yes – due attention can be paid in future edits, but it doesn’t mean that such quote use is inherently a form of editorialisation. Journalists regularly use quotation marks for different subjects/objects they are reporting. Does it mean they are biased? Yes, many of them are. However, it is also important to note that the impact of such quote use ought not to be exaggerated. Steven1991 (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Does it mean they may be* Steven1991 (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

"Journalists regularly use quotation marks for different subjects/objects they are reporting." - that's quoting - as I've just done. Scare quotes are "quotation marks used around a word or phrase when they are not required, thereby eliciting attention or doubts", according to the online OED. Our own article on scare quotes says "Scare quotes (also called shudder quotes,[1][2] and sneer quotes,[3][4][5]) are quotation marks that writers place around a word or phrase to signal that they are using it in an ironic, referential, or otherwise non-standard sense.[6] Scare quotes may indicate that the author is using someone else's term, similar to preceding a phrase with the expression "so-called";[7] they may imply skepticism or disagreement, belief that the words are misused, or that the writer intends a meaning opposite to the words enclosed in quotes.[8] Whether quotation marks are considered scare quotes depends on context because scare quotes are not visually different from actual quotations. The use of scare quotes is sometimes discouraged in formal or academic writing." Wellington Bay (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

As I said, I acknowledge your POV and have agreed to pay attention to the quote use. I understand that you don’t see it that way, but am simply asserting my points. I know that you will not agree given the fundamental differences on this issue or more, so I don’t see the meaning of repeating the same points. I have said everything I need to regarding this specific matter. Steven1991 (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Number & quality of sources

There are way too many citations being used to support the same sentences throughout this article. We shouldn't even have citations in the opening, yet the first paragraph alone has 8, 7 of which are for the the same sentence. Mind you, some parts then triple that, with this sentence

"Jersey City Shooting (7 dead and 3 injured) and Monsey Hanukkah stabbing (1 dead and 4 injured)."

clocking in at 26 inline citations.

Furthermore, the quality of sourcing is severely lacking with sources ranging from a lack of attribution (ADL, Newsweek, Washington Examiner, MEMRITV, National Review, The Daily Beast), unreliability (Free Beacon, Jewish Virtual Library, New York Post, The Federalist, Rolling Stone, Fox News), or never should've been cited at all (Heritage Foundation).

This is by no means an exhaustive look through, but I think these problems are more then enough to warrant concern, especially for an article like this. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say whether a piece of news is reliable it should depend on content rather than source. Dismissing an entire report based on a source is not neutral or objective itself. Steven1991 (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes we should dismiss reports depending on their quality & reputation, that's the point of classifying reliable sources. Regardless though, we do not source statements in WP:WIKIVOICE from the Heritage Foundation, let alone as an authority on antisemitism. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

OK. I see your point. Steven1991 (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Just to make sure that it would not fall into the trap of ad hominem, then it would be fine. Personally, I prefer the BBC, Guardian, Politico, Washington Post etc., when it comes to something not regional-specific. Otherwise, less “mainstream” sources have to be used.Steven1991 (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

agree this article is a mess and needs significant copy editting and fixing at this point. sourcing is a mess as well Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

boldly did revert back to last good version. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Steven1991 (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Most of the “irrelevant” citations have already been removed after a day of fixing. Thank you for your suggestion. I will continue while looking for better sources for content that may involve/involves abstract ideas. Steven1991 (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think WP:TNT is merited here. There are some improvements mixed in with the unreliable sources and other editors who are established editors making edits. Let's all try to AGF and actually constructively improve given that Steven1991 has agreed to channel his energies into policy-abiding improvements. Andre🚐 06:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Coming back from the noticeboards, I have to say that @Bluethricecreamman's report was in no way meritless & I would ask you to show a little more respect then to question their "maturity". While @Steven1991 has said they're willing to collaborate & I appreciate that, they've spent more time throwing around aspersions.

As I said before, this wasn't TNT, this article was not completely scrapped. It was only reverted to a more neutral version. If any useful edits were undone, we can add them back later, but right now this article's current state is worse then it was before. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

So where is the WP:AGF for me in the first place? Steven1991 (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not “throwing around aspersions” to defend my edits and object to mass reversals for the reasons as mentioned. It is an editing disagreement and I am allowed to disagree with certain actions, especially the significant one having been conducted by the user without prior participation in the discussion. As I said, we are/may be living in different time zones and there is a time lag in messages being received and viewed, so any consensus cannot be made within such a short time when I am already making an effort to revise the article in accordance with your concerns. Steven1991 (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

while I am* Steven1991 (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

AGF isn't the same as tolerating poor editing. One can assume you're acting in good faith while still concluding it is necessary to revert edits for being poorly sourced or for violating WP:NPOV. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

“Poor editing” is very subjective and vulnerable to arbitrary interpretations influenced by individual biases. Just because you don’t agree with the tone of certain sentences, it doesn’t automatically imply the existence of any significant POV issues. As far as I am concerned, I haven’t seen indications that the WP:AGF given that most of the concerns placed on relevant Talk pages sound very demanding, if not accusatory. I am not saying that some of my previous interactions were devoid of issues, but, seriously, some of those concerns didn’t appear to have been phrased with sufficient politeness. Yet, I acknowledged almost every one of them and have been working hard to rectify the issues. You can still be dissatisfied due to your own political opinion, but it is important to be fair rather than (1) do mass deletion of others’ edits without due discussion, much less “consensus”, under which circumstance my suspicion of vandalism is totally justified – one won’t be going into a random article, erasing 100,000+ words of content at whim while expecting the contributors to be silent (2) learn to appreciate and collaborate when you expect others to do so (3) put aside individual biases and apply the NPOV rule equally. Steven1991 (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

indications that the WP:AGF have been adequately followed by other parties* Steven1991 (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you please stop assuming people are trying to push their "biases" or "political opinions"?

The issue, as has been said before, is not the "tone of certain sentences", it was choices of citations that lead to "significant POV issues", as you've rightfully acknowledged & dutifully acted on. Your aggressive defensiveness however is unproductive & I feel may hinder collaboration efforts.

(Also, I'd like to apologize to editors here in general for not helping with cleaning up the article myself, but much of the article has become entangled in WP:PIA & I'm no where near WP:XC, so thanks to those doing the work). Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

There are no assumptions. It is based on my observations and deductions made from the observations. You cannot “prevent” others from voicing out their concerns while complaining about them on multiple noticeboards with all kinds of allegations against me. These things go both ways. I have tried my best to voice it as politely as possible, so I expect the same from you. Steven1991 (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

against them* (in a gender-neutral sense) Steven1991 (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The article has not had clear signs of being entangled with the I-P conflict. Vast majority of the content is related to events that happened to Jews before the I-P conflict even started. There’s no clear entanglement, so I would advise the avoidance of claiming something that isn’t the case that may hamper editing improvement activities. Have a good night. Steven1991 (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no “aggressive defensiveness” in telling you why someone feels certain ways. I would appreciate if such words can be avoided as they do not appear to be less unhelpful than what you seem to believe that I have said. Steven1991 (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• The article is looking much better. Let's all focus on content, not fellow contributors who are trying their best. Andre🚐 21:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you so much, only if they know how to appreciate. Steven1991 (talk) 05:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Article as catalogue

This article was originally an overview of prominent antisemitic canards with attention to their origin, most prominent usage, and refutations/explanations of why the particilar trope is a canard (ie why the claim is false). However it is becoming an exhaustive catalogue of each and every occasion in which the trope has been used. This makes the article excessively long and unwieldy. I think a lot of the incidents listed can be moved to List of antisemitic incidents in the United States or to the main article on the individual trope. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

+1 Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Most of the example incidents did not happen in contemporary United States but Europe in the past. Steven1991 (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The point remains the same, *this* article should not be a list or depository of every instance of every trope. It makes the article unwieldy and detracts from the actual purpose which is to explain what each canard is. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Here to reiterate the sentiment of Wellington Bay. While we can use prominent examples to aid the reader understanding some of the tropes, these should be kept to as few as necessary, which have high quality secondary sources detailing them as specific examples of the trope in question. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Citations MUST support the text they are used to reference

@Steven1991: this is a recurring issue across edits on multiple articles. As an example in this article you added Becker (2020), Hersh & Royden (2022), Goldberg (2023), and Steinacher (2023) to the article stating that they supported the sentence The ZOG lie is peddled by Neo-Nazis, White nationalists. These references were taken from my addition of them to the article List of antisemitic incidents in the United States, where they were used to correctly support the statement that from the early 2010s there has been a rise in antisemitism in the US. NONE of these articles discuss Neo-nazis and their associated ilk pushing the myth of ZOG. This is not the only case of you making this mistake in this article. Please, in future check the references you're adding to make sure they actually support the text. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry for that. Thank you for your reminder. Steven1991 (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Steven1991 Less than 6 hours later you add a bunch of sources that DO NOT say anything about the sentence you use them for. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Steven1991 Thank you for adding the white genocide section, but again, most of the sources you included do not support the text you used them for. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your notice. Would you mind helping me remove the faulty ones? I will try my best looking for more directly relevant references after dinner. Steven1991 (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

This article's treatment of the BHI

It's odd to me that this article creates an entirely different impression of the the BHI movement, and that I was reverted in less than minute without explanation when trying to do a minor course correction, which, as you can see, was properly sourced and provided a more accurate description of that the SPLC has actually concluded regarding the BHI. Whatever we may think of their ideas, this article seems to paint them as a single monolithic organization that hates Jews and advocates violence against them, when the actual sources do not say this. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Our article on Black Hebrew Israelites quotes the ADL saying "Some, but not all, [Black Hebrew Israelites] are outspoken anti-Semites and racists." and also that "the SPLC has...clarified that they now use the term 'Radical Hebrew Israelite' to distinguish between extremist and non-extremist sects and to acknowledge that some Hebrew Israelites are non-Black". While there certainly are BHI groups that are antisemitic, there are also BHI groups that are not and the SPLC now says that "most Hebrew Israelites are neither explicitly racist nor anti-Semitic and do not advocate violence" and the ones that are antisemitic and violent are an "extremist fringe". The Antisemitic trope article should not suggest or imply that BHI is ipso facto antisemitic or even that most BHI are such but make the same distinction that the Southern Poverty Law Center now makes. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, SPLC should be attributed as WP:RSOPINION, and not stated in wikivoice. Andre🚐 21:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

While that is true, I don't think Wellington was saying otherwise (correct me if I'm wrong). More that this article should present a more nuanced position on the subject, similar to how SPLC does, though obviously not fully reliant on it. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't trying to imply Wellington Bay said not to attribute SPLC, but in Steven1991's revert of JSS original edit, it appears to change attributing the SPLC to not attributing them. I think we should rely on the many reliable sources that aren't advocacy groups like ADL or SPLC. Such as Cambridge-published book specifically about this written by an expert in Black Judaism Andre🚐 21:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah ok, just wanted to clarify. However, it appears that in JSS' original edit that they were the one adding attribution & the following revert removed it. (If that was what you were saying & I simply misunderstood, ignore this further attempt at clarification)

Regardless, that seems like a good source fit for purpose. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. It appears JSS was adding attribution and Steven1991 removing it - I got that backwards initially. That is my mistake. I think it's reasonable to say that BHI are closely associated with antisemitic ideas, such as calling Jews the synagogue of Satan, blacks are the true Jews and modern Jews are the white European evil, or control the media, government, and other antisemitic tropes. That is substantiated in the above book and in other sources. So while per RSP I agree with the attribution of SPLC, we should also do some proper source research of RS, and portray the antisemitic tropes inasmuch as they exist in BHI - that's not painting BHI as a monolith or claiming all groups are malevolent. We need to summon our nuance. Andre🚐 22:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The wording has been changed. I realised that it happened because I was editing the section at the same time as JSS. Steven1991 (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm certainly not defending the BHI, my interest is solely in WP:NPOV. To that end I have made a few light changes in the wording of the section and also removed reference to the Monsey Hanukkah stabbing as a supposed example of BHI terrorism. The person who committed that attack was clearly deeply antisemitic and interested in BHI teachings,but he was also found incompetent to stand trial due to mental illness, not once but three times, and I'm not seeing any suggestion that any BHI group or sect was directly involved in planning or encouraging the attack. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Tropes among American far right

I notice that the “White genocide conspiracy theory” hasn’t been included, despite it being frequently promoted by American far-right figures on Twitter/podcasts. Even Elon Musk was once accused of endorsing such a theory. Should it be included as well? Steven1991 (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

White genocide conspiracy theory is certainly a deeply antisemitic theory with no basis in reality, so it does seem like it should be included, or at least linked to. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed Andre🚐 18:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that cover the antisemitic aspects of the ridiculous conspiracy, so should be easy to add to the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)