| Revision as of 21:41, 8 October 2024 editAndreJustAndre (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users40,376 edits →This article's treatment of the BHI: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:14, 18 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,585 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Antisemitic trope/Archive 3) (bot |
| (39 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) |
| Line 34: |
Line 34: |
|
{{Archive box|bot=MiszaBot I|age=1|units=month|auto=long|search=yes}} |
|
{{Archive box|bot=MiszaBot I|age=1|units=month|auto=long|search=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Various "BOLD" changes. == |
|
== "Well poisoning hoax" == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@] Re. changes, I made changes to improve the encyclopaedic tone of the page. The issues with the "Jewish deicide" section in particular are: |
|
someone should add a section here about Israeli poisoning of Palestinian wells and causing widespread sickness and death |
|
|
|
# There is no reason to link to the definitions of ordinary English words like "tumult" or "multitude" or "ye". |
|
|
# Jewish deicide was not "legitimised" by Chrysostom, whatever that means, but as the sources quoted say, he was heavily antisemitic and popularised the claim, allegedly first using the term "deicide". |
|
|
# It is not encyclopaedic to term opponents as "radical traditionalists" as this is editorialising. The SPLC is not an unbiased source so directly adopting "radical" is inappropriate.<ref>https://jewishjournal.com/news/united-states/372532/wikipedia-editors-label-adl-only-reliable-for-antisemitism-when-israel-and-zionism-are-not-concerned/</ref> "Rad trads" is also inappropriate. |
|
|
# Claims of the Temple Menorah being hidden in the Vatican are irrelevant to claims of deicide. |
|
|
# Claiming subreddits are filled with "rad trads" is not encyclopaedic and is probably original research. |
|
|
# "Peddling" is editorialising. Furthermore, the things "peddled" (also citing SPLC) are mostly irrelevant to the claims of Jewish deicide. E.g. Adolf Hitler being the end-result of a Freemason plot? |
|
|
# Downplaying the effects of the Inquisition or denying its scale by the Vatican and Catholics is irrelevant to claims of Jewish deicide. |
|
|
# Exaggerating the role of Catholics in saving Jews during WWII is irrelevant to claims of Jewish deicide. |
|
|
# There is a failure to address any non-Roman Catholic perspectives. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please identify which edits I made you have concerns with. ''']''' ('']'') 07:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
page for reference = https://en.wikipedia.org/Well_poisoning#:~:text=Israel%20poisoned%20the%20wells%20and,that%20was%20foiled%20by%20the |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Why not under Trope? == |
|
Thank you ] (]) 19:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Having seen your message, it is clear that article has exactly served its purpose. ] (]) 23:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
Why isn’t this entry under Trope, Libel, Canard, or even Anti-semitism? Surely it is not the sole example of any of the above. ] (]) 19:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:What does that mean? This article could not be usefully merged with any other. It's for narratives which keep on being revived again and again time after time, no matter how effectively they've been refuted, or how little basis in fact they have. (This was clearer under the article's previous name.) ] (]) 19:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Changing source on well poisoning hoax == |
|
|
|
:This page is about improving the article ]. Just as AnonMoos, I do not know what you mean by "this entry" being "under Trope", but maybe you want to improve the articles ], ], ], or ] instead by linking to this article? It would be helpful if you learn the terms used by Misplaced Pages, such as "article", so people understand what you mean. --] (]) 07:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Some irrelevant information in main section. == |
|
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). ] (]) 20:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{u|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. ] (]) 03:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:What do you mean by "pro-Zionist"? ] (]) 01:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The last lines of the main section read: "The most recent example is the denial or trivialization of the October 7 massacres, with the victims overwhelmingly Jewish, including several Holocaust survivors." |
|
== Minor clarifications regarding Demonization in other religions or movements == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would change this to: "The most recent example is the denial or trivialization of the October 7 massacres, with the victims overwhelmingly Jewish." |
|
The word "insecurity" is in quotes, but I'm having problems finding where in the 3 given sources it's specifically used. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, the fact that many victims were Holocaust survivors is irrelevant to the denial or trivialisation of October 7th atrocities. |
|
Secondly, can I remove the links in ] & ]? They read as clear ''].'' ] (]) 17:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, the cited source isn't of a good enough quality. Better sources should be found. ] (]) 18:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
== His Jewish community or the Jewish community? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Antisemitism did not cause WWII == |
|
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".'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a bit disconcerting to read in the main section that "These tropes fatefully formed Adolf Hitler's worldview, caused WWII". Of course antisemitism was the base for the Holocaust but and instrumental for the rise of the Nazi party but nobody has ever argued that it ''caused'' WWII. ] (]) 00:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
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. ] (]) 17:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Doctrines of Lebensraum and Slavic Untermenschen, and a desire to get revenge on the French were most important in determining Hitler's aggressive policies which led to war. Once the war started, antisemitism had a big influence on how conquered territories were governed. ] (]) 13:35, 9 November 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? ] (]) 18:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::What you said isn't expressed by the passage at all though and still, I don't think any historian ever claimed that "these tropes causes WWII". I'd say it's even hard to argue that they caused ''in part'' WWII. ] (]) 17:33, 9 November 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. ] (]) 18:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::They're name dropped & wrote . Sources 326 & 327 respectively. ] (]) 18:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Okay, I think the passage means ''by Durst'' as per this article by him - 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 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. ] (]) 18:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::For the poor phrasing, it is regretful and I apologise for it. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 18:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{ping|Steven1991}} It looks like you added the claim that Farrakhan is the "most influential antisemite in America" 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, you should say something like "Farrakhan, whom X describes as the 'most influential antisemite in America'". Please read the ] policy as well as ]. ] (]) 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... ] (]) 08:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Scare quotes == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|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 Misplaced Pages article." If you read the article ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Does it mean they may be* ] (]) 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. ]s 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, and sneer quotes,) 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. Scare quotes may indicate that the author is using someone else's term, similar to preceding a phrase with the expression "so-called"; 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. 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." ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
"] (7 dead and 3 injured) and ] (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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] from the '''''Heritage Foundation''''', let alone as an authority on antisemitism. ] (]) 23:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::OK. I see your point. ] (]) 23:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Just to make sure that it would not fall into the trap of '']'', 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.] (]) 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 ] (]) 04:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::boldly did revert back to last good version. ] (]) 04:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::] Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages without giving a valid reason for the removal in the ]. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been ]. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use ] for that. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-delete2 --> ] (]) 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. ] (]) 05:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think ] 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. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 06:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Coming back from the noticeboards, I have to say that @]'s report was in no way meritless & I would ask you to show a little more respect then to question their "]". While @] 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. ] (]) 07:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::So where is the ] for me in the first place? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 07:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::while I am* ] (]) 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 ]. ] (]) 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 ] 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. ] (]) 19:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::indications that the ] have been adequately followed by other parties* ] (]) 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 ] & I'm no where near ], so thanks to those doing the work).'' ] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::against them* (in a gender-neutral sense) ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Thank you so much, only if they know how to appreciate. ] (]) 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 ] or to the main article on the individual trope. ] (]) 15:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:+1 ] (]) 04:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Most of the example incidents did not happen in contemporary United States but Europe in the past. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 19:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Citations MUST support the text they are used to reference == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|User: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 {{tqq|The ZOG lie is peddled by Neo-Nazis, White nationalists}}. These references were taken from my addition of them to the article ], 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. -- ] (]) 19:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I am sorry for that. Thank you for your reminder. ] (]) 19:39, 8 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 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. ] ] 20:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Our article on ] quotes the ADL saying "Some, but not all, are outspoken anti-Semites and racists."<ref name="ADL">{{cite web |url=https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/black-hebrew-israelites |title=Black Hebrew Israelites |publisher=ADL |access-date=December 15, 2019}}</ref> 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".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/radical-hebrew-israelites |title=Radical Hebrew Israelites |publisher=SPLC |accessdate=2023-03-04}}</ref> 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 ] and do not advocate violence"<ref name=Ready>{{cite web |url=https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2008/racist-black-hebrew-israelites-becoming-more-militant |title=Racist Black Hebrew Israelites Becoming More Militant |access-date=November 5, 2016 |date=Fall 2008 |work=Intelligence Report |publisher=Southern Poverty Law Center}}</ref> 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. ] (]) 21:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Per ], SPLC should be attributed as ], and not stated in wikivoice. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 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. ] (]) 21:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Sorry, wasn't trying to imply Wellington Bay said not to attribute SPLC, but in 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 ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
Why isn’t this entry under Trope, Libel, Canard, or even Anti-semitism? Surely it is not the sole example of any of the above. GianniBGood (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
The last lines of the main section read: "The most recent example is the denial or trivialization of the October 7 massacres, with the victims overwhelmingly Jewish, including several Holocaust survivors."
I would change this to: "The most recent example is the denial or trivialization of the October 7 massacres, with the victims overwhelmingly Jewish."
Indeed, the fact that many victims were Holocaust survivors is irrelevant to the denial or trivialisation of October 7th atrocities.
It's a bit disconcerting to read in the main section that "These tropes fatefully formed Adolf Hitler's worldview, caused WWII". Of course antisemitism was the base for the Holocaust but and instrumental for the rise of the Nazi party but nobody has ever argued that it caused WWII. ContiNuziali (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
