Misplaced Pages

Talk:Antisemitic trope: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:08, 3 November 2024 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,067 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Antisemitic trope/Archive 3) (bot← Previous edit Revision as of 19:11, 3 November 2024 edit undoGianniBGood (talk | contribs)43 edits →Why not under Trope?: new sectionTag: New topicNext edit →
Line 159: Line 159:


Please identify which edits I made you have concerns with. ''']''' ('']'') 07:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC) Please identify which edits I made you have concerns with. ''']''' ('']'') 07:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

== Why not under Trope? ==

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)

Revision as of 19:11, 3 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Antisemitic trope article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
This article is rated List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconEthnic groups Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

WikiProject iconDiscrimination Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconJewish history Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlternative views Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion: Interfaith Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject iconJudaism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconChristianity Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHistory Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEuropean history Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMiddle Ages Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconLists Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 21 April 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Do not feed the trollDo not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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 - 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. 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 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. 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" 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 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)

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)
Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages 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)

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 20:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Our article on Black Hebrew Israelites quotes the ADL saying "Some, but not all, 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 18:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. "Black Hebrew Israelites". ADL. Retrieved December 15, 2019.
  2. "Radical Hebrew Israelites". SPLC. Retrieved 2023-03-04.
  3. "Racist Black Hebrew Israelites Becoming More Militant". Intelligence Report. Southern Poverty Law Center. Fall 2008. Retrieved November 5, 2016.

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 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)
It looks like it has already been included and for what it is worth, I agree. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
You are welcome! Steven1991 (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add oxford comma. 64.189.18.14 (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Where? also, see MOS:OXFORD Cannolis (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
I do not understand what edits you would like to make. Could you elaborate? Steven1991 (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
See ANI for a present explanation of this editor's serial stubbornness and habits like these. I wouldn't bother. Remsense ‥ 论 23:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Various "BOLD" changes.

@Kapitankapow Re. changes, I made changes to improve the encyclopaedic tone of the page. The issues with the "Jewish deicide" section in particular are:

  1. There is no reason to link to the definitions of ordinary English words like "tumult" or "multitude" or "ye".
  2. 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".
  3. 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. "Rad trads" is also inappropriate.
  4. Claims of the Temple Menorah being hidden in the Vatican are irrelevant to claims of deicide.
  5. Claiming subreddits are filled with "rad trads" is not encyclopaedic and is probably original research.
  6. "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?
  7. Downplaying the effects of the Inquisition or denying its scale by the Vatican and Catholics is irrelevant to claims of Jewish deicide.
  8. Exaggerating the role of Catholics in saving Jews during WWII is irrelevant to claims of Jewish deicide.
  9. There is a failure to address any non-Roman Catholic perspectives.

Please identify which edits I made you have concerns with. Steepleman (t) 07:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Why not under Trope?

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)

  1. https://jewishjournal.com/news/united-states/372532/wikipedia-editors-label-adl-only-reliable-for-antisemitism-when-israel-and-zionism-are-not-concerned/
Categories: