Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

That line about "self-hating Jews" in the lead (?!?)

I can't possibly understand how this line stayed unchallenged for so long, much less in the first sentences of the lead : "Though antisemitism is overwhelmingly perpetrated by non-Jews, it may also be perpetrated by self-hating Jews."

1) "Self-hating Jew" is an unambiguously pejorative, if not insulting, term: it has no place on Wikipedia in the context that it's being used in this line. If it was somehow a neutral term, and this line definitely tries to present it as such, there wouldn't be news coverage and controversy whenever a public figure uses it

2) The notion itself of the "self-hating Jew" is far from being politically neutral and is overwhelmingly used by one side of the spectrum. Presenting it as uncontested goes against NPOV and makes Wikipedia appear as taking a side in an ongoing debate

There's very little doubt in my mind that the line and its high placement are a politically motivated attempt at giving legitimacy to a highly contentious label. I encourage anyone with the necessary credentials to heavily rephrase it, at the very least. WikiFouf (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, this is problematic. Firstly, from MOS:LEDE: Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. This comment on supposed 'self-hatred' appears not to be discussed elsewhere in the article, and accordingly doesn't belong in the lede. As to whether a discussion of 'self-hatred' belongs in the article at all, I'd note that only a single source is cited, and from a quick look at said source, the text it is being cited for is at minimum a gross oversimplification of a scholarly work. And I'd have to ask whether the book's take on the subject is necessarily representative of contemporary scholarship. If the article is to discuss 'self-hatred', it really needs more than one source to justify doing so, per WP:DUE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that nobody else has commented, and given the objections discussed above, I've removed the sentence. It clearly doesn't belong in the lede, and if discussion of this controversial claim belongs anywhere in the article, we need multiple sources, not one, and we need to comply with WP:NPOV policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Good edit Zanahary (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove unsubstantiated "assertion" from non-expert

James Carroll asserted: "Jews accounted for 10% of the total population of the Roman Empire. By that ratio, if other factors such as pogroms and conversions had not intervened, there would be 200 million Jews in the world today, instead of something like 13 million."

This seems wildly off base considering that many if not most ethnic groups that existed during the Roman Empire are now extinct whether or not they were subjected to those factors. This includes the Romans themselves as a distinct ethnic group. That they continued to exist under pressure should be testament to their survival, not a revanchist dogwhistle from a source that has little to no authority on the subject matter. 2601:19C:5101:4750:7816:2040:1C9E:6A6A (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding ‘irrational and unjustified’?

On the Wiki page about Islamophobia, Islamophobia is described as 'the irrational and unjustified fear of, hatred of, or prejudice against the religion of Islam or Muslims in general, especially when seen as a geopolitical force or a source of terrorism.'

In the intro on the Wiki about antisemitism on the other hand, the words 'irrational and unjustified' are not included.

When looked at in context one could understand this as if to say that 1) there is no such thing as rational and justified Islamophobia and/or 2) antisemitism can be rational and justified.

I think this discrepancy has to be resolved. The easiest road to travel would be to add the words 'irrational and unjustified' to the intro on the wiki page about antisemitism (think of the uproar when you would suggest leaving these words out of the intro on Islamophobia..). I have no experience in editing Wiki articles though.

What are other peoples views on this? And could someone help editing the page? Dadavalobe (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Wise to highlight this juxtaposition given how closely linked islamophobia and anti-semitism are. 70.51.63.96 (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

That shouldn’t be in the lede for Islamophobia. I doubt sources land on a consensus definition including that caveat. Zanahary (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Semitism ... "policy or predisposition favorable to Jews" ... Merriam-Webster

Suggested edit ... New Section ... Definition of Semitism

"policy or predisposition favorable to Jews"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Semitism

https://imemc.org/article/the-law-of-return-and-the-zionist-campaign-to-subvert-science/ 2601:444:300:B070:C400:B2D4:8181:4DBC (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Philosemitism is probably the term you’re looking for Zanahary (talk) 05:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Absent additional sources substantiating and/or analyzing this usage, this seems like an archaic term that is WP:UNDUE to mention in the context of the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Another example ...

"Yes, I am convinced that I have articulated what millions of Jews are quietly thinking: World domination belongs to Semitism!"

Marr, Wilhelm. Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum. Vom nicht confessionellen Standpunkt aus betrachtet. Rudolph Costenoble. 1879, 8th edition/printing. Internet Archive. Marr uses the word "Semitismus" (Semitism) on pages 7, 11, 14, 30, 32, and 46; for example, one finds in the conclusion the following passage: "Ja, ich bin überzeugt, ich habe ausgesprochen, was Millionen Juden im Stillen denken: Dem Semitismus gehört die Weltherrschaft!" (Yes, I am convinced that I have articulated what millions of Jews are quietly thinking: World domination belongs to Semitism!) 2601:444:300:B070:C400:B2D4:8181:4DBC (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems pretty important. That’s six pages! Zanahary (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

More examples ...

The word antisemitism was coined from the word semitism. Also IHRA denies there is such a word as semitism. All these examples are in this Wikipedia article. So, why deny that the word semitism exists as the opposite of the word antisemitism?

"This use of Semitismus was followed by a coining of "Antisemitismus" which was used to indicate opposition to the Jews as a people"

"The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance has stated that the spelling without hyphenation is preferred, because the spelling with hyphenation implies that "Semitism" is a valid concept." 2601:444:300:B070:C400:B2D4:8181:4DBC (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

These quotations support that “Semitism” is not a real concept. But anyways, try reading WP:DUEWEIGHT. Zanahary (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

POV tag: discussion regarding contemporary antisemitism and weaponization of antisemitism

The section on contemporary antisemitism, in the lede and the main body, does not appear to describe the parallel phenomenon of weaponization of antisemitism. Is there a reason for this? Without mention of this parallel phenomenon the article's description of contemporary antisemitism is unbalanced. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

A parallel phenomenon? Says who? Why should it deserve significant weight in this lead? I noticed you just created this article a few weeks ago. "Weaponization" is not widely recognized or commonly discussed when addressing antisemitism from an encyclopedic perspective. I don't see why it should be mentioned in the lead for this extremely important and widely researched topic as if it was a notable main topic. It's certainly not. HaOfa (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The lede currently says (and the body follows):

In the contemporary era, a manifestation known as "new antisemitism" was identified. This concept argues the exploitation of the Arab–Israeli conflict by a large number of concealed antisemites, who may attempt to gain traction or legitimacy for their antisemitic hoaxes by portraying themselves as criticizing the Israeli government's actions.[15]Likewise, as the State of Israel has a Jewish-majority population, it is common for antisemitic rhetoric to be manifested in expressions of anti-Israeli sentiment,[16][17]though this is not always the case and such expressions may sometimes be part of wider anti–Middle Eastern sentimentwithout an exclusively antisemitic motive.[18]

This concept described here, in a large number of scholarly publications, is mirrored by the suggestion that this "new antisemitism" was coined and exaggerated for the purpose of silencing political debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both phenomena are real phenomena, i.e. there really is antisemitism driven by or concealed by anti-Zionism, and there really is weaponization of false antisemitism claims in order to silence anti-Zionists.

Describing one side of this phenomenon, without the other, is clear POV – the sources treat them together, and so should we. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Use your good sources and add to this article Zanahary (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Equally: why does our article on racism not mention playing the race card? Why does our article on rape not give lots of space to False accusation of rape? Why does our article on climate change not mention climate change denial in the lead? Because these are not "parallel phenomena". Antisemitism has a long history and played a major role in world history; so-called "weaponisation" is something a few people have written about recently. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

However, I agree that new antisemitism gets too much space in the lead, and also note it's worded really weirdly. Why is the word "hoaxes" there? Presumably that should be "tropes"? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It definitely shouldn't occupy an entire paragraph out of four - that is ridiculously disproportionate and undue. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Whatever the "phenomenon" of "weaponization of antisemitism" is, it most certainly does not meet the threshold to be mentioned in the lede of this article.

Editors should be aware this POV tag was placed by the article creator and principal author/contributor of weaponization of antisemitism, which is currently both under a renaming discussion as well as a neutrality dispute pertaining to both its title and definition/article scope.

Given the above neutrality and title disputes (along with WP:POVNAME and WP:FRINGE accusations which have been (2) on the "weaponization" page almost as long as the article has existed), the insertion of this tag could be construed as a WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:GAMING bad faith response to those long standing neutrality discussions (if not an attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:SOAPBOX an item under currently WP:FRINGE accusation).

This tag should be removed immediately and initiating editor should follow normal procedure and attempt to include items cleanly supported by RS instead of dragging us (and this article) into a pre-litigation around a clearly contested topic. There are no grounds to contest the neutrality of the page based on the initiating argument. Mistamystery (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Both of which "disputes" were initiated primarily by your good self, just sayin' Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Not true. Only an informal poll and a POV tag were (recently) initiated by me in response to multiple and lengthy renaming and neutrality discussions - none of which I initiated myself (nor the recent RM, which you yourself initiated...just sayin' ;) Mistamystery (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAD, the lead section should summarize the most important points covered in an article in a concise manner. The "weaponization of antisemitism" is not central to the broader topic of the article, which deals with the millennia-old plus phenomenon of antisemitism. The idea to devote significant portions of the little real estate we have in the lead to these accusations is ridiculous. Marokwitz (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm shocked. A new, non-neutral, controversial article has been created. And now there are those who try to promote it in questionable ways. This tag should be removed immediately. This is an inappropriate way of working in my opinion and it looks very bad. Eladkarmel (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

A "non-neutral, controversial article" is a far better description of other recent creations, not least the daft absurdities that are Calls for the destruction of Israel, Use of human shields by Hamas and the like – as opposed to the very common currency term and definitely academic topic that is the weaponization of antisemitism (accusations). Iskandar323 (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

You should bring those articles to AfD if you find them to be "daft absurdities". Not really relevant to this discussion. Zanahary (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Depends if you consider the authorship and if you think editors should have a modicum of consistency in their editing. Any comments that also consist largely of personal opinion are also in principle largely irrelevant. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)