Talk:Antisemitism in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

VERY Biased

This article refers to on numerous occasions that Holocaust Revisionism is an anti-Semitic practice, which is simply untrue. Many Jewish men and women have come out in support of Revisionists (or are Revisionists themselves) such as David Cole, Norman Finkelstein, and many others. Also, might I add that 'Holocaust Denial' is an outright falsehood, as the 'Holocaust' was not a singular event that ANYONE 'denies'. What people DISPUTE, however, is the existence of Homicidal Gas Chambers and a Nazi plan of final solution, the end goal of which was total Jewish destruction. These parts of the Historical record have repeatedly been revised by the Auschwitz State Museum in Poland IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVISIONISTS. I hope to one day see a truly UNBIASED online encyclopedia which bows to no special interests and is concerned simply with factual evidence, but it seems Wikipedia is too far gone. Mathiasr101 (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

How about some evidence?

Not one sentence about what David Duke or Pat Buchanan actually said or wrote that is allegedly anti-Semitic 68.183.223.176 (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Section regarding Black antisemitism

As a black man who speaks regularly with blacks i must say I find this 36% figure on black anti-semitism to be HIGHLY innacurate. I OFTEN hear blacks speak among ourselves regarding issues of race but i almost never hear anyone mention jews. I do not believe that the vast majority of black americans even has a consciousness of jews apart from that of whites. I would be very interested to know the particulars of that survey, namely the sample size, specific geographical locations from which the opinions were gathered right down to the specific cities and neighborhoods, as well as the specific questions asked. The results of this survey sound just too suspicious to me because jews almost never come up in disscusions of race with other blacks. If a full third of blacks held these sorts of views i and other blacks would certainly know it. 71.249.67.188 (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

For more information on the study, click on the footnote at the end of the section and follow the link. Bear in mind that the study is already ten years old and evaluates not what respondents bring up in everyday conversation, but what answers they give to direct questions. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

But notable African Americans who should be on the list are: Jessie Jackson and Keith Ellison,both of whom support terrorism against Israel.173.166.127.233 (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk page comments are subject to the WP:BLP policy. Negative comments about living persons should not be made without also providing supporting reliable sources. Please add those sources, or the above comment should be removed.Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

Please discuss the merge in Talk:History of antisemitism in the United States#Merge suggestion `'Míkka>t 02:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No mention of hollywood or banking allegations?

I notice this article contains a section on holocaust denial, but nothing on "control of hollywood" or "control of banking industry" which are certainly prominent themes of anti-semitism in USA. Are those covered in another article? --Noleander (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Noleander: do you take this for a balanced medium? Wikipedia has been dead for a long time now.74.193.241.226 (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Under Criticism, "Noted Scholars" is a misleading term, and should be deleted.

Noam Chomsky is not professionally regarded as an expert in civil rights or antisemitism -- he is employed as a linguistics professor, and despite having an interest in Jews and Israel, is not recognized for being an expert in this field. He is often amateurishly speaking in an area where he is NOT regarded as a professional expert, or "Noted Scholar." His views on antisemitism are as equally unqualified as a civil rights professor's views on linguistics might be.

Norman Finkelstein IS (or was) a professor with areas of supposed expertise in this area, however (as of 3/22/2011), he has been let go due to academic misconduct. His viewpoints hardly represent those of a "Noted Scholar," more like those of an infamous and professionally condemned ex-professor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.219.91 (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Zionism & anti-Israel sentiments

One can certainly be opposed to Zionism, which is at its heart racist, and the current governmental policies of Israel, which is evil and warmongering, without being anti-Semitic. This article is so biased as to be entirely useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.40.227 (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Your comment here is really the one which is actually "so biased as to be entirely useless". That is proved by how you said Zionism is racist (tip: see this) and how you called Israel's policies evil and warmongering (advice: read this), as if these two claims were undisputed facts. Please point out a sentence you think needs to be changed instead of being a hypocrite. -Shalom11111 (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Christian fundies not mentioned?

Christian fundamentalists aren't even mentioned in this article, despite a history of fostering anti-Semitism in the US, so shouldn't we at least mention it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.185.8 (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, I will take a look at this and will add necessary information soon. Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Richard Nixon: avowed racist?

Doubtless, Nixon was both a racist and an antisemite. However, was he really an avowed racist? I would think that you're only an avowed racist if someone asks you "Are you a racist?" and you say "Yes," or something equivalent to that. The Times article linked to here never uses the word "avowed"; it just lists a bunch of actually racist (but not avowedly so) stuff that Nixon said. This article confusingly does call Nixon an "avowed racist," but then goes on to say that Nixon exhibited the gold standard of non-avowed racists: he denied being a racist. Shouldn't people like David Duke, or all of the people at Stormfront, who are so well documented all over the internet go in the "avowed racists" section instead of Nixon?68.63.148.22 (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

"Antisemitism: Different Perspectives"- is it relevant?

207.32.33.23 According to the sources of this pretty new chapter (Antisemitism: Different Perspectives), it's all content based on one article published in 1997. The conclusion of this article is that most of the Americans are not anti-Semites and that those of them that do have anti-Semite opinions are only of certain origin or area. From a look at the conclusions of newer researches and the description of the latest hate crimes, I think that some of the findings of that 1997 research aren't relevant anymore... I suggest editing this chapter or at least qualify it. ScottyNolan (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

College campuses section has too much of a newspaper quality to it

I just deleted several passages of the college campuses section since they seem to be individual incidents that violate the idea that Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNP. I don't think we want to just have a random list of of recent anti-semitic incidents on campus that is ever expanding. Instead I think we want to give a more general picture. These changes of mine were reverted with little explanation. Let's discuss here and avoid an edit war. Dan Eisenberg (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Since there was no further discussion, today I moved forward and deleted these passages. Promptly an IP address reverted my deletion without explanation. I have reverted this and posted a notification about edit warring on the user's talk page. I hope we can discuss further here in a collaborative and productive fashion and that others can chime in. Thanks. Dan Eisenberg (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dan Eisenberg! Tnx for your last edits... even though I disagree with most of them. First of all, you gave the wikipedian community 4 days to react before you decided to erase (almost) a whole chapter. I think it would be more reasonable to give a chance for a real discussion to develope before removing so many cited texts. Second, I agree that the aim is to give a "more general picture", however, I think that the benefit of mentioning some incidents is that the sources of all the surveys and reports are not disconnected from reality. I can assure you that there were many more antisemitic incidents in campuses (u are invited to sneak a peek in CFCA) and that only those that represent certain trends got to appear on this page, to give some prespective of what's going on. Third, according to the 'back and forth' in the "view history page"' it seems that there are more users who believe the chapter should stay as is. In light of this, I'll restore some of your deletions. If you still think there are specific details that should be erased, I suggest they should be discussed here, and not removed at once :) ScottyNolan (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:ScottyNolan. Thanks for the collegial discussion. I hope my edit history reflects WP:BOLD and not a reflection of a lack of respect for the hard work of other editors. Unexplained reverts of my edits without discussions is something that I thought should not stand. Now that you have weighed in, I will of course discuss further and hope we can reach some resolution and/or that other editors can weigh in. I don't doubt that there are many more anti semitic incidents which could be sighted--but don't see any a good way to have a selection of these without violating the idea that Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNP or doing original research WP:NOR. How do you suggest we proceed while respecting these Wikipedia ideals? I am going to go ahead and remove the Khaled Abu Toameh passage for the reasons discussed below in the next talk section.. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Dan Eisenberg I am happy that for a change we find ourselves in a decent and respectful talk regarding such matters (its not a given at all). However, I must say that I agree with User:ScottyNolan. One cannot consider wikipedia as being a newspaper when actual and present contents are added to it. Making it more actual makes it even more thorough and accurate. It is more than important to make people realize the new form of Anti-Semitism that is growing and spreading throughout the world via the BDS movement for example. People tend to refer to Wikipedia as their main and primary source to know more of the world they live in. As many consider social networks and online contents obsolete, others consider them as being their main tool as a window to the world before referring to actual newspapers. Although this is not a way to give credit to anybody who might want to transform this amazing asset that is Wikipedia into an online newspaper, it's more of a way to make you reconsider the fact that by giving as much details and exact information as possible, this terrible yet very actual problem that is Anti-Semitism might get the pedestal it deserves. This topic is aged, and one thing that is important is that we all work Together in order to make it great. I believe it's important that we coordinate our actions regarding this article as it seems it's close to our hearts before erasing contents that we worked so hard on. Let's be a team on that one. What do you think? Best regards to all ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by N.F.B.R (talk • contribs) 00:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the collegial engagement here (you're right, it is unfortunately not a given). If there is good evidence from reliable sources of an increase of anti-semitism, by all means, let us include this. However, I am concerned if these newspaper articles are an attempt to paint this picture--since this I think amounts to original research which we as editors are not supposed to be doing. Which anti-semitic incidents should we list? How should we decide which ones? I don't see any clear resolution or addressing of these issues? - Dan Eisenberg (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Also see WP:RECENT. I think much of this content will not pass the ten-year test. Dan Eisenberg (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Good evening Dan Eisenberg As far as I know (I guess you know that too of course) if polls or researches are made and then referred to as academic sources, or reliable enough to be used as relevant sources for such a topic, then that's a go ! We are not supposed to do the researches that is true, however the researches are here to help us not make them but use their content. Regarding which content to use: I agree about the ambiguity of how to list and choose. In fact, I would say that this being with such a widen spectrum allows us to understand how tough and complex it is to find an answer to. Meanwhile, I would suggest us to refer to the title itself: "Anti Semitism in the United States": As long as we don't cross the boarders of the US, then I for my part would say that, if its chronologically and/ or well organized, then everything can be included. "Less is more" but sometimes "More is better than Less" if you understand what I mean. No need to hide the fact that the US have been subject to a growing Anti-Semitism in recent years. Showing some hidden and painful truths is painful by definition, but necessary to fix this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N.F.B.R (talk • contribs) 21:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

College campuses

A few issues on the College campuses section which I think should be changed:

"According to Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toameh, political activity focused on the Middle East on American college campuses "is not about supporting the Palestinians as much as it is about promoting hatred for the Jewish state.""

This equates "the jewish state" with antisemitism, which I think we should not be doing here. The link also does not work so the reference can not be verified.

"Similar findings arise from an online survey conducted in the University of California. The results revealed that 70% of the respondents (229 self-identified Jewish students) had witnessed or experienced antisemitism on campus. Also, three-quarter of respondents reported that BDS campaigns promote hostile actions toward Jewish students on campus."

This source does not appear to be reliable and the methods of the study are not at all clear. I think it should be deleted--especially since the source above it appears more reliable so this is not really needed. Dan Eisenberg (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you base on to say that "the source is not reliable and the methods of the study are not at all clear"? It appears to be an authoritative survey by a known Jewish organization in American universities (or students). As I explained you before, sometimes partisan sources are the only ones available which discuss such matters. Per WP:biased this is acceptable. Regarding the attributed opinion of Khaled Abu Toameh, hatred of the Jewish state is extremley related to antisemitism. Fortunately, I found a functioning link for the article (I added it moments ago).--150.214.94.231 (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

First, thank you for collegially engaging with discussion here and for your work to fill in the link rot which inevitably occurs.

starting with the opinion of Khaled Abu Toameh: As the Antisemitism in the United States wikipedia article makes clear in the new antisemitism section, the idea that criticism of Israel is necessarily anti semitic is contested and should not be assumed to be so. The Toaemeh article more often refers to Israel or the Israeli state, and not the jewish state--and regardless bias against Israel is not necessarily anti semitic.

Surveys can easily be very biased--particularly online surveys. The survey from the AMCHAinitiative.org methodology just says it "was disseminated through Jewish organizations on campus, such as Hillel, Chabad, and the Jewish fraternity AEPi, as well through Jewish student leaders on UC campuses". This doesn't tell us the context surrounding how recruitment was conducted which can matter a lot. For instance, if in soliciting respondents this was framed as a study for those concerned worried about anti semitism on campus (as one might expect an organization dedicated to this cause would frame things), than it is likely that mainly students who felt this was a problem would respond. The other survey seems to be much more rigorious in presenting its methods, and to be coming from an organization with less of an axe to grind and preconceived ideas of what opinions are. I also note that by targeting jewish organizations, the survey is telling us much more about jews in these organizations than jews in general. I think we should cut the 2nd survey and leave the 1st. Dan Eisenberg (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

References

RFC - Antisemitic incidents

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think the article should omit the the lists of individual anti-semitic incidents in order to be more encyclopedic and better fit my understanding of wikipedia standards. The issue is that Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNP and this seems like a haphazard list of recent and not particularly noteworthy or historically significant anti-semitic incidents. Also see WP:RECENT. I think much of this content will not pass the ten-year test. Other editors seem to disagree with me, and it would be good to have some additional eyes on this. See above discussion under Talk:Antisemitism in_the_United_States#College_campuses_section_has_too_much_of_a_newspaper_quality_to_it although I think this same critique applies to lists of incidents outside the colleage campuses section. Thanks.-Dan Eisenberg (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Both lists of incidents seem to me to break the flow and style of the article. There are a number of excellent overviews; these are sufficient.

I can imagine, however, retaining one or two exemplary and particularly noteworthy incidents. HGilbert (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Remove as recentism. Such a topic could possibly be an entire article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Remove per WP:NOTNEWS. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• Remove - Summoned by bot. Looks like the list was removed a bit prematurely without closure of the RfC. The list could be moved to a new page but should definitely be removed from this one. Meatsgains (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An article in search of an editor

This article, imho, needs the loving care of an objective editor, it is crying out for sustained attention in the tag already atop the page. The problem, as i see it, is that it has a tendency to collect incidents, and then to have those incidents scrubbed clean by a persistent SPA (Dan Eisenberg), an account that appears to exist for the purpose of removing well-sourced material form articles about antiSemitism. The problem is, that this and other articles on antisemitism do have a tendency to accumulate indicents, but lack analysis. I hope that someone will step up to the plate here, and monitor and improve this article. Because the cycle this article is in, of adding and deleting specific incidents, fails to create a good article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Please look at my edit history before suggesting this is an SPA. I welcome improvements to this article as well--but they must be improvements which fit with wikipedia standards. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Antisemitism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://humanities.ucsc.edu/JewishStudies/docs/YBauerLecture.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114051541/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/30/1418200 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/30/1418200

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

No Muslim Anti-semitism in the U.S.?

Why is there no mention of Muslim anti-Semitism in the United States, especially considering the rising numbers of Muslims in the population? Does Muslim immigration bring higher rates of anti-Semitism? Higher rates of incidents? The F.B.I. reports over 60% of religious-based hate crimes are committed against Jews. What portion of those are committed by Muslims as opposed to white anti-Semites? Is this subject being white-washed intentionally because it does not fit preferred narratives? Inquiring minds want to know.108.194.29.53 (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Either "Alt-right" and "Neo-Reactonaries" (which redirects to "Dark Enlightenment") don't belong in the "See Also" section, or the section needs to be expanded to reflect the content referenced in the article.

As it currently stands, (which I have left untouched beyond my initial attempts at removing "alt-right" from the related section), "Alt-Right" isn't even mentioned once in the article, and yet one "see also" link is to alt-right and the other is to "Neo-reactonatries" aka "Dark Enlightenment", an apparently alt-right related group. I legitimately don't know if Neo-reactionaries are related to anti-semitism in any way whatsoever, because everything I know about them, I learned from their Wikipedia page, which doesn't contain a single-reference to anti-semitism. In fact, the the first name I clicked on on the page took me to an article about a guy who is racist against Mexicans, but apparently writes pro-jewish racist stuff. "Alt-Right" is also not mentioned within the text of any other "See Also" link. I'm pretty weirded out by these people, but there is absolutely no reasonable connection between the "See Also" links on this page and the content of the page. The logical connection of wiki pages should be reasonable and apparent within the context of the two pages being linked together, but that isn't remotely demonstrated by this page currently 47.149.187.218 (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)It's really not important, but it's clearly in violation of policy.

pre World War 2 Antisemitism

can we add a section on this please? Henry Ford Spreading Antisemitism with fake The Protocols of the Elders of Zion circuation, Prescott Bush support for Hitler, American Liberty League, Business Plot, FDR Antisemitism with rejection of Jewish refuges on MS St. Louis, , Évian Conference, Franklin D. Roosevelt's record on civil rights#The Holocaust and attitudes toward Jews, What FDR said about Jews in private http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/07/opinion/la-oe-medoff-roosevelt-holocaust-20130407

and any other information you can find for this time frame!

Also a section on Antisemitism after world War 2 would be great. Did you know Manhattan Beach in Brooklyn, in the 50s,use to be Antisemitic community! thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Deborahjay when you have time, please take a look at this and tell me what you think about my suggestion for this article. i think this article needs a lot of work and love to get it to good standards, thanks Igor Berger (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Op-Ed: Jews in America were warned not to make trouble. The New York Times buried the Holocaust in its back pages. The excuse was that making trouble would spark an anti-Semitic backlash. Meanwhile Jews were being murdered. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/20434 Igor Berger (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

MShabazz would like to get your opinion on my proposed edits, thanks Igor Berger (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

this should be referenced History of antisemitism in the United States Igor Berger (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Igorberger, most of your above comments are mostly relevant to the article History of antisemitism in the United States. You might want to check the article on lynch victim Leo Frank, the article on the Ku Klux Klan (with the second version of the Ku Klux Klan being explicitly "anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant and later anti-Communist"), the article on Charles Coughlin (the American media personality who used his radio program to issue antisemitic commentary, and in the late 1930s to support some of the policies of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Emperor Hirohito), the Numerus clausus policy in American Universities (a racial quota policy which specifically discriminated against Jews, Catholics, and blacks), the Christian Front (United States) (an anti-Semitic organization that organized "beatings and stabbings" of Jews in New York City), the Liberty Lobby (a post-war white supremacist political advocacy group that advocated Holocaust denial and vindication of Adolf Hitler for decades), and the Institute for Historical Review (an organization supposedly promoting historical research but mostly publishing Holocaust-denial works). There is a continuity of events and ideologies over the 20th century.

Are you new to articles having to do with American history? Dimadick (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Antisemitism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070822235721/http://www.noi.org/statements/statements_press_10-07-2000.htm to http://www.noi.org/statements/statements_press_10-07-2000.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06%2F08%2F30%2F1418200

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Remove Billy Graham from list of Avowed Antisemites

Billy Graham may have had anti-Semitic tendencies during the Nixon administration, but he apparently denied and disavowed those words. Furthermore, he apparently said these things in private. I understand why he could be considered an anti-Semite. But are renounced statements made in private back in an era where racial prejudice was more common really enough someone who relatively recently died into the same category as Henry Ford?

It's not like we're short on notable historical Americans who were blatantly anti-Semitic. Why not Minnesotan aviator Charles Lindbergh Jr., for example? Actually, what even are the inclusion criteria for such a list? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

No reason for removal. It includes his modern comments for balance. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm with Mr. Guye on this one. We either shouldn't have a list of avowed antisemites at all or we should limit the list to a half-dozen virulent examples, of which Lindbergh should be one and Graham should not. pbp 14:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Remove FDR

The FDR section doesn't belong alongside people like Coughlin and Ford. Those two were exceedingly vocal anti-Semites and FDR was not. Half this section is about Hugo Black and not FDR anyway. The section has long been tagged for neutrality/undue weight issues and IMO should be dispensed with entirely. Having FDR here smacks of right-wing character assassination. pbp 04:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

IMO it shouldn't be removed but could be edited down for relevance. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no relevance at all. If there is to be a list of avowed anti-Semitic people on this page (which I'm not sure there should be), it should contain people of the fervor of Ford and Lindbergh. It shouldn't contain people like Billy Graham or FDR where the claim of antisemitism is peripheral at best. pbp 14:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll admit that my eyes glaze over halfway through the second paragraph. But it's not all irrelevant; it's our duty to respect the sources even if their implications are not in fact true. As I say, it could be edited for relevance. If you have a source or two countering claims of his supposed antisemitism, that would be beneficial to either viewpoint. UpdateNerd (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

"Avowed" should not be used here

I was a little taken aback on the section "Avowed American Anti-semites" A definition of "avowed" reads as, "openly acknowledged or stated publicly." While I have no doubt that Nixon, FDR, and Billy Graham were not the most Jewish-friendly people, to call them AVOWED anti-semites is a little bit much. Normally, I would change this section myself, but with emotions so high on a subject like this, I know what is going to happen. Having a section like this really cuts into the credibility of an article like this. And I happen to be Jewish, by the way. Asc85 (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I'm removing the section. --GHcool (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you GHcool. I guess this created less of an outcry than I had thought. Then again, as I'm sure you've also experienced, there are instances where I make what I think are pretty non-controversial edits where others freak out. So go figure. Asc85 (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the decision to remove this section. pbp 20:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Source on hate crime

Rosen, Armin (July 15, 2019). "Everybody Knows". Tablet.

Source talks about potential explanations for recent rise(?) in antisemitic crime in NY. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

"less secure since Trump..."

This should be omitted. Not objective writing. Most of the anti-semitic attacks came from the African-American community in NJ and NY. Some incidents happened in Chicago and Seattle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:188:6FE0:38EB:1B7C:4CF:A55 (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

No. It is quoting a survey of views, so it is completely irrelevant whether Jews are actually less secure. DemonDays64 (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hate crimes per 100,000 and per million

The beginning of the article features some data suggesting antisemitism is a minor and shrinking problem -- this might be a little misleading, and at least for balance I added a sentence there and a paragraph in the Hate Crimes section to note that Jews are consistently the most likely group to suffer religiously-based hate crimes, and were also the most likely to suffer hate crimes of any group in many of the years for which such data is available. The FBI data doesn't include hate crimes adjusted for population size, but I found reliable data from Forward (based on ADL), AEI (based on FBI), and New York Times (they detail their methodology in the article), as cited in the edit. Indeedindeed (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem with the claim about rates of religiously-based hate crimes being so high is that the data aren't great and the FBI even cautions against making too many comparisons. NIBRS tracks bias-motivated incidents, but any cursory glance with show the breakdown of crime categories is lopsided (2018 data). Most antisemitic crimes recorded are vandalism and property damage, reflecting the common use of the swastika in such incidents. I think it undue to make an unnuanced claim in the lead unless a decent variety of RS do so as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the language and added citations to the New York Times and AEI, though both of those sources say not only are Jews targeted more than other religious groups, but that when adjusted for population, the data show Jews are more likely to suffer hate crime than African-Americans, who suffer the highest overall number of hate crimes -- I don't repeat this New York Times claim, but it's very important to at least note the scope and size of antisemitism. Based on the FBI data link you include, there were 11 hate murders of Jews versus none for most other religious groups, and this was more than twice as many intimidation incidents compared to the next highest group in this category. I have heard anecdotal claims, generally in academic circles, that the statistics are skewed because Jews complain about hate crimes a lot and other groups under-report them, but absent any data that this is the case, I'd say the claim itself is antisemitic, and we shouldn't fall for it. As the AEI articles notes, antisemitism is rarely covered in the news media (though that seems to be changing), so it's important to have the facts up top in this article. (To this point, note that the New York Times data is from an article reporting that LGBT hate crimes had exceeded antisemitic ones when adjusted for population, but I could find no earlier NYT coverage of antisemitism as the top category of hate crimes per 100,000). If anything, some (not all) of the older data giving a sense that antisemitism is a minor and shrinking problem in the U.S. should be taken out of this article. I would also argue that The Forward is an RS and is roughly the Jewish equivalent of Ebony (magazine) Indeedindeed (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The Forward is general RS, I agree. And I agree antisemitic hate crimes are a growing problem. But I think we need to be careful and nuanced here as to how this is presented. Let me see if i can find some more longitudinal reviews. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your help in seeking more information -- here is the ADL repeating the same stat --> https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-urges-action-after-fbi-reports-jews-were-target-of-most-religion-based-hate I also feel very strongly that the article, as it is now, is trying to downplay antisemitism as not much of problem. I hope to add this information to related articles, including the general article on antisemitism, but I'm fine to wait a couple of days to do so, in case you come across a counter-argument from a strong RS. Otherwise, I believe we really need to have the first paragraph of this article spell out the size of this problem.Indeedindeed (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Further research has turned up this ADL press release saying that antisemitism was at "near historic" levels in 2018 and has been on a sharp increase [2]. Since the previous lead of this article used older ADL statistics to say antisemitism is declining, it would be cherry-picking to cite that and ignore more recent data that says the opposite, and would be grossly misleading to say the least. I have also added mention of the Poway shooting.Indeedindeed (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Ilhan_Omar#RFC has an RFC

Talk:Ilhan_Omar#RFC has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Benevolent human (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)