Talk:Antisemitic trope

Article as catalogue

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

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

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

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

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

Citations MUST support the text they are used to reference

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

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

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

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

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

This article's treatment of the BHI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Tropes among American far right

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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.) AnonMoos (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

This page is about improving the article Antisemitic trope. Just as AnonMoos, I do not know what you mean by "this entry" being "under Trope", but maybe you want to improve the articles Trope, Libel, Canard, or Anti-semitism instead by linking to this article? It would be helpful if you learn the terms used by Wikipedia, such as "article", so people understand what you mean. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Some irrelevant information in main section.

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.

Also, the cited source isn't of a good enough quality. Better sources should be found. ContiNuziali (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)