Talk:2023 United States Congress hearing on antisemitism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2023 United States Congress hearing on antisemitism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Jewish history Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: District of Columbia / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) events(s).

Wikipedia:Notability Important Congressional hearing.

Widely reported in WP:RS sources such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, ABC News, NBC, POLITICO etc, of which over 20 WP:RS are cited here. RogerYg (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the most widely reported hearings in the National & International media, with Google having over 1000 news articles on this topic, and it is the most viewed Congressional Hearing in Human History with over 1 billion views. With over 20 High quality WP:RS Sources in this article, Notability notice is not appropraite. RogerYg (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing section - Discuss before major edits

Important well-cited details should not be deleted without any strong reason, and TALK page discussion. The Content is from High quality WP:RS sources. The quoted exact question is an essential detail of this hearing, and there is no strong reason to delete it. RogerYg (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the quote from Kornbluth in context that introduced that line of questioning, and a more prominent link to the full transcript. A specific quote could go elsewhere in the section. – SJ + 23:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yes the specific quote can go in the next paragraph. RogerYg (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality notice is no longer required in my opinion

While there is still a non-insignificant degree of bias against the people claiming that antisemitism is as pervasive as it is in my opinion, the notice on neutrality is no longer appropriate in my opinion. FortunateSons (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the neutrality notice should be removed, as no editor has provided sufficient grounds to prove a bias in this article. This article is quite neutral, factual and balanced. RogerYg (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly antisemitism because the left was attacking Jews... not Zionists, not Israelis, but simply Jews for being Jewish. Like it or not Jews born and raised in the United States are Americans, they have both positive and negative views on Israel like all Americans are entitled to have. The left targeting them because of something happening in a totally different country is targeting them based on religion is antiSemitism. And the response of the colleges, by allowing attacks and threats on a minority group while punishing nonviolent speech on behalf of another also plays to antisemitism. 2601:246:5A83:D090:31E3:59DD:F0D2:45E7 (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC) restriction relevant to I/P apply, so this kind of editing is not permitted for those who are not extended confirmed FortunateSons (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting minor bias in the article

Some statements are qualified beyond the required degree, such as claims regarding antisemitism. Additionally, the aftermath section requires some extension in my opinion. Is there a reason to disagree? FortunateSons (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree that you are "in good faith" trying to provide a more cautious & neutral language for the claims. I am okay with it. Generally Wikipedia should reflect the sourced content even on such claims, though we should have multiple sources to have a balanced article. RogerYg (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing some past edits

Some of the past edits do not appear impartial, such as the removal of some sections regarding the publicity and the removal from “incitement to genocide”. Could those edits please be explained or reversed? FortunateSons (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you mention some more details on the edits, so we can have better discussion.RogerYg (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-some of the context removed by SJ on 12.19

-Special:Contributions/31.167.245.26 on 12.18 FortunateSons (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly, the removal from „incitement to genocide“ is very questionable FortunateSons (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]