Jump to content

Talk:Antisemitic trope

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Antisemitic canard)

Citations MUST support the text they are used to reference

[edit]

@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)[reply]

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

Tropes among American far right

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Agreed Andre🚐 18:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
It looks like it has already been included and for what it is worth, I agree. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome! Steven1991 (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2024

[edit]

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

 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)[reply]
I do not understand what edits you would like to make. Could you elaborate? Steven1991 (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See ANI for a present explanation of this editor's serial stubbornness and habits like these. I wouldn't bother. Remsense ‥  23:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Various "BOLD" changes.

[edit]

@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.[1] "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)[reply]

Why not under Trope?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Some irrelevant information in main section.

[edit]

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)[reply]

Antisemitism did not cause WWII

[edit]

It's a bit disconcerting to read in the main section that "These tropes fatefully formed Adolf Hitler's worldview, caused WWII". Of course antisemitism was the base for the Holocaust but and instrumental for the rise of the Nazi party but nobody has ever argued that it caused WWII. ContiNuziali (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doctrines of Lebensraum and Slavic Untermenschen, and a desire to get revenge on the French were most important in determining Hitler's aggressive policies which led to war. Once the war started, antisemitism had a big influence on how conquered territories were governed. AnonMoos (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you said isn't expressed by the passage at all though and still, I don't think any historian ever claimed that "these tropes causes WWII". I'd say it's even hard to argue that they caused in part WWII. 151.29.93.237 (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]