Jump to content

Talk:Antisemitic trope/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Antisemitic canard. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Antisemitic canard. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

On "Accusations of controlling the world financial system"

There is no credible information in this section except as it to be a "myth" - even though this is the typical and common #1 anti-Semitic "accusation" (that Jews despite being a small group would try to control or dominate the majority by controlling their financial systems or at least have an over-proportional number of prominent positions in influential government or private financial positions that Jews would use to favor their network and push their agenda.) Why not debunk this myth along the line of easily retrievable facts:

1. It is true that the Jewish community is a very small minority in all countries (except for Israel), like 2% in the USA, 1% of the “developed world”, or 0.2% of global population.

2. It is true that Jews (outside Israel) have a significant over-proportional number of influential government or private organization’s financial positions. The largest Jewish community (outside Israel) is living in the USA. Everybody trying to make the point that Jews would not have more than a 2% “fair share” of those positions would be a cause of conspiracy theories.

3. It is not true that the Jewish community would use its over-proportional share in financial positions for “their” or Israel’s advantage.

Additionally, I would delete the cited Jewish activists Tim Wise article. It makes no point, it is even a base for anti-Semite argumentation. As the clear majority of the US population is Christian there is no point to pick any US industry like automotive or tobacco for being typical “Christian” even if Jews had an under-exposure there, being below 2% in those industries. But there would be much more be a point to pick the US financial industry and labeling it typical “Jewish” for Jews having an over-exposure in that. --Betternews (talk) 11:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Until at least the late 18th century, Jews basically had only those roles in broader non-Jewish society which Christians and Muslims explicitly allowed them to have, yet there were already accusations that Jews had a sinister financial stranglehold, so I'm not sure that any of this is greatly dependent on facts. In any case, there's usually a big difference between saying that Jews are overrepresented (compared to their proportion of the overall population) in some area or field, and being able to say that Jews meaningfully "control" that area. Jews were overrepresented (compared to their proportion of the overall population) in the early Russian Bolshevik/Communist party (a natural consequence of their being both highly oppressed and highly educated), and people from Winston Churchill to Adolf Hitler seized on this, but the Jews in the party did not group together or look out for Jewish interests in any meaningful way, and they were ultimately pathetically incapable of preventing Stalin from seizing absolute power... AnonMoos (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
That means item "3." should be more specific, like "It is not true that the Jewish community would use the over-proportional share of Jewish people in financial positions to group together, collude, or use these positions to look out for Jewish interests in any meaningful way."
( Refering to the logic that overrepresentation in today’s free financial sector is a logical consequence because 100s of years ago Jews had been restricted to jobs like lending, is easily a double-edged sword. Firstly, it is a classical Jewish defense viewed with suspicion in today’s free market economies. Secondly, it really sounds a bit far-fetched, like if current Fed chairs were often taken by members of the Jewish community because of regulations abolished centuries ago. So it may also be a base for anti-Semite prejudices. )
--Betternews (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
None of this conversation has to do with WP's policies or guidelines and the logic doesn't make sense to me as a reason to remove sourced content. —PermStrump(talk) 01:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Above, I made my point why the cited text (of Jewish activist Tim Wise) does not really fit in here. User PermStrump shared already twice that my "logic doesn't make sense" to him (without any hint why) and just reverted. Maybe PermStrump can add what detail of my "logic" is not ok for him. Betternews (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Antisemitic canard. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Alleged Jewish control of the media

Under the heading "Accusations of controlling the media", it states "J. J. Goldberg, Editorial Director of the newspaper The Forward, in 1997 published a study of this myth regarding the United States, concluding that, although Jews do hold many prominent positions in the U.S. media industry, they 'do not make a high priority of Jewish concerns' and that Jewish Americans generally perceive the media as anti-Israel. Variants on this theme have focused on Hollywood, the press, and the music industry." Given that the source for this is a Jewish author, writing in a Jewish socialist newspaper, this is something less than a definitive refutation of the claim. It doesn't materially differ from say, claims that Scientology is "not a mind-control cult" being made by a Scientologist, in a Scientology journal.
Furthermore, Mr. Goldberg's dismissal misses the target in at least one key area: he argues that it's merely that "...Jews do hold many prominent positions in the U.S. media industry..." But "holding positions" is far from the only way that one group may control an industry. Most of "the positions held" in the antebellum cotton industry in the US were by black slaves, but no one would argue that they "controlled the cotton industry". A frequently made claim is also that Jewish people own many media outlets, and ownership is another way in which an industry may be controlled or at least influenced.
The assertion made in the article is that "accusations of Jewish control of the media" is a canard which, as the lede defines, is "an unfounded rumor or a false allegation which is defamatory towards Judaism as a religion, or defamatory towards Jews as an ethnic or religious group". I would argue that this definition cannot be refuted by the quote supplied by Mr. Goldberg. A mere statement -- particularly from someone who may have a personal interest in the matter -- cannot refute a charge. That charge may or may not be "founded" or "unfounded"; that would be up to sources which may provide evidence. Perhaps some other sources may provide a robust argument to support the article's assertions, but the one provided falls well short of that.
Not should it be presumed that claims that "Jews control the media" are defamatory. Would it be "defamatory" to black Americans to say that "black Americans control the rap music market"? -or couldn't it be a statement of pride? Indeed, it is precisely from this position of pride that Manny Friedman, writing in The Times of Israel, wrote "...when any anti-Semite or anti-Israel person starts to spout stuff like 'The Jews control the media!' and 'The Jews control Washington!' Suddenly we’re up in arms. We create huge campaigns to take these people down. We do what we can to put them out of work. We publish articles. We’ve created entire organizations that exist just to tell everyone that the Jews don’t control nothin'. No, we don’t control the media, we don’t have any more sway in DC than anyone else. No, no, no, we swear: We’re just like everybody else!' Does anyone else (who’s not a bigot) see the irony of this? Let’s be honest with ourselves, here, fellow Jews. We do control the media. We’ve got so many dudes up in the executive offices in all the big movie production companies it’s almost obscene. Just about every movie or TV show, whether it be 'Tropic Thunder' or 'Curb Your Enthusiasm,' is rife with actors, directors, and writers who are Jewish. Did you know that all eight major film studios are run by Jews?"[1] Similarly, Joel Stein, writing in the Los Angeles Times, wrote "I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe 'the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,' down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood...The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish. As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood."[2] Stein quotes Abraham Foxman, then head of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, thus: "That's a very dangerous phrase, 'Jews control Hollywood.' What is true is that there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood,' he (Foxman) said. Instead of 'control,' Foxman would prefer people say that many executives in the industry 'happen to be Jewish,' as in 'all eight major film studios are run by men who happen to be Jewish.' But Foxman said he is proud of the accomplishments of American Jews. 'I think Jews are disproportionately represented in the creative industry'." (ibid)
So, in light of these and many similar quotes by Jewish writers asserting that the media and Hollywood are controlled by Jews, I don't think that the narrative of this article should be determined by the single source provided. A strong argument can be made -- properly sourced -- that claims that the media is disproportionately controlled by Jewish people, is neither false / unfounded / a myth, nor intrinsically defamatory, and therefore by definition cannot be a canard. Since the claim of Jewish control of the media and Hollywood is well-known (whether or not it is factual), I think it should probably stay on this page, but it should be substantively changed to reflect the diversity of opinion on the question, rather than just proclaiming that Mr. Goldberg has settled the matter. Bricology (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

"Control" implies much more than just having many individuals of Jewish background (who may or may not personally feel any collective Jewish loyalty) in influential positions in the media -- at an absolute minimum, "control" would mean that Jews are able to slant the coverage of issues (or prevent issues from receiving any coverage at all) across a fairly broad spectrum of the mainstream media. There would have to be far more solid evidence for such control than the rhetorical spoutings of one Manny Friedman (whoever he is). Also, "controlling Hollywood" is rather different from "controlling the media" -- Hollywood is a much smaller and more confined world than U.S. media in general (and such alleged Jewish "control" didn't seem to do anything to prevent Mel Gibson from getting The Passion of the Christ made and distributed...). AnonMoos (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
People of Jewish faith/background/ethnicity saying jokingly/pridefully that they "control" the media as a reference to the fact that many of them have accomplished much does not disprove or even dispute academic work documenting its use by extremist organizations as a canard. Look, I could probably grab tons of quotes (see cherrypicking) of Italians who are jokingly "proud" of their "accomplishments" in the mafia (note: the vast, overwhelming majority of Italian Americans were not involved in the mafia in any way, so we're clear) but that will never change the fact that similarly, the view that Italians are disproportionately prominent and powerful in organized crime remains an anti-Italian myth as it is similarly documented and notable. Also please refrain from walls of text. --Yalens (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20140125085955/http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/jews-do-control-the-media/
  2. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20140208140637/http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/19/opinion/oe-stein19

what is a canard?

wikipedia does not seem to define what a canard is, under the disambig page there is no listing for a canard. THIS article conflates antisemitic with canard without actually defining the canard bit.

Can someone that knows write what a canard is and its origins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.7.71 (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

As I've written above, in the context of this article, an antisemitic canard is an anti-Jewish myth/ urban legend / narrative which keeps on recurring again and again over years, no matter how many times it's been factually debunked. For the ordinary meaning, look at a dictionary. AnonMoos (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia DOES define what a canard is, see the Canard disambiguation page. Alternatively, IP user, you could check the Wiktionary definition of canard, per AnonMoos's suggestion.--FeralOink (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Per the foregoing replies, the phrase "don't be a jerk" comes to mind. I accept the OP's point: nowhere in the article was any attempt made to link to the Canard disambig page, where there is a brief mention that "a canard may mean an unfounded rumor or story."

(To be slightly fastidious, that IS NOT "a definition" but rather its usage. As everyone knows, it derives from the complete phrase vendre un canard à moitié or roughly "to sell half a duck" by which is meant "to swindle.") (Apparently, this is the first use of "half a duck" on Wikipedia — yay, me.)

There is also no attempt within Antisemitic canard to define "canard," which certainly is an unfortunate oversight, especially as this seems to be the only WP article that uses the word in its title. In short, clearer than mud, but not by much.

Since it's apparently so difficult, I have deigned to link to Canard.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Use of the Phrase "Antisemitic canard" in Common Language

Much like the word "racist" is frequently used to demonize a person, marginalize their speech, and encourage other people to ignore or disregard what they are saying as being "politically incorrect", I believe the phrase "Antisemitic canard" is also, at least occasionally, being used in this same way. As I read the Article, it was relentless in it's assertion that all examples given are "Antisemitic canards" and therefore provably false, thereby creating the impression that any and all criticisms of Jews will always be considered Antisemitic canards; past, present and future. In short, the Article reads like dogma, or edict. I think for the sake of balance that some mention should be made that not everything that is "antisemitic" (or "counter-semitic") is axiomatically considered a provable, or demonstrably false, "canard".2605:6000:6947:AB00:DD88:76B:181:950E (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

As has been mentioned above, what the word "canard" mainly means in the context of this article is assertions and stories which keep on recurring over and over again and again no matter how many times they've been factually debunked. The "unfounded rumors or false allegations" clause at the top of the article is part of the definition of a canard. If there are negative stories about Jews which are factually true, then they would be called something like "Jewish scandals" (in any case, not "Antisemitic canards")... AnonMoos (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Accusations of guilt for the death of Jesus of Nazareth

I am about to revise this section, which until now has depended only on primary sources or no sources at all. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Analogue of Canard in "Antisemitic canard"

Something which is quite similar to what the word Canard means in "Antisemitic canard" is what the Washington Post is now calling a Bottomless Pinocchio -- "a false claim repeated over and over again"... AnonMoos (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction about post-Black Death massacres

The 2006 quote by Walter Lacquer in section Well poisoning about the absence of post-plague massacres directly contradicts text in Black Death Jewish persecutions#History of persecutions, which reports numerous massacres. In rev 892152356 of this article a few days ago, the only assertion was that there were no pogroms following the plague. I then imported a few sentences about the massacres from Black Death Jewish persecutions into the Well poisoning section, noticed the contradiction, and flagged it.

The persecutions article seems well referenced, but I haven't deep-dived yet, to see if this is a real contradiction, or only an apparent one. If it's not a real contradiction, then we'll have to adjust the text at Well poisoning somehow, to account for it, and avoid the current jarring juxtaposition of opposing assertions. Mathglot (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

That might look like a contradiction at a quick glance - but read more carefully, it isn't. What Laqueur is quoted as saying is 'There were no mass attacks against "Jewish poisoners" after the period of[my emphasis] the Black Death, but the accusation became part and parcel of antisemitic dogma and language.'. This is fully consistent with their being massacres of Jews at the time of the Black Death (and even indirectly implies that there were massacres then), but does at least strongly suggest both that accusations of "Jewish poisoners" continued to be made but that these accusations didn't result in any significantly later massacres. I suspect that Laqueur's statement would have been rather less confusing in its original context. PWilkinson (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

White genocide conspiracy theory

I'd heard of White genocide conspiracy theory before, but was unaware of any alleged Jewish accusations embedded in it. The current version of the article has a lead which includes "Jewish" in it ("a deliberate Jewish plot") but there seems to be some disagreement about that point at that article, since this version from a month ago mentions nothing about that in the lead. I don't think Antisemitic canard needs to track every single time some conspiracy or other is associated with Jews, so I guess I'm just saying, we should just be aware and keep half an eye open to what's going on over at the White genocide conspiracy theory article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

"Holocaust denial" section title

Currently, the section about the Holocaust is entitled, "Holocaust denial", but this makes no sense.

All of the H3 subsection titles in section 1, are about false accusations about Jews doing something, like, poisoning wells, ritual murder, trying to dominate the world, and so on. Holocaust denial is not something anybody accuses Jews of doing. Nobody has a conspiracy theory accusing Jews of being denialists; conspiracy theorists say the exact opposite, namely, that Jews exaggerate (or invented) the Holocaust.

Therefore, the current section title is wrong. The section should be entitled, "Exaggeration of Holocaust claims", or, "Invention or exaggeration of the Holocaust", or simply, "Holocaust exaggeration" for short. That's what the accusation is. The name for people who hold those beliefs, is Holocaust deniers, but that's not what Jews are accused of. Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thess are various accusations that are made by Holocaust deniers.Icewhiz (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Mathglot makes a good point. Every other heading is a canard about Jews: well poisoning, dual loyalty, etc. The Denial one isn't, and it's a bit jarring now that I've noticed it. Should it say something like "Inventing the Holocaust"? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 03:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not that simple - as Holocaust denial takes many forms - involving Jewish conspiracy (or lizard conspiracy, many lizards being Jewish - [1][2]) around various aspects, denying the Holocaust all together, denying the scale of the Holocaust, denying the culpability of the Holocaust (e.g. Jews died due to normal wartime disease outbreaks (e.g. typhus) in WWII), etc. It's not so simple as "inventing" or "exaggerating" the Holocaust - there's a whole list of very different (but all related to different forms of Holocaust denial) claims here. Icewhiz (talk) 05:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps "Holocaust denial" => "Claims by holocaust deniers" ? Icewhiz (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

To quote the lede of Holocaust denial:

Most Holocaust deniers claim, either explicitly or implicitly, that the Holocaust is a hoax—or at best an exaggeration—arising from a deliberate Jewish conspiracy designed to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other people.[9] For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic[10] conspiracy theory.[11]

So, Holocaust denial does indeed accuse the Jews of doing something, and it is an antisemitic conspiracy theroy. Jayjg (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Certainly. But every other section title is something Jews are accused of. The wording of the section title is the only question. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
So I see. Right, so the section should be re-written to focus on the antisemitic conspiracy theory aspect (the canard that Jews exaggerated or invented the Holocaust to further their own interests). Jayjg (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and also, while most of the titles are something Jews are accused of, "Blood libel" isn't. That said, I don't see anything wrong with changing the title to something like "Inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust". Jayjg (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
...which I have now done. Jayjg (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Low quality target for this article?

This article still seems to lack basic logic (and is awfully structured at least to any standard I know).

In January 2017 I started to suggest changes. But there have been users immediately reverting the changes without any interest in explanations even though I explained my changes in detail. A short look at the article’s current status shows that those (blocking) users also didn’t want to improve the article on their own. So, what quality target do these users have for this article? Lowest possible?

Symptom for missing logic: The first sentence defines that the article would consist of “unfounded” rumors and “false” allegations. But the article does not even try to describe or at least reason why typical current anti-Semite allegations about Jewish people are unfounded or false. Because the article makes no use of (expectable) basic logic, many readers may ask themselves why the article tries to obviously “hide” something compared to its own definition in the first sentence.

Symptom for awful structure: 20 points in “Accusations” on same hierarchy level without any weighting or grouping. I guess many would agree that current global anti-Semitism is mainly founded in alleged undue Jewish influence, power, domination or even control concerning topics as “finance/assets/greed” and “media/politics”. But in the current article structure these topics are “hidden” in a flood of other topics most people haven’t even heard about, and therefore are not the typical basis for current anti-Semitism.

Betternews (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's a terrible article. What specifically did you want to do with it? Jayjg (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Improve it, what shouldn't be too hard as we agree it is currently a terrible article.
It’s usually no mistake to start with a structural improvement. A sensible structure would probably group the more than 20 “Accusations” into 3-4 segments. One obvious “accusation category” would consist of canards about alleged accumulation of economic/political influence, another group of canards obviously have a primarily religious context, a third group could assemble all other canards that don’t really fit into the first two categories.
Once there is a smoother structure, it would be much easier to improve the logic of the article itself, e.g. to have clear logical language that there is a difference between stating that Jewish people are overrepresented in certain political/economical areas, and maintaining that they control or dominate that area, e.g. that in former times with less scientific transparency/knowledge and larger power of religious leaders and thinking, there was a tendency to blame religious minority group for whatever crisis
But I am not able to forecast the perfect article, it needs to evolve over time. The current (awful) structure and (problematic) basic logic can easily lead to meaningless discussions and no improvement at all.
Betternews (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I had thought about groupings like that, too, and actually had an edit in progress, before I threw it away, because I started to think about, "Who's grouping it like this, me? And is there some outside, reliable support for this kind of grouping?" I don't actually know if Article section titles and hierarchical structure is subject to RS specifically (kind of think not), but I would have felt more comfortable if there was some outside validation for the structure I was about to impose. But I backed off. Maybe it's enough, if we just discuss here, and if there's a consensus for a structure, just go with it? It can always be changed, after all. Mathglot (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps there are books on antisemitic canards or myths that group them in a useful way? Also, it would be helpful if the sections in this articles were simply summaries of other existing articles; I see that people like to add unique information on this page without touching the "Main" article. Jayjg (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Proceed of wait? Betternews (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
If you're asking whether you should proceed, I have no objections. Jayjg (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Restructuring done. Please feel free to review. Nothing should have vanished as it is a reconfiguration. The lead should have improved too as it contained too many details that have been moved to the main article. Betternews (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks good so far. I think it might be possible to categorize some of the "Other" items too; for example, organ harvesting seems related to blood libel, wars & revolutions to political canards, dual loyalty to cowardice. Still, I'm not sure these connections are viable; your thoughts? Jayjg (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Changing the TITLE...very few use canard with any regularity or even know what it means...

The title is terrible...as is the article. I care about this issue, but both the article and title could use revision. I did a quick engram search for some alternatives.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=canard%2Cfalsehood%2Ccalumny%2Cdefamation&year_start=1950&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=1&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccanard%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cfalsehood%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccalumny%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cdefamation%3B%2Cc0

Sjlebl (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sjlebl: Changing the article's name has been discussed before, and, I believe, rejected. Please review the Talk: page archives. What specific name would you propose? Jayjg (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

"Antisemitic myths" has 5,900 google search hits. "Antisemitic canards" has 7,450. In that regard, roughly equal, but IRL very very very few English speakers know what a canard is. So, how about "Antisemitic Myths" Even though "Antisemitic canards" appears on more pages in the wiki search, there seem to be many more TITLES that use "Antisemitic Myths". Sjlebl (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I think this will be a poorly searched term and I also doubt most people know what is meant by "canard". Antisemitic myths will be far more accessible to the general readership. I second a move to that title unless someone can provide compelling reasons why it shouldn't be moved. I do see that this topic has come up on the talk page before but I didn't see any true pushes for a move with a concrete suggestion for an alternate title. Sjlebl has provded a clear suggestion here. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, one reason is that Canard is the term used by most of the cited sources, another is that it is much more specific. Myth has many meanings, canard really only has one (well, two, but only aeronautical professionals would really be familiar with the other). But mainly the sources. Myth is used in the article where it matches the terminology of the sources, but canard is much more commonly used. People may not be as familiar with the term, but I doubt they will be confused as the first sentence of the article explains that for them. Regardless of whether people are familiar with the term (and I would argue that they actually are) canard is the common name for it (as evidenced by the fact that it gets more google hits and its prevalence in the cited sources). AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

There is NO EVIDENCE that canard is used in most of the cited sources. The quotes in the article use myth 7 times and use canard 6 times. The other 18 times canard is used in the article, it is by the article. Canard is a VERY OUTDATED AND UNFAMILIAR word. "Myth" appears to be the preferred term throughout modern journalism, modern writing, the web, EXCEPT FOR THIS ARTICLE. I am new at all of this, so I don't understand the politics, philosophy, emotions, around resistance to change. However, in this case, I find it extremely hard for anyone to demonstrate that "Antisemitic Canard" is a "good" title in terms of people understanding or finding the article. Of course, people can constantly ASSERT that "Antisemitic Canard" is the best title or phrase and I can constantly cite google scholar, or Google Ngram, or what I KNOW TO BE TRUE that 90% plus of English speakers (native and non-native) have no idea what a canard is, and others can constantly, falsely, assert that "canard" is just the correct term here. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=anti+semitism+myths = 67,000 results https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=anti+semitism+canards&btnG=3,600 When I view the following NGRAM, it seems "antisemetic canard" is something some author popularized in 1985ish. <iframe name="ngram_chart" src="https://books.google.com/ngrams/interactive_chart?content=antisemitic+canard%2Cantisemitic+myth%2Cantisemitic+canards%2Cantisemitic+myths&year_start=1880&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=1&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cantisemitic%20canard%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cantisemitic%20myth%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cantisemitic%20canards%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cantisemitic%20myths%3B%2Cc0" width=900 height=500 marginwidth=0 marginheight=0 hspace=0 vspace=0 frameborder=0 scrolling=no></iframe><iframe name="ngram_chart" src="https://books.google.com/ngrams/interactive_chart?content=antisemitic+canard%2Cantisemitic+myth%2Cantisemitic+canards%2Cantisemitic+myths&year_start=1880&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=1&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cantisemitic%20canard%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cantisemitic%20myth%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cantisemitic%20canards%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cantisemitic%20myths%3B%2Cc0" width=900 height=500 marginwidth=0 marginheight=0 hspace=0 vspace=0 frameborder=0 scrolling=no></iframe> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjlebl (talk • contribs)

Your argument is that "canard" is unfamiliar; others argue that "canard" is more specific. Both seem used approximately equally. Jayjg (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Really. Google scholar indicates that "Antisemetic Myth" is used 20 time more frequently. Is that "about the same?" The word "carnard" is meaningless to most (95% or more) English speakers, not unfamiliar. It shouldn't be the title of the article if anyone cares about people actually finding the article. How, exactly, is "Antisemetic Myth," cited 67,000 times in google scholar, less specific than canard? How is canard specific when 95% of English speakers don't know what it means. Even in common usage, when people do know what it means, "canard" carries the connotation of something harmless and unfounded (though not necessarily untrue.)" The example usage provided by google define is "the old canard that LA is a cultural wasteland." That Jewish daughters are spoiled is perhaps a canard...that Jews run the world or poison wells is something rather more serious. Myth suggests something that can be bigger or more pernicious. "The myth of American exceptionalism." for example, as opposed to "The canard of American exceptionalism." IDK how these decisions or ultimately made, but I hope someone chooses a better name for the article AND removes the repeated uses of "carnard" throughout other than in quotes.Sjlebl (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Jay, just so it's clear to me, who is arguing that canard is more familiar? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@TylerDurden8823: I don't think anyone is arguing that "canard" is "more familiar". I think that people are saying canard is used with reasonable frequency in reliable sources, and that it's more specific and appropriate than myth. Canard and myth aren't synonyms, with the former being merely less familiar. "Myth" typically means something else; to quote the first sentence of the Wikipedia article, "Myth is a folklore genre consisting of narratives or stories that play a fundamental role in a society, such as foundational tales or origin myths." That's not what is described in this article. Jayjg (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Dictionary: myth, noun
1. traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
synonyms: folk tale, story, folk story, legend, tale, fable, saga, allegory, parable, tradition, lore, folklore; More
2. a widely held but false belief or idea.
synonyms: misconception, fallacy, mistaken belief, false notion, misbelief, old wives' tale, fairy story, fairy tale, fiction, fantasy, delusion, figment of the imagination;
I, honestly, don't care to be argumentative. In ordinary English, "myth" is FAR MORE COMMONLY used in the context of this article (i.e. important widely held false beliefs) when not discussing antisemitism. For example, google --myth racist cop-- returns 9.3 million hits, with top returns having titles such as "The Myth of the Racist Cop - WSJ". Google --canard racist cop-- returns 0.087 million hits. If no one believes that it is relevant to this discussion that "myth" is a MUCH MUCH MUCH more common word to use in this overall context and that canard is a rarely understood word, fine, BUT why keep making the argument in favor of "canard" based on false assertions?Sjlebl (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I think the point people are making is that myth has many meanings, whereas canard is much more specific. Those who prefer "canard" feel that specificity is valuable as regards the name of this article. Also, speaking of Google searches, a Google search shows that "canard" is used quite commonly with "antisemitic". The search "anti semitic canard" -site:wikipedia.org gets ~8000 hits, whereas the search "anti semitic myth" -site:wikipedia.org gets 5460 hits. Variations on the search yield similar results. It appears that the term "canard" is a term commonly prefixed by "antisemitic", and not just on Wikipedia. Even if you search for "anti-semitic canard" and "anti-semitic myth" on Google Scholar, you find that myth is only a little more popular (130 vs. 222 hits). Jayjg (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Better choices might be anti-Jewish conspiracy theories or anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. As far as I can tell, this is the main Wikipedia article about conspiracy theories focusing on Jews. Most other conspiracy theory articles about other subjects would appear to be formated this way, like Masonic conspiracy theories, Vatican conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories, etc. The title as it stands does sound a bit activisty and over the top. I guess we can mention that advocacy groups like the ADL describe anti-Jewish conspiracy theories as antisemitic canards in their own lexicon, outside of that "canard" does sound a bit obscurantist, I agree. Benjiphillips (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

That would stretch the definition of "conspiracy theory" a bit I think. "canard" doesn't look that dated to me per [3]. VQuakr (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Don't know if Google can be used to measure WP:COMMONNAME, but "anti-semitic canard" gets 5,930 results, while "anti-semitic conspiracy theories" gets 45,000 results. Benjiphillips (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that "canards" and "conspiracy theories" aren't the same thing, so you're really comparing apples and oranges. This article discusses many things that aren't conspiracy theories, but are actually untrue stereotypes. Jayjg (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The thing about the word canard (as discussed here previously, now in the archives to this talk page) is that it more or less conveys to those in the know the meaning "narrative which keeps getting resurrected again and again and again, no matter how many times it's been debunked". Not sure if that's true of some of the proposed alternatives... AnonMoos (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the crux of this discussion is how best to balance the five WP:CRITERIA we use for names, particularly precision and recognizability. VQuakr (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I am Opposed to changing the title, because the current title meets all the criteria of article title policy; including precision, brevity, and common name. No other title would satisfy these three criteria as well as "Antisemitic canard". I agree that it's less recognizable than "myths" (or "propaganda", or other terms), but those are not equivalent terms, and fail precision.

User:Sjlebl, I applaud your desire to have Wikipedia articles be more accessible and understandable in general; I feel the same way. There *might* be some good arguments to change the title, but so far I haven't seen any. The specific arguments you made so far, miss the mark. Some seem like personal preference, others are good-faith attempts to gather data about common name, but were unsuccessful, probably owing to the technical difficulties of executing or interpreting search queries. There's also an uncivil edge to some of your comments that should be toned down.

I wanted to address some of your objections to the current title, point by point:

  • few know the term – this can be dismissed. We don't decide on the title of articles based on how many people know the meaning of the term, but based on Article title policy. This is an encyclopedia, with 5.8 million articles; there are going to be plenty of articles with titles we are not familiar with. Here are some articles with some pretty opaque words in them: Hereditary progressive mucinous histiocytosis, Ferrer block, Mecklenburg vereinsthaler—as long as the titles of those articles meet policy requirements, the fact that they are not as recognizable and we are not as familiar with some of the terms is not relevant, or at least, not decisive. Precision and common name win the day, here; ditto with this article.
Secondly: in connection with the "few know the term" objection, I have to ask if you might not have an unconscious bias against words that you are not personally familiar with. I noticed your argument at Talk:Reactionary (here), where you objected to the use of status quo ante, shouting about how you had NEVER HEARD OF IT before, labeling it "pretentious", "unhelpful", and "legal[istic]", and suggesting an oversimplification instead. While I agree that simpler words are better when two options are equivalent (many readers of en-wiki are not native speakers), nevertheless, when they are not equivalent, the more precise term is the better choice, per policy.
  • search hit comparisons – there is a whole minefield of problems lying in wait for those seeking to use comparisons of search hit counts, and I'm going to write an essay about it some day. With respect to your experiments, it's not enough to compare the search hit counts of two items that don't have the same meaning. (Jayjg already said this.) You point out that "Antisemitic myths" and "Antisemitic canards" have roughly the same hit counts. But "Antisemitic attacks" has five times as many results as either of those terms, so is that a good reason to change the title of this article to "Antisemitic attacks"? Obviously, no. But why not? The reason is because "antisemitic attacks" and "antisemitic canards" don't mean the same thing. That's easy to see, so we take that for granted. But the situation for "antisemitic myths" versus "antisemitic canards" is exactly the same: you can't compare the hit counts for those two expressions either; it's just a little less obvious, especially if one of the terms in use is one that we are not too familiar with.
Bottom line: this is an apples-to-oranges comparison; the hit counts comparison is not valid. You'd have a slightly better argument with "antisemitic conspiracy theories" (20,800 hits), but in the end this fails too, for the same reason: canard and conspiracy theory are related, but not the same thing; a conspiracy theory may be based on a canard (or not); a canard may be simply an unfounded rumor about Jews that doesn't ascribe any of the control or responsibility aspects of a conspiracy theory to them. Some do, so there is clearly an overlap (and maybe the article should do a better job of indicating that) but the terms are not equivalent. "Jews have horns" is a canard, but not a conspiracy theory.
  • 1985 popular usage – You made a comment about the term becoming popularized in 1985. I don't think the term was ever "popular" in that sense, and still isn't. In any case, public popularity is not a criterion for naming an article. As long as you raised the topic of when it was used, I did a search and found one usage in 1917 (no quotation, unfortunately),[1] and one in 1921[2], which, not suprisingly, refers to the Protocols. Canard is a term that comes up far more often in academic or professional literature, than it does in speech or casual writing. But, professional, academic writing makes up the core of the reliable sources that we use to determine things like notability and common name. The fact that it is hardly used in speech contributes to its unfamiliarity and lack of popularity, imho.
  • ngrams results – The main objection to your results showing "myths" about twice as common as "canards" is that they are not the same thing, as previously stated. Another objection, is that ngrams data are based on Google books results, which has a minimum threshold of 40 books, before a search term appears at all. That's why you don't see anything for 1917 or 1921, even though we have the book sources for those years; there weren't 40 books containing the term in either of those years.
Here's another ngram search which shows "antisemitic propaganda" beating out all the other proposed terms; but once again, it may overlap but is not exactly the same thing as antisemitic canard. The reason not to rename it to "Antisemitic propaganda" is essentially the same as the reason not to rename it to "Antisemitic myths".
  • 20 times more frequent – I mentioned the "search minefield" before, but this is pretty elementary stuff regarding quoted search terms. Your numbers are way off: "antisemitic myths" is about twice as common as "antisemitic canards" in google Scholar (115 to 60), not "20 time more frequent", as you claimed. (Your claim of 67,000 hits for "Antisemitic Myth" is off by 66,885.) That may all be interesting, but it's an irrelevant apples-and-oranges search. Scholar searches for "Antisemitic conspiracy theories" and "Antisemitic propaganda" beat them both out, the latter by over twenty times. But once again,this is irrelevant to the choice of article title; they don't mean exactly the same thing. Which is what Jayjg has been saying all along.

I wanted to add a word about the manner of your presenting your arguments. Assuming good faith is a core principle of Wikipedia with respect to editors interacting with others. Other editors here are just as interested in finding the best way to present this topic as you are. Comments of yours, like the following (emphasis added):

I am new at all of this, so I don't understand the politics, philosophy, emotions, around resistance to change.

and

Of course, people can constantly ASSERT that "Antisemitic Canard" is the best title or phrase and I can constantly cite google scholar, or Google Ngram, or what I KNOW TO BE TRUE that 90% plus of English speakers (native and non-native) have no idea what a canard is, and others can constantly, falsely, assert that "canard" is just the correct term here.

are against policy. There's a whole lotta not assuming good faith going on here, so just knock it off.

In sum: "Antisemitic canard" is the best title for this article. It goes back to World War I, it's been consistently used for the same meaning since then, it is the most accurate term for this topic and thus satisfied WP:PRECISION, it is WP:CONCISE, and for those knowledgeable about the topic, it is instantly recognizable. For those not knowledgeable about the topic, that's what the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE and WP:LEADPARAGRAPH are for, just like any other encyclopedic topic with unfamiliar terms. If you change it to some other title, it's either going to change the scope of the article (e.g., "Antisemitic conspiracy theories", "Antisemitic propaganda", etc.) and thus lose precision, or it's going to become longer, trying to capture the sense of "canard": "Unfounded antisemitic rumors or stories" is precise, but not concise.

If this is all tl;dr, AmbivalentUnequivocality stated it in a nutshell: "Canard is the term used by most of the cited sources, another is that it is much more specific." VQuakr's comment is also right on. Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the thoughtful responses and I will try to learn. I have to note, however, that accusing me of being uncivil, while also implying I am arguing from being personally unfamiliar with a term that I have made clear I have long been familiar with, and also accusing me of shouting, is a bit ingenuous.

I remain confused by the impassioned opposition to changing the name. I assert that "Anti Semetic Canard" and "Anti Semetic Myth" mean exactly precisely the same thing. If someone has evidence this is not true, I am interested. If true, discussions comparing other terms such as "Anti Semitic Propoganda" are unhelpful. "Propaganda" is clearly different from Canard/Myth. I could see an argument for "Anti Semitic Conspiracy Theories." I don't personally like it, but it is perhaps a more recognizable title and similar to other Conspiracy Theory articles.

I am not arguing from personal unfamiliarity which I have made clear. I know exactly what canard means. (Just as I immediately knew what "status quo ante" meant when I first heard Condi Rice say it.) I object to the term because few others know what it means. There is at least one alternative phrase that means exactly same thing and is far more familiar. I have an elite education, but I am an anti-elitist. I also oppose linguist pretension when it does nothing to elucidate. I have extremely well educated well read friends and family who are native English Speakers. None of them knew what a canard was (one said "a duck"?) exactly or even what an "Antisemitic Canard" was. I am a lawyer and political activist, but I oppose jargon or linguist preciousness whenever there is a more straightforward word. "Antisemitic Myth" is a better term because it is far more understandable to most English speakers, even 2d language speakers, than "Antisemitic Canard." I did not accuse anyone of bad faith, just bad arguments. In your response, why would you quote technical scientific articles as examples with regard to a discussion about something that is clearly not a technical or scientific issue? As to precision and concision, "Antisemitic Myths" wins both, in that the second definition of myth, as I cite above, is exactly what this article is about, whereas as "canard," by itself -->an unfounded rumor or story. "the old canard that LA is a cultural wasteland"<-- is imprecise in that this article is not discussing "unfounded rumor or stories" about Jews, but is more discussing a "widely held but false belief or ideas" about Jews. Even in myth's #1 definition "a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon," the scale of "myth" is far more appropriate when discussing Nazi or other European antisemitism. European antisemitic myths (both definition 1 and 2) were foundational to Nazism. Antisemitic canards, not so much. Again, in frustration, I just don't get why "Antisemitic Canard" is so vigorously defended. All the arguments fall. Even the precision one. Using ordinary English, a canard about Jews is that they really like food, not that they control world banking. The latter is something else, something bigger, something epic, something mythic, even. BTW, I did just notice that the very last quote in the article right now introduces "myth" as a synonym for canard, using the more easily understood term first, "The myths that all Jews are responsible for the death of Christ, or poisoned wells, or killed Christian children to bake matzos, or "made up" the Holocaust, or plot to control the world, do not succeed each other; rather, the list of anti-Semitic canards gets longer."[155]"

I guess I remain frustrated that I perceive a style of counter-argument on this topic that I have felt is more focused on knocking over particular points (sometimes with false assertions) and ignoring the larger gestalt issue of which article title is likely to help more English speakers (including non-natives) locate and understand the article. Just with respect to "Antisemitic Canard" and "Antisemitic Myth": It is not true (though repeatedly asserted) that "Antisemitic Canard" is used more frequently in the cited references. "Antisemitic Myth" is used 1 or 2 more times in the references. 2. It is not true that "Antisemitic Canard" is more precise than "Antisemitic Myth,"the phrases mean exactly the same thing in the larger literature, and canard has the unfortunate implication of something that is more of a joke or rumor than a substantial political myth. Canards are unfounded and cliche, but not necessarily false. 3. It is not true that "Antisemitic Canard" is more concise than "Antisemitic Myth," "Antisemitic Canard" has two more letters.

I personally don't know of a resource that would answer, definitively, how many people know or use the word "canard" versus the word "myth" or even "conspiracy theory." My guess, based on quizzing friends, is that "canard" could not be defined or used properly by over 95% of English speakers. My guess is that myth and conspiracy theory would be familiar and in the working vocabulary of close of a majority of English speakers. Arguments of the form "that doesn't matter," I find a bit antithetical to what I assume is one core mission of Wikipedia.

Overall, I think an article that lists all of the old tired antisemitic myths that have been used to justify hatred and persecution of Jews is a reasonable and useful article. But this article, so far, ain't it. Sjlebl (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I want to second that arguements for new verbiage here have been unconvincing. For instance - an "antisemitic myth" may encompass fringe theories that have not reached "canard" status (a particular theory or myth - that is not a recurring theme). I will note, however, that one term has been missing from this discussion - antisemitic trope which may merit consideration (as more common (a little bit more in google-scholar (31%) but around X10 in google-news)), and having the same meaning of "antisemitic canard" - while trope isn't always false (though it has a negative connotation) an "antisemitic trope" is always false AFAICT). Trope might merit a mention in the lead even if we don't re-title. Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Great Britain. War Office. General Staff (1917). Daily Review of the Foreign Press. p. 158. OCLC 235977493. Retrieved 27 August 2019.
  2. ^ The Solicitors' Journal and Weekly Reporter. Vol. 65. London: Alexander and Shepheard, printers. 1921. p. 798. OCLC 13086488. Retrieved 27 August 2019.  'Protocols of the Elders of Sion,' which has recently given such heart to the anti-Semitic parties throughout Europe, and which ... which might have been expected to know better, seems to have fallen a credulous victim of this absurd canard. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Requested move 12 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 11:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Antisemitic canard → List of antisemitic canards – The article is almost entirely made up of a list of such canards. I would also support "List of antisemitic conspiracy theories" but that seems to be rejected in previous discussions. buidhe 02:39, 12 May 2020 (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.

Demonization, accusations of impurity

This section does not seem to be a canard to me. I would see such imagery as mocking/ derogatory rather than an accusation of anything in particular. Jontel (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

By your aforementioned definition in the last section, I would disagree with you. To say that Jewish people are demons or impure is unfounded nonsense. Antisemitic canards are derogatory. It sure reads like an accusation of being impure and/or being a demon, not human, evil, or bad, etc. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Provoking or fabricating antisemitism - anti-Nazi boycott

Canards are "sensational reports, misrepresentations, or fabrications". I have reverted the inclusion in this page of "Gilad Atzmon stated, "....Jewish texts tend to glaze over the fact that Hitler's March 28 1933, ordering a boycott against Jewish stores and goods, was an escalation in direct response to the declaration of war on Germany by the worldwide Jewish leadership."[101]" on the basis that it is true and is thus not a canard, yet a couple of editors User:AmbivalentUnequivocality, User:Aroma Stylish have objected to this. Can we clear up this disagreement? Perhaps an edit summary is not long enough to explain fully. The Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses on April 1 1933 has its own article: Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses. The "declaration of war" on Germany by the worldwide Jewish leadership the previous month also has its own page: 1933 anti-Nazi boycott. The former article has the following text: "On April 1, 1933, the Nazis carried out their first nationwide, planned action against Jews: a one day boycott targeting Jewish businesses and professionals, in response to the Jewish boycott of German goods.". The second page has a section entitled "Nazi counter-boycott", while the Daily Express used the headline: "Judea Declares War on Germany" on March 24, 1933. In other words, while these events are in the context of earlier, continuing and increasing persecution of the Jews by the Nazis, the short extract of Atzmon's which has been included in the article is accurate, as far as I can see - the Nazi boycott of the Jews in Germany of 1st April 1933 was in response to the earlier international Jewish boycott of Germany. It is therefore seemingly not a canard as it stands. Would anyone like to explain why they think this text should be included as an example of a canard, given this? Jontel (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

That seems like your own original research. You are making the assessment that "war on Germany by worldwide Jewish leadership" is the Anti-Nazi boycott. The source does not say that. Even if true, calling the Anti-Nazi boycott a "declaration of war on Germany by the worldwide Jewish leadership" is both hyperbolic (a boycott is not a declaration of war), and ascribing it to so-called "worldwide Jewish leadership" echoes numerous antisemitic conspiracy theories and the arguments of holocaust deniers. Not surprising because an antisemitic conspiracy theorist and holocaust denier is exactly how reliable sources nearly unanimously describe Atzmon. But those are assessments for Reliable Sources to make, not editors. The source, in this case, is abundantly clear. "Gilad Atzmon is a jazz saxophonist who lives in London and who has a side gig disseminating the wildest sort of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. He is an ex-Israeli and a self-proclaimed "self-hater" who traffics in Holocaust denial and all sorts of grotesque, medieval anti-Jewish calumnies." A calumny is "the making of false and defamatory statements about someone in order to damage their reputation; slander", which is basically a synonym for Canard. Furthermore, the source specifically references perhaps the most famous antisemitic canard of all "In this new book, Atzmon suggests, among other things, that scholars should reopen the question of medieval blood libels leveled against Jews-- accusations that Jews used the blood of Christian children to make matzo, and which provoked countless massacres of Jews in many different countries". The specific quote is described by the source as Atzmon saying "that the Jews persecuted Hitler", and saying that the Nazi's acted in retaliation against the Jews persecuting Hitler fits the "Causes (or Provokes) Antisemitism" section perfectly. Your arguments might hold water if we were quoting an article by Atzmon and saying it was representative of a Canard. But we aren't. We are quoting a source that specifically provides the quote as evidence of such. It is not the place of editors to argue that the source is incorrect, especially not by minimizing and whitewashing what he said by implying that he is justified and correct in calling a boycott that was supported by SOME Jews and SOME Jewish leaders a "declaration of war on Germany by the worldwide Jewish leadership". AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. I absolutely understand your points. I know from his article that Atzmon has been heavily criticised. To help me respond, perhaps I can summarize your various arguments to support the statement’s inclusion in this page as an anti-Semitic canard. 1. That Atzmon was referring not to the anti-Nazi boycott but to a separate declaration of war 2. Even if he was referring to the boycott, it was misleading to call it a declaration of war and, 3. misleading to ascribe it to a worldwide Jewish leadership. You make an independent, further argument, 4. that it is not for editors to pass judgement on the accuracy of relevant published material. On the first three points, I submit that views on Atzmon or his other writings are insufficient grounds to include the statement, unless 1. ,2. or 3 applies. It is always better to interpret statements in context and Goldberg helpfully provides links to the writings he comments on. Using the relevant link, the Atzmon article mentioned declaration of war in a section explicitly discussing the boycott, which addresses point 1. No-one reading the article could have been misled into thinking that Atzmon was referring to an actual declaration of war involving prospective fighting rather than using an obvious metaphor for the boycott. Additionally, an interpretation that he may have been referencing an actual declaration of war is obviously incredible given that Jewish bodies had no access to armed forces of any significance and Nazi Germany was the world’s strongest military land power, and that only nation states can legally declare war, so these considerations makes it even less likely that anyone reading Atzmon’s article would be misled. Regarding point 2, the metaphor of a declaration of war for the boycott was used at the time, by the press for example. Discussion of war was always present. Moreover, boycotts and blockades to interrupt trade are a common tactic in war. It was certainly a declaration of economic war. As discussed above, a boycott was the closest Jews could get to a declaration of war. Moreover, an economic war would fit with perceptions at the time that Jews often entered occupations in finance and trade, given discrimination and obstacles against them in other fields. I do not see that significant malice can be inferred from its use. Regarding point 3., Atzmon’s article twice refers to the American Jewish Congress and mentions a massive protest meeting, so is clearly not suggesting some hidden conspiracy. The boycott was supported by many leading Jewish organisations in economically significant countries: “Jewish organizations — including the American Jewish Congress, American League for Defense of Jewish Rights, B'nai B'rith, the Jewish Labor Committee and Jewish War Veterans — joined together in a call for a boycott of German goods.[1] The boycott began in March 1933 in both Europe and the US and continued until the entry of the US into the war on December 7, 1941.[12] [13][14]” 1933 anti-Nazi boycott. In the context of a few paragraphs, which is all the space given by Atzmon to the subject, “worldwide Jewish leadership” seems a reasonable summary description. He could perhaps have said “leading Jewish organisations internationally”. Doubtless, the boycott was not unanimously supported. His phrase, indicating international Jewish coordination in a uniquely dangerous period for European Jews, fits the facts and should not be interpreted as implying international Jewish coordination in other, less exceptional, times. On 4, I agree with you that Goldberg is presenting Atzmon’s words as an anti-Semitic canard. However, calling it a canard is contradicted by the accounts of Wikipedia articles dedicated to the boycotts. On this occasion, Jewish actions did unambiguously result in a response – the international Jewish boycott of Germany prompted a Nazi one affecting German Jews. This is not to deny that there was a sequence of events within Germany which led to the first, anti-Nazi, boycott. I have added a relevant quote to this article by Hitler, as an example of the canard that Jewish behaviour was the cause of the Holocaust. Given that the article’s geographical and historical scope is the extremely broad one of global recorded history, perhaps it is sufficient for the period. It is correct that individual editors cannot prevent the inclusion of inaccurate material; rather, if the quote is retained in the article at the end of the discussion, contrary material can be added to the article from other sources which demonstrate that the sentence, even taken out of context, is not a canard, so that this article does not contradict other ones. Jontel (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with several points of your assessment, but we agree on the salient point that "Goldberg is presenting Atzmon’s words as an anti-Semitic canard", so I don't feel the need to argue about whether or not it is appropriate to refer to a boycott as a declaration of war or calling support by some Jewish organizations "worldwide Jewish leadership". The source says exactly what we are saying it says, and that is all that actually matters. However, I must point out, that when you say "contrary material can be added to the article from other sources which demonstrate that the sentence, even taken out of context, is not a canard", that is only true if the material directly and clearly states that what Atzmon said is not a canard. If it does not both mention Atzmon, and say that what he said is not a canard, then we cannot do that. Our prohibition against original research and synthesis prohibits "material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Since you have already said that the purpose of that material would be to "demonstrate that the sentence, even taken out of context, is not a canard", the material must be directly making that point. Also, what other Wikipedia articles say does not matter at all, as you cannot use Wikipedia as a source. If there are reliable sources that mention Atzmon, and what he said, and say that it is not a canard, then yes, that material can, and should, be added. But you cannot add material that does not mention Atzmon, and does not explicitly say that what he said is not a canard, to prove that point, as that is directly prohibited by Wikipedia policy against original research and synthesis of sources. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Definition?

A month ago, SlimVirgin changed the lede Antisemitic canards are unfounded rumors or false allegations to Antisemitic canards are "sensational reports, misrepresentations, or fabrications". I'm not sure that "sensational" really needs to be part of the definition; or, at least, as it stands, does "sensational" modify only reports? All three? This might be a little easier to clarify if I had the source handy; Trials of the Diaspora does footnote this, but the Google preview of the book doesn't have the footnotes, and I don't feel like spending $20 on the Kindle edition. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

According to the dictionary, a canard is "an unfounded rumour or story", whereas sensationalism is "presenting information in a way that is intended to provoke public interest and excitement, at the expense of accuracy." So, a sensational report is not a canard, though they doubtless played a role in exciting antisemitism. It would be more accurate to leave them out of the definition while referencing them where appropriate. I do not think, in the quote, they are intended to modify misrepresentations or fabrications. Jontel (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Jpgordon, you're welcome to revert if you prefer the previous, but it seemed to me that this is more than an unfounded rumor. This was my edit. I didn't add links to the quote; those links should be removed. Perhaps we could add the rest of the quote, which is "all intended to deceive the public". That would clarify "sensational". So the whole quote would be "sensational reports, misrepresentations, or fabrications, all intended to deceive the public".
The source is Julius, Anthony (2010). Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 67. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Footnote 414 cites "Isaac Landman, ‘Canards’, The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (New York, 1941), vol. 3, pp. 1–10." SarahSV (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC); edited 04:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I think that fuller quote might be helpful, since "sensational" doesn't necessarily mean deceptive (though one use of it certainly does.) --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Useful hatnote, even if "innovative" in style

@80.246.138.29: hi. You seem to be an experienced WP user, I can imagine you were logged out by chance when you made your edits yesterday and on 2 August 2018. I wanted to thank you for your edits on Cabinet of Israel and Sufganiyah, and for the vandalism reversals on Twelve Tribes and Caesarea Maritima, but one cannot send thanks to an IP. However, here I must disagree, on grounds that this is a special case, as we have a special subset of external links only for this paragraph; I had pondered if to place them within the paragraph, but chose the other option, with a sub-heading at External links, but that only works well in connection with this had-made "hatnote". So it's about user-friendliness, which is the supreme principle in any reference work (and not only). We're not robots, WP rules are made by users, not by thundering deities, and when there's no harm done, quite the opposite, a formally WP-conform new item helps the user, I'd say it should be seen as progress. If you do find an existing template to be used here, I'd be happy to see it used; but removing useful info based on one's perception of what's common habit on WP or not... I won't ever subscribe. Thank you, have a great day and enjoy the sufganiyot & holiday atmosphere. Arminden (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory 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.--Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

2601:881:201:DA70:6C4F:14F5:41DB:4C2D

so presenting zionism as a positive influence in mid-east politics is not an effort of jewish americans ?? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:881:201:DA70:6C4F:14F5:41DB:4C2D (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Does your comment have any relevance to the improvement of this article, or are you randomly venting? AnonMoos (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Removed paragraph on Goy term due to it misrepresenting current thinking on the term.

The follwong paragrpah from the racism section was removed here to the talk page becuase it misrepresent current thinking on the term Goy: 

The word "Goy" literally means "nation" but it has also come to be used as the standard term for anyone who is not Jewish. There are claims by some groups that the real meaning of "Goy" is "Animal". These claims are designed to make people believe that Jews see them as inferior.

Given the term has indeed be used in a derogatory maner towards gentiles in the past, the fact that some use it in the modern day as simple synonym for gentile does not mean it not offensive ever or generally acceptable to use (that point is still under debate). The paragraph says that some groups claim its real meaning is "animal" but since the specific groups said to define it that way are not mentioned I can't easuly verify thats true. But regardless, the term goy has indeed been used as a slur whether or not it's meaning was ever "animal" and thus use of the term goy can indeed be seen as Jews seeing gentiles as inferior in ast least some instances which is why its recomended not to use the term if you're Jewish to avoid questions about whether you're using it as a slur or not. As such I removed the whole paragraph since it's remained unsourced for many years now and it's present an inaccurate picture of the term Goy and thus the debate over it's offesniveness. If one wishes to add back in the discussion about the use of the term goy and whether it's far too often assumed to be a slur when supposedly not used in that mannor and thus wether its should be counted as a form of falsely exxergering jews hatred of gentiles then please do the following: a) Source such c;aims and b) Do not claim or even imply or suggest Goy is never or rarely a slur. It's currently a debatabble point whether the term Goy ever has a non-offensive role in society as synonom for gentile and thus it's debnatavle whether most most modern uses of the term should be viewed as non-offensive and not a sign of unjust Jewish hatered of gentiles. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 08:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, the "real" or original meaning of goy is "nation", so "animal" is 100% incorrect. There's a verse in Psalms which has been translated into English as "Why do the nations rage?" and also "Why do the heathen rage?" AnonMoos (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Cultural marxism and white genocide

The article needs separate sections along with examples of public figures who propagate them. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Is the word canard a specialist term that unnecessarily distances the reader from antisemitism

The ideas covered by this page should be accessible to all. The term "canard" is not in standard usage. I had to look up its meaning, even though I speak British English as my first language. To me, this puts antisemitism at an unnecessary distance. I therefore suggest that the page's title and be changed to "Antisemitic falsehood" ~~~~ Timlev37 (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

No, and this has been discussed before, please consult the archives before repeating questions. Sumanuil. 00:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Timlev37 -- in the context of this article "canard" basically means a false narrative which is revived again and again and again and again, no matter how many times it's been debunked... AnonMoos (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism § Scopes of antisemitic canards and stereotypes of Jews

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism § Scopes of antisemitic canards and stereotypes of Jews. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antisemitic_trope/Archive_2&oldid=1162965865"