Jump to content

Talk:Antisemitic trope/Archive 3

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

"Antisemitic tropes" might be better title

It has about 10x more google hits than "antisemitic canards" or "antisemitic myths". Everybody understands it. Almost nobody understands or uses the current title "canard", it is just like that. Current reporting shows that most journalists and commentators use "tropes".

Betternews (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

"Canard" was kind of chosen to convey the connotation of narratives which, no matter how many times they're debunked and refuted, keep recurring again and again and again. "Trope" reminds me more of the TV Tropes site. AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Yeah but we follow common names. I would support this move request. Red Slash 22:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

For years, Google Image searches for "baby porcupine" have brought up pictures of hedgehogs. Should we move that page? No. Catering to the lowest common denominator is not what we do. Sumanuil. 23:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Sumanuil: when addressing Google, more relevant to this article discussion might be the follwing: Even though for everybody using Google search concerning antisemitic tropes/myths/canards the article "antisemitic canard" popped up in the top search results for 15 years (as the relevant Wikipedia article is usually the top ranked search result) everybody still seems to call it predominantly "antisemitic tropes" by factor 10x. Without the past "Wikipedia support" the word "canard" would probably be outranked by far more than a factor of 10x by now. As there seems to be no significant adoption rate of a Wikipedia minority naming, there is also no point to proceed with it.
Even if you add the view how ADL - as the major Jewish organization specializing on antisemitic topics - addresses it, you don't arrive at another conclusion. A google search yields
- "antisemitic tropes" & ADL --> 13500 hits
- "antisemitic myths" & ADL --> 5000 hits
- "antisemitic canards" & ADL --> 3900 hits
Why should Wikipedia stick with a subjective weighing on a less used title, in a factor 10x contradiction compared to general usage, in a factor 3x contradiction compared to an organization specialized on antisemitic topics? ----Betternews (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
These terms are synonymous in the context, but 'canards' is the most rarefied English expression, making it a poor choice for readers. 'Tropes' is best. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

As there have been no factual arguments in this discussion against using the common real world description "antisemitic tropes", and as the discussion has already dried out, the title should now be moved to the common real world title "antisemitic tropes". Who has the technical knowhow to change the title? --Betternews (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Red Slash: You're quite active in and knowledgeable about move discussions. Do you think we can bold move this, or would a formal move discussion be better first? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

If some people hate the word "canard", then "Antisemitic narratives" would be a much better alternative title, since the word "tropes" could suggest merely vague abstract motifs and thematic elements... AnonMoos (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

And canard could suggest a duck or part of an aircraft, but we are not judging names by the least applicable examples in their definitions. 'Tropes' is far better plain English, and a dominant term in overall usage (see Ngrams). When the common name fits and is perfectly functional, no need to scrabble around in the dust for more descriptive alternative titles. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
@anonmoos: since "tropes" is by far the common name used for the tropes/myths/canards described in this article, do you want to share what "vague abstract motifs and thematic elements" you see that would prohibit Wikipedia from also using the common name? --Betternews (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Whatever; a "trope" could be "ordinary girl next door turns out to be the beautiful love interest". I'm not too sure what it has in common with the material on this article... AnonMoos (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: No it couldn't - that is an example of a trope (in film), not one of its definitions. I suggest we avoid intentional misdirection. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
"Tropes" carries no meaning of "falsehood". "Canard" does, which it's why we use it. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
A very good point, thanks. AnonMoos (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@jpgordan: who is the “we” in “why we use [Canard]”? The real world (of the more than 1 billion English-speaking inhabitants on the globe) still overwhelmingly uses “antisemtic tropes” and thereby makes "tropes" the commonly used name.

@jpgordan: why would Wikipedia editors want to develop its own theory which assumed properties of “antisemitic tropes/myths/canards” need to be directly reflected in its commonly used title, and even conclude that the real world title is inferior (to Wikipedia editor's own research results) as it wouldn’t reflect the property ”falsehood”?

@jpgordan: when developping one's own theory in a quick way, one easily gets him/herself into contradictions as it seems to happen here when putting up the theory that “falsehood” is a mandatory property of the phenomenon and must be reflected in the title and therefore “canard” is better than “trope”. The contradiction is that the property “falsehood” as a mandatory property would exclude "sensational reports“ (in the first sentence of the article) and “unfounded rumors” (in the first sentence until 2020).

@anonmoos: your answer seems to indicate that you don’t want to share what you mean with “vague abstract motifs and thematic elements”, so why do you bring it up in the first place? --Betternews (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

"We" in this context is "the Wikipedia community as demonstrated by the established consensus on this article". The Google hit count doesn't matter, since "tropes" are not "canards", though some canards might be tropes and some tropes might be canards. I've no idea what you are talking about regarding developing one's own theory. Falsehood indeed is a mandatory property of the phenomenon of antisemitic canards. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 19:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
And "antisemitic statements" has 10x more google hits than "antisemitic tropes" and "antisemitic incidents" has 20x more, so maybe we should change the title to one of those? No. Mathglot (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Really? Is that the level of this discussion?--Betternews (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Search engine test#What a search test can do, and what it can't: Search engines cannot: [..] Guarantee why something is mentioned a lot, and that it isn't due to marketing, reposting as an internet meme, spamming, or self-promotion, rather than importance. Googling is not how such things are decided. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Strong circular echo chamber effect (for "canard")

When adding “-Wikipedia” to a Google search comparing “antisemitic tropes” to “antisemitic canards” the search results for “canard” totally break down to less than halve while the search results for “tropes” remain relative stable. This is a clear indication that the current minority title “canards” is to a large part only used because its notability is pushed by Wikipedia for around 15 years. This means in the absence of Wikipedia the notability of "canard" is even much more a "minority" title than shown in the above discussions. We can assume that this CIRCULAR or ECHO CHAMBER effect is not the way Wikipedia wants to work. --Betternews (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Scoring on the 5 WP:CRITERIA ("canard" vs "trope")

Scoring the titles “antisemitic canard” (AC) and “antisemitic trope” (AT) on the 5 WP:CRITERIA

1_Recognizability: as many comments for this article again and again have shown, many people don’t even passively understand AC, so this goes to AT. 2_Naturalness: (what title readers are likely to look or search for) People will not actively search for AC if they don’t even passively understand it. So this goes to AT as well as. 3_Precision: (unambiguously identifies the article's subject): Most people would say that AT unambiguously identifies the topic as everyone uses it for this topic, also shown by the numerous publications and press coverage in the last months. Some people in this discussion say AT could be misleading but present no proof or examples for it, even though it is not really comprehensible. So this would be as pass between the titles AC and AT. 4_Concision and 5_Consistency don’t seem to be relevant as criteria to select between AC and AT.

So, applying these 5 criteria, one would select “antisemitic trope” (AT)

(even if one arguments that the criterion "3_Precision:" would be in favour of AC it wouldn't change the total result for AT) --Betternews (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

even if one arguments that the criterion "3_Precision:" would be in favour of AC it wouldn't change the total result for AT Of course it would. This isn't a vote amongst the criteria where a title either passes or fails each of the criteria. Items can pass or fail by degrees. The proposed new title abjectly fails "precision", far more than it improves on any of the other criteria (for which any improvement is quite minor). Recognizability: wash; both are equal. There may a vocal minority that doesn't know the common English language word canard but we don't cater to the lowest common denominator; if that's needed there's https://simple.wikipedia.org/. Naturalness, concision, and consistently are all equal so the status quo is the clear winner. VQuakr (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
You are declaring that “pass or fail by degrees” is the Wikipedia way to apply the 5 criteria. But you forgot to apply “pass or fail by degrees”, so I might jump in: (with 4 different degrees: 1 pt = maximum degree of failure, 4 pt = maximum degree of passing):
1_Recognizability: (recognizable name/description): it is no coincidence that from the start on many authors voiced again and again their concerns in the comment section to the effect that the title “AC” is kind of a foreign object, and many people don’t even passively understand AC or at least have never heard/seen the topic to be called like this. This is consistent with the fact that almost all publishing and public discussions about the topic name it AT, and that is probably the main reason people are having problems understanding what AC should stand for. (AC = 2 pt, AT = 4 pt).
2_Naturalness: (what title readers would likely look or search for). If AC is struggling to be even a passively renowned for the topic, people will certainly not actively search with the term “AC” but go with the clear real world majority name “AT”. (AC = 1 pt, AT = 4 pt).
3_Precision: (unambiguously identifies the article's subject): There is no real doubt that AT unambiguously identifies the topic because 1) as there is an unambiguous understanding what the adjective “antisemitic” means, 2) the expression AT is so broadly used for exact this tropic thereby defining it. I know that some people in this discussion try to assess that the word “trope” alone would not be precise enough, but they forget that the discussion is about “antisemitic tropes” including the unambiguous adjective “antisemitic”. AC is precise as well with the slight disadvantage that it is a double negative (“anti” is negative, “canard” is negative in the sense of not true). Some might argue that a double negative makes the meaning less precise, some don’t care about those details. ( AC = 3 pt ; AT = 3 pt )
4_ Concision: (title is no longer than necessary); both the titles AC and AT consist of two words and no abbreviations are used. ( AC = 3 pt ; AT = 3 pt )
5_ Consistency : (title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles); as there are also “Anti-Christian Tropes” and "Anti-Muslim Tropes" and so on, AC would clearly make the naming pattern inconsistent if used in Wikipedia. But the other articles are not yet on Wikipedia so it is up to now only a potential inconsistency. ( AC = 2 pt ; AT = 3 pt )
The sum is 11 pt. for AC and 17 pt. for AT which means AC fails by many degrees and the AT is to be selected according to the 5 Wikipedia criteria.
Even if people have slightly different flavours or if some assess “tropes” instead of “antisemitic tropes” which is not admissible, it wouldn’t change the total result for AT as the result for AT is pretty robust. Add to this that AC’s notability is mainly a (not existent) “pseuso”notability because of the strong circular echo effect (see section above) and the result is even more clear for AT.--Betternews (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Notability applies to subjects, not names. Not an issue. I already provided my evaluation I'm just better at being terse. I also noted that there is no recognizability issue with using common English words; this is a descriptive title. Precision is the key failure of the proposed title here despite your handwaving. Since Anti-Christian tropes and Anti-Muslim tropes don't exist your argument that we may be consistent with them some day is nonsensical. VQuakr (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that "AT" appears overwhelmingly more in any type of sources (general, news, scholar) and is therefore the WP:COMMONNAME, and apart from the fact that the seldomly used name "AC” has (anyway) only a Wikipedia driven notability (see section above), “AT” also scores much higher on the 5 WP:CRITERIA in a robust way. Your reply doesn't change any of that, so my view stays that a small group of like 10 people try to Wikipedia-push the totally unknown title “AC” against all clear evidence for “AT” (for a billion+ readers of the English speaking world).--Betternews (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Ten people with a collective experience of decades of experience here and hundreds of thousands of edits, as opposed to your 97 edits on seven articles in six years. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 16:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Not quite right: ca 10 people for "AT" with an overwhelming support of real world statistical facts and sources, and ca 10 other people for "AC" weighing in a lot of personal POV and trying to ignore that "AC" is mainly a Wikipedia-pushed name with no statistical notability outside Wikipedia.
The ca 10 "AC" people's comments are to be boosted because of "their decades of experience here"? Should that make up for the fact they don't even have an answer to the basic question why the whole world even incl specialized organizations like ADL are calling it overwhelmingly "AT" in their headings and not "AC" ?)--Betternews (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Requesting a move

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: Moved. The !votes were somewhat split in this RM, but WP:CONSENSUS on Wikipedia is formed by viewing arguments through the lens of policy rather than strictly on a vote count. As such, given that it was clearly demonstrated that "antisemitic trope" is the most common name in sources, the article is moved there. There was a counterargument that the proposed title is not accurate for the topic material in question, but this proposition was not evidenced or proven in the context of common usage.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Antisemitic canard → Antisemitic trope – As evidenced in the discussion above, "antisemitic canard" (AC) is simply a far less common title for this topic than "antisemitic trope" (AT). Pieces of evidence include:

- "antisemitic tropes" & ADL --> 13500 hits
- "antisemitic myths" & ADL --> 5000 hits
- "antisemitic canards" & ADL --> 3900 hits

(ADL being the famous Anti-Defamation League)

Or just raw Ngrams: frankly overwhelming

There's no compelling reason to keep this topic away from its common name. Red Slash 21:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

jpgordon, in your arguments against the clear majority name "tropes" you may have been trapped as you make two wrong assumptions: 1. You seem to assume that the falsehood of anti-semitic tropes can be “proven” but in reality one can usually only prove that a trope is “unfounded” which means there is no proof for it. This is the same logic as is applicable in most courtrooms around the world: usually in a trial you can’t proof that someone is innocent but it is generally sufficient to show that there is no proof that the defendant is guilty because the defendant usually doesn't have the burden of proof and he can therefore be considered innocent if he is not proven guilty. 2. When setting up your theory why the seldomly used word “canard” would be needed in Wikipedia against the clear real world majority for “tropes” you cling on to “canard” for the wrong reasons: you assume that “canard” means that the falsehoods of an issue was (scientifically) “proven”. But “canard” also encompasses the meaning of “unfounded” rumors.--Betternews (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
not true. Most of them are provable bullshit. World domination. Protocols of the elders of zion. Controlling the media and Hollywood. Controlling the world economic system. Usury. Profiteering. Kosher tax. Propagation of Communism. Guilt for killing that guy. Host desecration. Blood libel. Impurity. Male menstruation. Well poisoning. Making people gay. Provoking antisemitism. Lack of patriotism. Inventing the Holocaust. Organ harvesting. Leading role in slavery. Jews did 9/11. Bullshit across the board, factually bullshit across the board, and "tropes" does not indicate in any way that content. 2) I don't have a theory. "Canards" aren't unfounded rumors, they're lies. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 20:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Actually, in 2018 you yourself clarified that this article is about “unfounded rumors” (or false allegations) [here]
Now above, in 2022, you state that “Canards aren't unfounded rumors”, so according to your own logic and argumentation “Canard” is the wrong title. But you still try to have "Canards" as title. Politics?--Betternews (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Why don’t we leave politics to politicians (who often twist their own arguments if it helps their (current) political agenda as that is their politician job). If this discussion is about how the real English speaking world names it (and not about whatever personal theories or political interests) you could also answer the question below why the main organization dedicated to eliminating antisemitism for decades (ADL) can be so wrong using the clear majority name “tropes” for the issues of this article, and why some selective anonymous contributors should be right wanting an absolute minority title?--Betternews (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
In the title on top level of its website, even the major organization against anti-semitism ADL calls all the issues of this article “Antisemitic Tropes”. ( www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-video-series-explores-the-most-enduring-antisemitic-tropes , Published: 03.08.2022 ). If even ADL goes with the clear majority name in its title, it makes no sense that Wikipedia goes with a clear minority name.--Betternews (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
@AnonMoos, @Jpgordon: I too would like to hear how the ADL, which is dedicated to eliminating antisemitism, doesn't know what it is talking about. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


  • Strongly OPPOSED: "Trope" is a very vague word which can refer to abstract motifs or thematic elements, which are not entirely relevant to this article. And more importantly (as been pointed out several times above), the word "trope" does not convey any implication of falsehood, which goes against the basic purpose of this article. AnonMoos (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
We should not assume a (subjective) "purpose" of the article and develop own theories to support this (subjective) purpose against the clear real world majority name.--Betternews (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Betternews -- You're very forceful in hastily telling people what you think they're saying. Maybe you should devote a little more effort to listening to what they're actually saying. AnonMoos (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
AnonMoos – maybe it’s the opposite, maybe you are (“very forcefully”) crying out “opposed” in capital letters and at the same time try to block others from being able to “listen” to you what you are "actually saying" (at least in the above discussion you denied to share what you mean when accusing (the majority of) people naming it tropes of having “vague abstract motifs and thematic elements”).--Betternews (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't know why you can't just conduct an ordinary conversation, without constantly telling other people that what they're actually saying is different from what they think they're saying. This trait of yours does not add anything of real value to the discussion, and in any case, maybe people know better what they're saying than you do. AnonMoos (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
And I don't know why you are so keen talking so much about me instead of answering the unanswered questions posed to you --Betternews (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
And "canard" is a word that conveys implications of being a misspelled bird. Nobody uses the word "canard", and nobody knows what it means. And nobody needs to be told that these tropes are false. What, are you suggesting that some antisemitic tropes are true? We don't need titles like Adolf Hitler The Really Bad Person, Great Leap Forward That Actually Was Horrible And Killed Lots Of People, or Cancer Which Is A Really Bad Disease I Wish Would Go Away. Just name things what they are and let the article shed light on the validity. Red Slash 18:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Canard still means duck - it comes from the Medieval French expression “vendre un canard à moitié”, which literally means “to sell half a duck”. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't know what this is supposed to really mean -- the "false narrative" meaning is much more prominent than any poultry-related meaning in ordinary modern English. No poultry-related meanings are listed in the English section of https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/canard ... AnonMoos (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
No, canard does not mean "duck" in English. That's its etymology not its definition. VQuakr (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Why is it relevant at all (other than conducting politics) to defend the clear minority title “antisemitic canard”, a title that has the proven lowest possible notability and additionally, a title with a notability mainly driven by a Wikipedia circular echo chamber effect (see section above) ? --Betternews (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Why do you keep insistently implying that anybody who disagrees with your own personal position is ipso facto either uninformed or acting in bad faith?? This sure doesn't help in clarifying or resolving any issues, but the fact that you're unable to admit the existence of informed good-faith disagreement can have a rather annoying effect... AnonMoos (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
No reason to repeatedly attack those who use the abundantly available statistics and sources. If you really feel to be possibly “acting in bad faith” maybe stopping to ignore obvious questions posed to you might lighten your mood, but the whole thing here is voluntary, so I chose to stop feeding you (hopefully it's mutual).--Betternews (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Because the article is about unfounded rumors and fabrications. That's what the word "canard" means. "Trope" doesn't. We aver to "conspiracy theory", "hoax" and such falsehoods in article titles. Moreover, "trope" is a rather over-used word on the internet, applied poorly and out of context, and makes no sense outside of literary topics. And this is not a literary topic. Walrasiad (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
The discussion here is not about “tropes”, it is about the “Antisemitic tropes”.
“over-used” seems a bit very personal and political. At least the leading organization against antisemitism ADL is still prominently using it in 2022, as it is the clear majority name in the English-speaking realm
The word “hamburger” is also “over-used” since decades, so it is time to change it now?--Betternews (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
"Over-used" is my gentle way of saying that it is being used by people who don't actually know the meaning of the word. Walrasiad (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
@Walrasiad: So ... you believe the Anti-Defamation League "don't actually know the meaning of the word" [1]? The problem here isn't that 'tropes' is overused, which is a highly subjective, qualitative and editorializing judgement. The problem is that 'canard' is language that is obscure, rarefied and simply not plain English. And in this usage instance, not even the common name. The issues being endlessly raised about tropes not containing enough meaning are wholly irrelevant, because the phrase being judged here is "antisemitic tropes", with an adjectival modifier that makes plain what the topic is - do you have a source that uses "antisemitic tropes" to mean anything but the exact subject here? Iskandar323 (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, whoever wrote that is misusing the word. They should have consulted a dictionary. Walrasiad (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Editorializing in plain sight - as I said, this is your value judgement, not neutrality with respect to reliable sources. Google scholar has 277 hits for "antisemitic trope" to 103 hits for "antisemitic canard", so these dictionary-based assumptions only hold if you also hold that academic peer review is broken. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm copyediting, not editorializing. Words have meaning and definitions, you can find them in a dictionary. Don't misuse them. This is almost as grinding as hearing somebody use the word "literally" to mean "figuratively". Just because a lot of people do it, doesn't mean they're using the word correctly.
Of course, there are such things as "Antisemitic tropes". The Wandering Jew, for instance, is a trope. But that's not what this article is about. This article is about "Antisemitic canards". Walrasiad (talk) 08:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
@Walrasiad: If you think there is a serious distinction between the two then this subject needs a lot of work across Wikipedia then, because articles such as Wandering Jew are currently listed under Category:Antisemitic canards, so there is a current lack of on-Wiki distinction between the two. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
A trope can also be a canard, but it need not be. Conversely, a canard is not necessarily a trope either. They are distinct concepts. This article is about canards - as it points out in its lede, this article is about "sensational reports, misrepresentations, or fabrications". This complies with the dictionary definition of "canard", e.g. "an unfounded rumor or story", or "a false or baseless, usually derogatory story, report, or rumor." Now go look up the definition of "trope", and tell me if you think it has the same meaning (e.g. "recurring element or a frequently used plot device in a work of literature or art.") You still think they're the same? Walrasiad (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
@Walrasiad: I'm aware of the different nuances, in principle, of 'canard' and 'trope', but I do not see the usage in the context, when modified with the term "antisemitic", maintaining these nuances. No meaningful distinction remains in modern literature. Going back to the dictionary and bemoaning the misuse of the English language simply belies the literary trend. Wikipedia is not the Institut Français for the English language. If academics are abusing the word "tropes" when used in the context of the phrase "antisemitic tropes", well, unfortunately, it has already been abused beyond repair. The language has clearly moved on. A few examples, all showing academic usage:
  • "It accepts the usual antisemitic trope of a worldwide cabal of powerful Jews..." [2]
  • "...the unchecked demonization of George Soros as an antisemitic trope..." [3]
  • "...deploys the standard antisemitic trope of crassly commercial merchants..." [4]
  • "...promoting an antisemitic trope about Jewish domination..." [5]
  • "Thus, at some point in the past, when the antisemitic trope of the blood-thirsty Jew was created..." [6]
While is it possible to intellectually argue that vast swathes of scholars are hopelessly adrift with respect to the English language and have no idea what they are writing, the weight of scholarship suggests instead that the meaning of "tropes" simply differs in this particular context. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Oh, the language hasn't moved on. The words retain their definitions. It just seems some people don't understand what a "trope" is, and insist on imposing their misunderstanding. Walrasiad (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
P.S. The functional meaning of "canard" in the context of this article is rather similar to what the Washington Post calls a "bottomless pinocchio", as I said here back in 2018 (now in the talk page archives). The word "trope" does not indicate or hint at this in any way... AnonMoos (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
The WP article is about Trumps general habit of lying, nothing to do with “antisemitic tropes” or “antisemitic canards”, so not relevant. Why do you still not answer the (relevant) questions posed to you above concerning the topic of this discussion? --Betternews (talk) 09:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Why do you still refuse to acknowledge the existence of well-informed good-faith disagreement with your own personal views? AnonMoos (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
"Bottomless pinocchio" is another example of exactly the type of obscure phrase that we should be moving away from, not towards. Plain English. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Whatever; I wasn't pointing to the phrasing, but to the IDEA -- something which constantly recurs no matter how many times it's refuted. It's much the same as what other people call "zombie" narratives -- ideas which can't be killed -- and something lacking from the meaning word "trope"... AnonMoos (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the article is about "canards" (a false or unfounded report or story; especially : a fabricated report), rather than "tropes" (a common or overused theme or device : CLICHÉ; the usual horror movie tropes). Definitions are from https://www.merriam-webster.com/. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
    It seems a bit political or awkward to imply “Antisemitic tropes” as being “over-used”. It is simply the clear majority title and has by far the highest notability.
    The discussion here is not about “tropes”, it is about the “Antisemitic tropes”. (maybe it is clearer with another example: if one assesses whether “letter box” is a suitable name for what it is, one would never refrain from “letter box” because “box” (alone) is “over-used” or found in many kinds of words, like a “set-top box” an so on) --Betternews (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
    We're not saying the word is over-used; that's the definition of "trope". Notability is an article inclusion criterion and is irrelevant to a renaming discussion. VQuakr (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per K.e.coffman et al. As Hob Gadling and others have explained, search engine hits are not the whole story. Just because something has more hits, doesn't make it the COMMONNAME, if they don't refer to the same concept. Also, it's a good idea to state one's views and then mostly sit back and let the process play out; it isn't necessary to respond to every comment. Mathglot (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. It has been shown to be more more common in google scholar. Also, the proposed name is more WP:RECOGNIZABLE. Per ngrams, the word trope is used around 20 times more frequently than canard (in general, not just applied to antisemitism, see [7]). And a good chunk of the results for "canard" refer to canard (aeronautics). It is just not a widely known or used term. Vpab15 (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
    The requirement for Recognizability is to The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. Both titles are equally recognizable. We have an article at J. K. Rowling (not: Joanne Rowling). There is no requirement or expectation to choose words that happen to be more commonly used in English. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABLE are the same requirement. VQuakr (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
    @VQuakr: This is some very odd misrepresentation of the naming guideline. WP:COMMONNAME is not simply part of WP:CRITERIA and it does not fall under it. WP:RECOGNIZABLE redirects to WP:CRITERIA, not WP:COMMONNAME. They are overlapping, not identical guidelines. Naming defers to WP:CRITERIA when no obvious common name is present. "Wikipedia ... generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly." To make as if WP:COMMONNAME is merely part of WP:CRITERIA is to skip an entire part of the naming process entirely. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
    COMMONNAME (actually "use commonly recognizable names") is the same criterion as "recognizability". It isn't some special additional criterion; it's one of the five. That's not a novel interpretation. VQuakr (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
    As the quote above makes plain, recourse to the criteria is a secondary step that comes into play where no common name is present. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
    No, this is not correct. The quote doesn't support your conclusion. Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. COMMONNAME is one of those 5 criteria; further down WP:TITLE has sections detailing the other criteria, too. UCRN just happens to be described first. The 5 criteria are how we select article titles; they are not a "secondary step". VQuakr (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
    Nope. You're mixing apples and oranges. The distinctions and contingent circumstances are plainly written down in both sections. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
    There's no apples and oranges here. I already provided the relevant quote from the guideline that makes clear you're confused about COMMONNAME being some special super-guideline when it's really just a slight misnomer for one of the 5C. VQuakr (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
    You provided the quote that comes immediately after "When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources...", so yes, you quoted from the contingent circumstances contained in the guideline. But forget it. Clearly this is going nowhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Vpab15-- Unfortunately, the fact that one phrase occurs more frequently than another phrase in search engine results does not guarantee that it occurs more frequently in the specific relevant meaning under discussion. And the fact that "trope" occurs more frequently as a single word than "canard" as a single word is almost totally irrelevant here... AnonMoos (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: "antisemitic trope" appears more frequently than "antisemitic canard" in general, in news and on scholar - same result regardless. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Agree, in this case it is not very relevant that "trope" happens more frequently than "canard" on its own since "antisemitic trope" is the clear common name. However, the frequency of the single word could be a useful proxy for recognisability if both options were similarly common, which doesn't appear to be the case. Vpab15 (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Iskandar323 -- Unfortunately, you're somewhat missing the main point -- the fact that one phrase occurs more frequently than another phrase in search engine results does not guarantee that it occurs more frequently in the specific meaning which is most relevant to this article. AnonMoos (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: In theory, but no examples have as of yet been provided showing that the terms are anything but synonymous in the context. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with Vpab15 that "trope" is significantly more recognizable, both in general and in specific context. It is not the job of an article title to say that the ideas that are the subject of the article are false; that is the job of the article itself, a job which it is doing amply well. Adumbrativus (talk) 01:42, 26 November 2022 (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.

Poor move

Terribly disappointing. Evidently, dictionaries are not enough, internet-fed ignorance of the English language prevails. An erroneous term, cheaply misapplied by bad Youtube videos, an awkward phrase that did not even exist until recently (ngram), is suddenly deemed "common".

Anyway, the article now needs to be re-scoped to actually refer to tropes, i.e. narrowing it to plot and character devices used in literary and visual works of art. It should omit references to reports, rumors, speeches, etc. Walrasiad (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

No it should not be rescoped. That would be quasi-vandalism motivated by "nominative determinism"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Unless it is embedded in a work of art, it is not a trope. And reports and rumors aren't works of art. The article content needs to reflect the title. Walrasiad (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
The move was ill-advised, but mangling the article to conform to the bad title would be compounding the stupidity, expanding the badness into new areas, doubling down on the awkwardness. I see no reason to "cut off our nose to spite our face", as the proverb says... AnonMoos (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I admit I would hate to see this article dismembered. This is a very good article on canards, but it is a terrible article on tropes. I'd actually welcome a separate good article on antisemitic tropes - there is probably enough focused material on anti-semitism in art to compose one. So two articles might work better than this awkward nonsense. Walrasiad (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)i
It makes limited sense to continue ignoring that these discussions are about the (globally and widely used 2-word-expression for the exact content of this article) "antisemitic trope" and they are absolutely not about the general (single-word) “trope"--Betternews (talk) 07:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
A trope is a "a recurring theme or idea" ([8]). Most or all of the canards mentioned in the article are reported to have happened more than once. They are recurring canards and therefore they are tropes. I don't see any change in scope. Vpab15 (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
...in a work of art, not in life. We also don't refer to objectives as "plots", speeches as "soliloquies", reports as "flashbacks" or children as "sequels". Unless you are really so internet-addled you imagine you live in a movie 24/7. Walrasiad (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
You do not have, and have never had, a dictionary definition for "antisemitic trope" or "antisemitic canard" - you are confusing the dictionary definitions you have found for the second words in those compound phrases with the resulting meaning of the compound phrases, which are in fact synonymous in usage. The semantic dissonance is entirely imagined. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
There obviously is no editor supporting re-scoping of the article, and doing so because we "have to" would be WP:POINTy. VQuakr (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
@Walrasiad:, the best approach if you believe it was a poor resolution of the move request (which is not necessarily the same thing as what you might have intended by the term poor move), is to open a discussion at Wikipedia:Move review. But note that this is strictly for reviews of a closer's evaluation of the arguments that were presented at the RM itself. If you think the closer made the inevitable choice based on a lot of bad input, then a Move review would not be appropriate, and your only recourse in that case is to initiate another Move request, after a decent delay (months, at least). Mathglot (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, someone has already initiated a move review: here. Walrasiad (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

not so poor

too bad if "oppose" !votes try to rediscuss while not even having replied to the obvious inconsistencies shown in the previous discussion.--Betternews (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Jewish Life from Napoleon to Hitler

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2023 and 21 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Acargasacchi (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Acargasacchi (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Extinct pagan antisemitic tropes?

I wonder if it would be a good idea to include anti-Jewish tropes that were used in pre-Christian times. The reason they're not in the article now is because most of them fell dramatically out of favor after Christianity caught on.

E.g., at one point it was extremely common to attack Jews as disloyal for not engaging in emperor worship like most other civilizations did. Since Christianity also rejects emperor worship, this line of attack mostly died out when paganism did. Similarly, circumcision was frequently invoked by Greeks and Romans to portray Jewish men as sexually abnormal; this trope lost most of its appeal with the rise of Christianity (which worships a circumcised savior) and even more so Islam (which actually adopted the practice for itself). Pagans also ridiculed the Jews for looking to messiah figures for salvation, which is ironic since Christians would later do the _exact_ opposite by attacking the Jews for rejecting Jesus as messiah.

Since these archaic forms of antisemitism mostly went extinct, it might seem less relevant to include them in the article now. The only time they appear nowadays is in the rhetoric of some fringe-y neopagan types, particularly those with a Nietzschean bent like Bronze Age Pervert.

However, including these early antisemitic tropes would certainly help illustrate just how very _different_ classical (pagan) society and its mores were from ours. In a lot of ways, secular modernity has more in common with Christendom than either of them do with your typical ancient pagan society. (This, incidentally, is one of the things that really irks guys like BAP). 2600:1014:B091:1360:255F:B007:8DDA:5509 (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems within scope and reasonable to include material on this. Yes, prejudice and therefore tropes did not begin only with Christendom. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
By the way, Romans attacked Christians just as much as Jews for not worshipping the emperor -- sometimes even more so, since such practices by Jews were sometimes tolerated if they were following their ancestral religion, while Christians would not receive the same benefit of the doubt if they were perceived as practicing a new or innovated religion (in Roman eyes, a new religion was much more suspect than an ancestral one). AnonMoos (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
P.S. Both Jews and Christians were sometimes called "atheists" by ancient Greco-Romans, in the sense of refusing to recognize the deities involved in various social and political rituals... AnonMoos (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

"Well poisoning hoax"

someone should add a section here about Israeli poisoning of Palestinian wells and causing widespread sickness and death

page for reference = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well_poisoning#:~:text=Israel%20poisoned%20the%20wells%20and,that%20was%20foiled%20by%20the

Thank you FelixRicher (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Having seen your message, it is clear that article has exactly served its purpose. Steven1991 (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Changing source on well poisoning hoax

Is it possible to choose a different source for the summary on the well poisoning hoax (the 14th citation)? I believe the citation leads to a pro-Zionist website; another article published from them covering a university student rally used the word genocide in quotations (to deny its occurance). Throwaway200 (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Throwaway200, reliable sources are allowed to have their own point of view, and favoring Zionism does not lead to the conclusion that the source is unreliable, any more than a published source opposing Zionism means that source is unreliable. Nor does calling into question the point of view that Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza render a source unreliable. Cullen328 (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
What do you mean by "pro-Zionist"? Steven1991 (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Minor clarifications regarding Demonization in other religions or movements

The word "insecurity" is in quotes, but I'm having problems finding where in the 3 given sources it's specifically used.

Secondly, can I remove the links in who & accused? They read as clear WP:EASTEREGGS. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Scare quotes

@Steven1991: Can you please stop using scare quotes ie Messianic "Jews". Your edit note says "but “Messianic Judaism” is not considered as Judaism but an Evangelical Christian movement – this is discussed in its relevant Wikipedia article." If you read the article Messianic Judaism you will see that the article isn't titled Messianic "Judiaism" and doesn't put Jews or Judaism in scare quotes at all. Scare quotes are a way of editorialising and expressing scorn and should be avoided as POV. Some ultraorthodox reject the state of Israel as contrary to the belief that there cannot be a state before the Messiah returns. Does this mean we should be writing "Israel" in scare quotes? Most Christians believe the Mormons are a heretical un-Christian sect. Does that mean we should write Church of "Jesus Christ" and Latter-Day Saints? Please try to write neutrally. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

In the context of their own articles, scare quotes are not appropriate. However, when they are placed in other articles not directly related, quotes are sometimes needed to avoid causing confusion or granting the objects legitimacy we are not supposed to. I believe that not a few folks would say that it is wrong to put National Socialism in quotation when it shows up in articles not directly related to Nazism. Whether quote use is not neutral, it depends on context, and sometimes individual perceptions. Steven1991 (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I understand your concern, but simply state my points. If such quote use is not desirable, then – yes – due attention can be paid in future edits, but it doesn’t mean that such quote use is inherently a form of editorialisation. Journalists regularly use quotation marks for different subjects/objects they are reporting. Does it mean they are biased? Yes, many of them are. However, it is also important to note that the impact of such quote use ought not to be exaggerated. Steven1991 (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Does it mean they may be* Steven1991 (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
"Journalists regularly use quotation marks for different subjects/objects they are reporting." - that's quoting - as I've just done. Scare quotes are "quotation marks used around a word or phrase when they are not required, thereby eliciting attention or doubts", according to the online OED. Our own article on scare quotes says "Scare quotes (also called shudder quotes,[1][2] and sneer quotes,[3][4][5]) are quotation marks that writers place around a word or phrase to signal that they are using it in an ironic, referential, or otherwise non-standard sense.[6] Scare quotes may indicate that the author is using someone else's term, similar to preceding a phrase with the expression "so-called";[7] they may imply skepticism or disagreement, belief that the words are misused, or that the writer intends a meaning opposite to the words enclosed in quotes.[8] Whether quotation marks are considered scare quotes depends on context because scare quotes are not visually different from actual quotations. The use of scare quotes is sometimes discouraged in formal or academic writing." Wellington Bay (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
As I said, I acknowledge your POV and have agreed to pay attention to the quote use. I understand that you don’t see it that way, but am simply asserting my points. I know that you will not agree given the fundamental differences on this issue or more, so I don’t see the meaning of repeating the same points. I have said everything I need to regarding this specific matter. Steven1991 (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Number & quality of sources

There are way too many citations being used to support the same sentences throughout this article. We shouldn't even have citations in the opening, yet the first paragraph alone has 8, 7 of which are for the the same sentence. Mind you, some parts then triple that, with this sentence

"Jersey City Shooting (7 dead and 3 injured) and Monsey Hanukkah stabbing (1 dead and 4 injured)."

clocking in at 26 inline citations.

Furthermore, the quality of sourcing is severely lacking with sources ranging from a lack of attribution (ADL, Newsweek, Washington Examiner, MEMRITV, National Review, The Daily Beast), unreliability (Free Beacon, Jewish Virtual Library, New York Post, The Federalist, Rolling Stone, Fox News), or never should've been cited at all (Heritage Foundation).

This is by no means an exhaustive look through, but I think these problems are more then enough to warrant concern, especially for an article like this. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say whether a piece of news is reliable it should depend on content rather than source. Dismissing an entire report based on a source is not neutral or objective itself. Steven1991 (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes we should dismiss reports depending on their quality & reputation, that's the point of classifying reliable sources. Regardless though, we do not source statements in WP:WIKIVOICE from the Heritage Foundation, let alone as an authority on antisemitism. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
OK. I see your point. Steven1991 (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Just to make sure that it would not fall into the trap of ad hominem, then it would be fine. Personally, I prefer the BBC, Guardian, Politico, Washington Post etc., when it comes to something not regional-specific. Otherwise, less “mainstream” sources have to be used.Steven1991 (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
agree this article is a mess and needs significant copy editting and fixing at this point. sourcing is a mess as well Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
boldly did revert back to last good version. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Steven1991 (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Most of the “irrelevant” citations have already been removed after a day of fixing. Thank you for your suggestion. I will continue while looking for better sources for content that may involve/involves abstract ideas. Steven1991 (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think WP:TNT is merited here. There are some improvements mixed in with the unreliable sources and other editors who are established editors making edits. Let's all try to AGF and actually constructively improve given that Steven1991 has agreed to channel his energies into policy-abiding improvements. Andre🚐 06:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Coming back from the noticeboards, I have to say that @Bluethricecreamman's report was in no way meritless & I would ask you to show a little more respect then to question their "maturity". While @Steven1991 has said they're willing to collaborate & I appreciate that, they've spent more time throwing around aspersions.
As I said before, this wasn't TNT, this article was not completely scrapped. It was only reverted to a more neutral version. If any useful edits were undone, we can add them back later, but right now this article's current state is worse then it was before. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
So where is the WP:AGF for me in the first place? Steven1991 (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
It is not “throwing around aspersions” to defend my edits and object to mass reversals for the reasons as mentioned. It is an editing disagreement and I am allowed to disagree with certain actions, especially the significant one having been conducted by the user without prior participation in the discussion. As I said, we are/may be living in different time zones and there is a time lag in messages being received and viewed, so any consensus cannot be made within such a short time when I am already making an effort to revise the article in accordance with your concerns. Steven1991 (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
while I am* Steven1991 (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
AGF isn't the same as tolerating poor editing. One can assume you're acting in good faith while still concluding it is necessary to revert edits for being poorly sourced or for violating WP:NPOV. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
“Poor editing” is very subjective and vulnerable to arbitrary interpretations influenced by individual biases. Just because you don’t agree with the tone of certain sentences, it doesn’t automatically imply the existence of any significant POV issues. As far as I am concerned, I haven’t seen indications that the WP:AGF given that most of the concerns placed on relevant Talk pages sound very demanding, if not accusatory. I am not saying that some of my previous interactions were devoid of issues, but, seriously, some of those concerns didn’t appear to have been phrased with sufficient politeness. Yet, I acknowledged almost every one of them and have been working hard to rectify the issues. You can still be dissatisfied due to your own political opinion, but it is important to be fair rather than (1) do mass deletion of others’ edits without due discussion, much less “consensus”, under which circumstance my suspicion of vandalism is totally justified – one won’t be going into a random article, erasing 100,000+ words of content at whim while expecting the contributors to be silent (2) learn to appreciate and collaborate when you expect others to do so (3) put aside individual biases and apply the NPOV rule equally. Steven1991 (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
indications that the WP:AGF have been adequately followed by other parties* Steven1991 (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Can you please stop assuming people are trying to push their "biases" or "political opinions"?
The issue, as has been said before, is not the "tone of certain sentences", it was choices of citations that lead to "significant POV issues", as you've rightfully acknowledged & dutifully acted on. Your aggressive defensiveness however is unproductive & I feel may hinder collaboration efforts.
(Also, I'd like to apologize to editors here in general for not helping with cleaning up the article myself, but much of the article has become entangled in WP:PIA & I'm no where near WP:XC, so thanks to those doing the work). Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
There are no assumptions. It is based on my observations and deductions made from the observations. You cannot “prevent” others from voicing out their concerns while complaining about them on multiple noticeboards with all kinds of allegations against me. These things go both ways. I have tried my best to voice it as politely as possible, so I expect the same from you. Steven1991 (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
against them* (in a gender-neutral sense) Steven1991 (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
The article has not had clear signs of being entangled with the I-P conflict. Vast majority of the content is related to events that happened to Jews before the I-P conflict even started. There’s no clear entanglement, so I would advise the avoidance of claiming something that isn’t the case that may hamper editing improvement activities. Have a good night. Steven1991 (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
There is no “aggressive defensiveness” in telling you why someone feels certain ways. I would appreciate if such words can be avoided as they do not appear to be less unhelpful than what you seem to believe that I have said. Steven1991 (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

His Jewish community or the Jewish community?

The article currently reads: "The UC rejected AJC's criticisms as "distortion" and "obscurations", especially by Mose Durst, a convert from Judaism who became the president of the Unification Church of the United States, who accused his Jewish community of "insecurity" and being "hateful".

I changed the possessive pronoun to "the" so the last sentence would read "who accused the Jewish community". Steven changed it back commenting "Mose Durst was Jewish: https://www.dialogueireland.ie/dicontent/resources/dciarchive/zinterviewdurst.html. A Jew is both a racial and religious identity". Well I would say it's both an ethnic and religious identity (and also cultural) rather than "racial" - but in any case it's irrelevant since regardless of whether or not they are part of the community one would more commonly use the article "the" rather than a possessive pronoun. Wellington Bay (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm having problems parsing the sentence as a whole. Is it saying the UC rejected criticisms made by Mose Durst or criticisms of Mose Durst? I assume the latter due to his membership, but I've read this sentence ~20 times & am still confused.
To now comment directly on your question though, was the accusation specifically directed towards his local community or the Jewish community as a whole? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I was about to add that the passage is very poorly written and confusing. I'm trying to figure out which source actually mentions Durst. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
They're name dropped here & wrote this. Sources 326 & 327 respectively. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I think the passage means by Durst as per this article by him[9] - the problem is the quoted words "insecurity" and "hateful" appear nowhere in this source, nor does this source mention Rabbi Rudin at all so it's not clear it is a response to him. Nor does the Time Magazine article that mentions Durst use these words[10] so it appears we have quotations that are not properly sourced or that are not in the source that they are attributed to. I'm going to remove the passage about Durst - if someone can find an actual quote by him in response to the AJC's criticisms they can put him and the correct quotes back in. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
For the poor phrasing, it is regretful and I apologise for it. Steven1991 (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The passage also says "Despite the UC's claims, Sun Myung Moon held an interfaith march with Louis Farrakhan, the most influential antisemite in America, in Washington D.C." - The claim that Farrakhan is the "most influential antisemite in America" needs to be attributed, otherwise it's an assertion by wikipedia itself. This appears to be an editorial comment by whichever Wikipedia editor added it as none of the cited sources make this claim. The closest I can find is Abraham Foxman calling him an "unrepentant bigot" in the Washington Post article and the NY Times article stating "Mr. Farrakhan, whom critics denounce as a race-baiter and anti-Semite" but neither article says he is the "most influential antisemite" in the US. I think it may be necessary to go through this article carefully and check it against the sources since it appears editors have been inserting their own editorial comments. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Steven1991: It looks like you added the claim that Farrakhan is the "most influential antisemite in America"[11] Was this an editorial comments or is it in one of the sources that's cited at the end of the sentence? I couldn't find it in any of the sources which leads me to remind you not to insert your personal views or editorial comments into Wikipedia articles. If someone did say this about Farrakhan than it needs to be attributed and you can't write as if this is a fact asserted by Wikipedia, you should say something like "Farrakhan, whom X describes as the 'most influential antisemite in America'". Please read the WP:NPOV policy as well as WP:V. Wellington Bay (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
David Duke and Pat Buchanan probably have been more influential than Farrakhan. It was true before October 7, 2023, that Farrakhan was the most influential person who could be considered to be at least vaguely "left", but not sure that's true any more. Definitely omit that wording from the article... AnonMoos (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antisemitic_trope/Archive_3&oldid=1255576842"