Jump to content

Talk:Anti-antisemitism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 12:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Length, history and references verified (although, remember, please, the source needs to be linked from the nomination). Good to go. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some potential sources commenting about the situation in Germany

[edit]

There is more ... I almost wonder if it's enough for a standalone article. Andreas JN466 14:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is. There are tons of rs about the various debates the "antisemitism commissioners" have been involved in. (t · c) buidhe 17:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some more sources:
In the wake of the recent ICJ advisory opinion on the occupations, there are also concerns voiced by German law experts that Germany may be out of step with international law. See e.g.:
This points out that the German view that apartheid accusations against Israel are antisemitic is at odds with the ICJ opinion published last month stating that Israel violates Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which is specifically about segregation and apartheid. (As I see it, Germany now has a choice of either dropping its antisemitism claim with regard to such statements or of describing the International Court of Justice as an antisemitic institution.)
Mentions that for German discourse around Israel in particular, "the far-reaching findings of the court must and should lead to a further reconsideration of the previous foreign policy line".
I'd be happy to collaborate on an article ... though I am not quite sure where to start. It requires something more substantial than opinion articles, even if they have appeared in first-rate sources like the New York Times and Verfassungsblog (which, despite its name, is a serious source). Open to ideas. --Andreas JN466 14:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, here's some scholarship :
(t · c) buidhe 15:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Buidhe, that's great. I've sat down and made a very modest start. See German anti-antisemitism. I am sure you can do a lot better than me, so I'd be delighted if you could help improve it ... Regards, Andreas JN466 22:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This acrticle needs to talk about actual anti-antisemitism, not just the Israeli right

[edit]

In an article titled "anti-antisemitism," its frankly shameful on the part of Wikipedia editors not to have ANYTHING on the Dreyfusards, the Jewish self-defense committees in the Pale of Settlement to resist Russian pogroms, the Jewish resistance to the Holocaust, Jewish boycotts of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Jewry movement, or the contemporary resistance to white supremacist and black supremacist antisemitic violence against Jews. The fact that this article is effectively a copy-paste of the "Weaponization of antisemitism" article, which already exists is a shameful reflection upon those who make up the community of Wikipedia editors. If we're going to have a Wikipedia article for anti-antisemitism, why not have actual instances of people opposing antisemitism? Why not talk about organizations that seek to limit antisemitic rhetoric? We can have a section talking about the controversies too, I'm not opposed to that. But why the hell is there basically NOTHING about opposition to antisemitism outside of its relationship to Zionism? Is this the only thing Wikipedia editors care about? Like, there are discussions around antisemitism that don't have anything to do with Zionism itself. MagyarNavy1918 (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One issue with your edits was the sourcing. For example, citing an obituary is relevant to that person's life, but it does not show that the content is relevant to this much broader topic. Sources like jewishvirtuallibrary are not considered reliable on Wikipedia. The sources cited should probably be scholarly sources that specifically focus on the topic of anti-antisemitism. I don't think that some of the content you added (such as Jewish partisans) is in scope for the article topic. "feeling unsafe" is also not the same as antisemitism, so overall I would be concerned about WP:VER issues. (t · c) buidhe 23:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is bad sources I can change that. I never mentioned "feeling unsafe," what are you talking about? Be specific. Name what you're talking about.
As for sourcing that's fine though I'm not sure what the problem is with the Jewish Virtual Library as a source. Also, I don't know if you're just holding a different standard to Jewish people than you are to other social minorities. If someone was writing about instances in which White people made someone who was black or hispanic uncomfortable due to a topic about their racial/ethic background, would you not say that is at least in the vicinity of racism? Why is it different for Jewish people? 185.134.146.112 (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue if you are going to talk about resistance to antisemitism, the Jewish partisans would be relevant, as would the Soviet Jewry movement. They are both examples of people's opposing antisemitism in a formal or semi-formal, politicized fashion. Would you not argue that the goal of the Jewish partisans was to resist Nazi antisemitism? I would argue my list was not extensive enough, as the origin of modern anti-antisemitic activism came about with the Damascus affair in Syria and the Jewish diaspora's politicization and mobilization in response to save the Jews of Damascus from French and Egyptian imperialism as well as French Christian supremacy and Egyptian/Syrian Muslim supremacy.
I did have academic sources in my article, but some were more localized sources (for example, various Holocaust museums which were not specifically academic in the traditional sense but still had academic value). All of my other non-academic sources were either encyclopedias or websites maintained and edited by historical institutions or were newpapers. I'm still not clear on what is the problem with Jewish Virtual Library and why it is considered an unreliable source.
In any case, what do you mean about "feeling unsafe"? I never mentioned "feeling unsafe" as core to any part of the article I wrote. I'm still not entirely sure what you are referring to. Be specific. Do you mean threats of violence? Do you mean slight discomfort over a supposed privilege the Jews OF DIASPORA apparently have? What privilege do they have? Do we run the media? The banks? Do we have some kind of unique lobby through which we run the United States and its foreign policy? Or is that left to the ever nebulous "Zionists"? What do you mean? Tell me, I'm Jewish. What, are you afraid of telling me, the grandchild of Holocaust survivors? Tell me. I want to know. Explain what you mean by "felt unsafe." In fact, send me the sources, let me look at them again.
In any case, in the article there was still a section about the weaponization of antisemitism, so please let me know if I have been unfair to your criticisms. I left the section in there, and even added to it with even more specific examples about how antisemitism is weaponized by the Israeli right in order to justify their political goals. I didn't delete any part of the old article except for one definition which I felt was repetitive. That's it. That's all I deleted. Nothing else. The rest of the article you see before you was still there in my edits. MagyarNavy1918 (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also what are you doing editing various articles on the Holocaust? Don't spread Holocaust denial. Please. I'm begging you. The Holocaust really did happen. Between eleven and thirteen million men, women, children, families, POWs, rabbis, priests, nuns, among others were systematically murdered in history's most meticulous and calculated genocide in human history, with the primary (but not sole) target being Europe's Jews, of whom roughly six million were murdered. Among their number include my great-great-uncle and his son. The Nazis, in their eternal cruelty and belief in violence as an end in and of itself, killed their victims, primarily Jews found in the occupied regions of their pseudo-empire, either by direct means in the extermination camps (such as Auschwitz and Treblinka), worked to death either at the death camps or in forced labor camps (such as Auschwitz II-Burkenau and Kraków-Płaszów) or the POW camps (such as Marlag and Milag North) with some work camps eventually becoming death camps (such as Dachau), and in the killing fields of Eastern Europe in various massacres (such as at Babi Yar and Rumbula). My family believes my great-uncle was likely worked to death in one of the work camps while the other was shot, though I don't think we'll ever fully know for sure, we just heard after the Holocaust who was still alive and who wasn't often from rumors from people our family knew back in Hungary. My great grandfather ended up in a work camp, of which he survived. My grandfather, no older than the age of 10, mostly survived by relying on the people of the streets of Budapest (prostitutes, petty thieves, etc.) who helped hide him from Nazi authorities. My grandmother survived initally by living with a convent and later by living with an adopted family who hid her Jewish identity.
These camps were built after a series of antisemitic laws, known as the Nuremberg Laws, were passed, crimializing those who happened to be Afro-German, Romani, and, most notably, Jewish simply for being who they were by nature of their supposed race. All of these groups, including if not especially Jews for no other reason than their population within Germany being the largest, had sought to and actively had contributed to German culture. Some had went the route of Abraham Mendelssohn and assimilated fully by converting to Christianity. All of this became null and void with the passage of the Nuremberg Laws.
The genocide was primarily targeted at Jewish individuals and the Jewish people more collectively, but they were far from the only victims of the genocide. For example, the Romani also underwent many of the same experiences of the Holocaust as the Jews of Europe did.
Furthermore, we know that the Nazis were intending upon killing the Jews because of the Wannsee Conference, where they stated not only their goals for genocide but also specific numbers of each ethnicity and how many they thought were required to die in order for their goals to be met. One of the great horrors, in my opinion, is how much of the Nazi leadership came to gleefully accept the bureaucratic nature of their jobs, eradicating Jews and other "undesirables," rarely if ever seeing the victims they murdered. I also find how unwilling the Western world was to help to be a permanent black mark on its history. In my opinion, every child in every country should know the name "Évian Conference" as well as they do "Auschwitz."
I have linked some sources below if you'd be interested in further reading:
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/introduction-to-the-holocaust
https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-camps/types-of-camps/concentration-camps/
https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-camps/types-of-camps/extermination-camps/
https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-camps/types-of-camps/work-camps/
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/killing-centers-an-overview
https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-camps/types-of-camps/prisoner-of-war-camps/
https://www.auschwitz.org/en/history/
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/auschwitz
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/treblinka
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/plaszow
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/dachau
https://www.frankfallaarchive.org/prisons/milag-marlag-nord-pow-camp/
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/kiev-and-babi-yar
https://hmd.org.uk/resource/the-babi-yar-massacre/
https://mjhnyc.org/events/rumbula-remembered-80-years-since-the-mass-executions/
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/genocide-of-european-roma-gypsies-1939-1945
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-nuremberg-race-laws
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nuremberg-laws
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/jewish-communities-of-prewar-germany
https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/life-before-the-holocaust/pre-war-jewish-life/
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/wannsee-conference-and-the-final-solution
https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/how-and-why/how/the-wannsee-conference/
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-evian-conference
I would also recommend, if you want to read from the perspective of an actual Holocaust survivor, the Night Trilogy by Elie Wiesel. I would also say that the Maus books are really good, though they have a bit of a trippy art style in some places. If you want more academic reading, I would say literally any book by Richard J. Evans is really good, especially The Third Reich Trilogy. These should all be a useful start in your Holocaust education. MagyarNavy1918 (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the editors who have been working on this article would be reluctant to include sources about opposition to antisemitism because they don't use the term "anti-antisemitism" which is quite a niche way of describing (and often delegitimising) what is more commonly described as simply "opposition to antisemitism". If we were to use sources that used phrases like that, we'd have a much more balanced article. So there's a kind of circular issue here, which is that, unlike the widely used term "anti-racism", this term tends to be used mainly by those with a particular perspective, so leaning on their work leads to a somewhat skewed article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should this article be renamed to Opposition to antisemitism? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly yes. That's what all of the categories are called in any case (i.e. ) MagyarNavy1918 (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(i.e.Category:Opposition to antisemitism in the United States) MagyarNavy1918 (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Facts vs opinion

[edit]

Interested to see if any reliable sources are contradicting the following assertions:

  • a key Zionist belief is that antisemitism cannot be meaningfully addressed in any way other than the establishment of an independent state where Jews make up the majority of the population
  • Islamophobia is similar to antisemitism because both prejudices are ethnoreligious prejudices
  • the belief that Germany has successfully confronted The Holocaust enables the projection of antisemitism onto the outside world, especially to Muslim immigrants—a subtle form of Islamophobia that coexists with the vehement rejection of antisemitism

(t · c) buidhe 16:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second bullet certainly needs to be attributed in-text, and the other two ought to be too (in order of need for ITA: 2, 3, 1). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging @Bobfrombrockley, who was reverted ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To explain on the latter two bullets:
A similarity may be true and undisputed in reliable sources, but the choice to assert it is meaningful and not universal. Anti-Italian sentiment is also similar to antisemitism in this way, and I am sure that some reliable sources make this assertion, but it shouldn't sit there unattributed. I recall in an old version of Bugchasing, it was stated in wikivoice that HIV is similar to pregnancy, because both are transmitted by sex and have a gestational period. You probably wouldn't find many reliable sources that care to dispute this, but this analysis needs attribution.
The characterization of a projection as a "subtle form of Islamophobia" is mired in opinion and subjective assessment, and thus should be attributed to the author of that analysis. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of #1, the sentence seems to be a short summary of Zionism#Zionism,_antisemitism_and_an_"existential_need"_for_self-determination—where there are many sources cited, and no similar qualification.
Attributing in this case (#2) wrongfully suggests that there is a dispute as to whether Islamophobia is an ethnoreligious prejudice. (Per WP:NPOV: if there is no dispute, we should not be presenting it as if there is). Is there another wording you would recommend?
In terms of #3, I question how you could argue this is not Islamophobic. But again, if there is another rewording that would address your concerns I would be happy to hear it. (t · c) buidhe 18:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your responses re the latter two bulletpoints do not react to my points about the choices of some relieble sources to assert and the choice of most not to. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's either true or it isn't-thus a basic factual claim. All sources cover some facts but not others. I'm puzzled how you come to the belief that it's opinion based. (t · c) buidhe 00:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The opening words of that section (a section that reflects the generally slanted state of that WP article in my view) are “From the perspective of some early Zionist thinkers”. To generalise that into all Zionism today is an enormous leap. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if it's not a key Zionist idea (not one held by all Zionists) then it's clearly being given undue weight in the other article. (t · c) buidhe 00:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It completely is. That's that article, though. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m a bit flabbergasted that you think these are facts not opinions. They’re obviously arguments not straightforward descriptions of reality.
  • The first one is very controversial; given how many Zionists spend huge amounts of time doing at least what they think is “addressing antisemitism” it’s definitely not uncontroversial to say they don’t recognise what they’re doing as meaningful!
  • The second is in my view completely wrong; to reduce racism to prejudice goes against most contemporary scholarship on racism. There’s a wealth of literature on the intimate relationship between antisemitism and Islamophobia that frames it totally differently.
  • I agree with the third (it’s been powerfully argued by Ozyurek, Irit Dekel and others too) but if it was an uncontested uncontroversial fact then, well, it wouldn’t have generated any controversy that they said this.
BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, for #1 I don't see how it argues that all Zionists think that. However is there any dispute that some do? If not, can we find a different wording that you would support?
I am not sure that the text suggests that there is nothing more to racism than prejudice, but always open to rewording. If there is a disagreement, perhaps you could quote it here?
For #3, where is the scholarly controversy?
I really dislike the "X says" qualifications because they are a cop out that don't help our readers understand how prevalent and widely accepted (or disputed) the fact is. I prefer to rephrase to something that sources don't disagree on. (t · c) buidhe 00:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The “X says” is more useful for our readers, because it reflects the way reliable sources about scholarly ideas report on writers and their assertions and arguments (with attribution). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If any number of Zionists don’t believe something then it can’t be considered a key Zionist belief, so no wording would make this a statement of fact. It’s fine to say that some particular scholar has argued it, as in the wording I introduced that was reverted, but we’re not going to find a satisfactory way of phrasing it in our voice because it’s a matter of interpretation not fact BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe I see your revert also moved a highly opinionated comment about philosemitism back into the lead even though philosemitism isn’t mentioned in the body, so is against MoS as well as against NPOV. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
again, you are saying it's disputed without providing evidence that it's the case. (t · c) buidhe 00:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That something is not commonly disputed does not suggest that it is an uncontroversial statement of fact. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zanahary, my position is that attribution is useful when there is an actual dispute. If we actually have two sources of equal reliability that contradict each other, we cover both viewpoints. Because Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not editor's opinions, it should not matter whether editors believe something is controversial or disputed. What matters is whether we can find reliable sources that disagree. If these statements are actually disputed it should be trivial to find the sources that back it up. Otherwise, there is not an actual dispute in WP:RS and we should not be presenting a fact as an opinion, which is contrary to WP:NPOV. (t · c) buidhe 04:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t agree with the idea that ideas without recorded disputes around them are necessarily uncontroversial factual statements that should be repeated in wikivoice. Do you believe that a single source that compares antisemitism to anti-Uyghur sentiment on the basis of their both being ethnic bigotries, along with an absence of sources that say “antisemitism is not like anti-Uyghur sentiment”, should lead to the prose on Wikipedia “Antisemitism is similar to anti-Uyghur sentiment in that both are ethnic bigotries”? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a disputed statement, so assuming you do have a reliable source to back it up, the question becomes whether it's WP:DUE to include and if it's adding to reader understanding in a particular article. I don't know how many sources are comparing anti-Uyghur sentiment with antisemitism, but there is a whole "comparative literature on Islamophobia and antisemitism" and one common element is noting differences in the responses to both—which is relevant to this article topic. If it's UNDUE for inclusion it doesn't belong at all whether attributed or not.
I keep asking for reliable sources because that's what our articles are supposed to be based on. (t · c) buidhe 04:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your apparent view that a subjective assessment needs documented disputes in order to be presented on Wikipedia as a view rather than simple fact is a minority position. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that it's a subjective assessment. We report what the sources say, not what editors think. (t · c) buidhe 17:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't propose we report what editors think. But to observe a historical projection and a subtle Islamophobia, or to observe a parellel between antisemitism and Islamophobia, is not a simple reporting of fact that can be accurately represented without attribution to frame it as an assessment rather than a simple finding whose provenance is irrelevant because it's simply true. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is subjective (1) there is a belief that Germany has successfully confronted the Holocaust (2) some Europeans, claiming to oppose antisemitism, project antisemitism onto Muslim immigrants (3) this is Islamophobic? I'm not sure any of these bullet points can be reasonably disputed, but please show me where I'm wrong. (t · c) buidhe 18:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it might be a symptom of the highly polarised and hyper-partisan thinking (and therefore editing) that Israel/Palestine generates that sentences that would be obviously interpretations on any other topic are mistaken for "facts" by one or other "side" in this conflict. If you said similar things for other sorts of racism, it'd be very obvious these are interpretations. For instance: "Britain has never gotten over its imperial past so remains a racist country"; "Islamophobia is provoked by Islamist terrorism"; "The American white working class voted for Trump, indicating its endemic racism" -- these are all statements that respectable academics have made, but which we would recognise as interpretations (and agree or disagree personally) rather than facts, and therefore not say in our voice but only with attribution if noteworthy. The examples on this page are exactly like that. I'm reluctant spending time researching scholars who've explicitly rejected these positions, because it should be obvious alternative interpretations are plausible but mainly simply because the their status as interpretations means they shouldn't be treated as facts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure these statements are subjective either. I expect there is empirical research on the impact of terrorism on Islamophobia, which I would cite instead. For #1, I don't think it's disputed that racism in the UK is greater than zero, so it seems like a rephrase could be considered (depending on context). And for #3, that is a dispute where you can easily find reliable sources arguing for and against. Which I'm not sure applies here given that both of you haven't provided any sources arguing the opposite.
The entire field of history requires interpretation of sources but that does not mean it improves the encyclopedia to write "historian X writes that Germany lost world War I". (t · c) buidhe 20:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources

[edit]

Having a look at material that seems useful:

  • Feldman, David (8 October 2024). "Antisemitism, Racism and Anti-Racism". History Workshop. Retrieved 14 February 2025.
  • Judaken, Jonathan (2006). Jean-Paul Sartre and the Jewish Question. Lincoln: U of Nebraska Press. ISBN 0-8032-2612-8. OCLC 70265559.
  • "Fighting Antisemitism from Dreyfus to Today". The Wiener Holocaust Library. 10 March 2023. Retrieved 14 February 2025.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 February 2025

[edit]

Anti-antisemitism → Opposition to antisemitism – "Anti-antisemitism" seems to be a clunky term for opposition to antisemitism, and this article defines "anti-antisemitism" as opposition to antisemitism. This is not a WP:COMMONNAME, and the proposed rename is more of a WP:NDESC. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Bobfrombrockley and @MagyarNavy1918, who commented on the article's title. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MagyarNavy1918 (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-antisemitism&oldid=1276546209"