Talk:Antisemitic trope

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" ([1]). 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)