Talk:Antisemitic trope

"Holocaust denial" section title

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

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

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

Thess are various accusations that are made by Holocaust deniers.Icewhiz (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot makes a good point. Every other heading is a canard about Jews: well poisoning, dual loyalty, etc. The Denial one isn't, and it's a bit jarring now that I've noticed it. Should it say something like "Inventing the Holocaust"? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not that simple - as Holocaust denial takes many forms - involving Jewish conspiracy (or lizard conspiracy, many lizards being Jewish - [1][2]) around various aspects, denying the Holocaust all together, denying the scale of the Holocaust, denying the culpability of the Holocaust (e.g. Jews died due to normal wartime disease outbreaks (e.g. typhus) in WWII), etc. It's not so simple as "inventing" or "exaggerating" the Holocaust - there's a whole list of very different (but all related to different forms of Holocaust denial) claims here. Icewhiz (talk) 05:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps "Holocaust denial" => "Claims by holocaust deniers" ? Icewhiz (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

To quote the lede of Holocaust denial:

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

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

Certainly. But every other section title is something Jews are accused of. The wording of the section title is the only question. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

So I see. Right, so the section should be re-written to focus on the antisemitic conspiracy theory aspect (the canard that Jews exaggerated or invented the Holocaust to further their own interests). Jayjg ^(talk) 14:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and also, while most of the titles are something Jews are accused of, "Blood libel" isn't. That said, I don't see anything wrong with changing the title to something like "Inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust". Jayjg ^(talk) 15:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

...which I have now done. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

White genocide conspiracy theory

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

Low quality target for this article?

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, it's a terrible article. What specifically did you want to do with it? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Improve it, what shouldn't be too hard as we agree it is currently a terrible article.

It’s usually no mistake to start with a structural improvement. A sensible structure would probably group the more than 20 “Accusations” into 3-4 segments. One obvious “accusation category” would consist of canards about alleged accumulation of economic/political influence, another group of canards obviously have a primarily religious context, a third group could assemble all other canards that don’t really fit into the first two categories.

Once there is a smoother structure, it would be much easier to improve the logic of the article itself, e.g. to have clear logical language that there is a difference between stating that Jewish people are overrepresented in certain political/economical areas, and maintaining that they control or dominate that area, e.g. that in former times with less scientific transparency/knowledge and larger power of religious leaders and thinking, there was a tendency to blame religious minority group for whatever crisis

But I am not able to forecast the perfect article, it needs to evolve over time. The current (awful) structure and (problematic) basic logic can easily lead to meaningless discussions and no improvement at all.

Betternews (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I had thought about groupings like that, too, and actually had an edit in progress, before I threw it away, because I started to think about, "Who's grouping it like this, me? And is there some outside, reliable support for this kind of grouping?" I don't actually know if Article section titles and hierarchical structure is subject to RS specifically (kind of think not), but I would have felt more comfortable if there was some outside validation for the structure I was about to impose. But I backed off. Maybe it's enough, if we just discuss here, and if there's a consensus for a structure, just go with it? It can always be changed, after all. Mathglot (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps there are books on antisemitic canards or myths that group them in a useful way? Also, it would be helpful if the sections in this articles were simply summaries of other existing articles; I see that people like to add unique information on this page without touching the "Main" article. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Proceed of wait? Betternews (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

If you're asking whether you should proceed, I have no objections. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Restructuring done. Please feel free to review. Nothing should have vanished as it is a reconfiguration. The lead should have improved too as it contained too many details that have been moved to the main article. Betternews (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The title is terrible...as is the article.

I care about this issue, but both the article and title could use revision.

I did a quick engram search for some alternatives.

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

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

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

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

I'm inclined to agree. I think this will be a poorly searched term and I also doubt most people know what is meant by "canard". Antisemitic myths will be far more accessible to the general readership. I second a move to that title unless someone can provide compelling reasons why it shouldn't be moved. I do see that this topic has come up on the talk page before but I didn't see any true pushes for a move with a concrete suggestion for an alternate title. Sjlebl has provded a clear suggestion here. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, one reason is that Canard is the term used by most of the cited sources, another is that it is much more specific. Myth has many meanings, canard really only has one (well, two, but only aeronautical professionals would really be familiar with the other). But mainly the sources. Myth is used in the article where it matches the terminology of the sources, but canard is much more commonly used. People may not be as familiar with the term, but I doubt they will be confused as the first sentence of the article explains that for them. Regardless of whether people are familiar with the term (and I would argue that they actually are) canard is the common name for it (as evidenced by the fact that it gets more google hits and its prevalence in the cited sources). AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

There is NO EVIDENCE that canard is used in most of the cited sources. The quotes in the article use myth 7 times and use canard 6 times. The other 18 times canard is used in the article, it is by the article. Canard is a VERY OUTDATED AND UNFAMILIAR word. "Myth" appears to be the preferred term throughout modern journalism, modern writing, the web, EXCEPT FOR THIS ARTICLE. I am new at all of this, so I don't understand the politics, philosophy, emotions, around resistance to change. However, in this case, I find it extremely hard for anyone to demonstrate that "Antisemitic Canard" is a "good" title in terms of people understanding or finding the article. Of course, people can constantly ASSERT that "Antisemitic Canard" is the best title or phrase and I can constantly cite google scholar, or Google Ngram, or what I KNOW TO BE TRUE that 90% plus of English speakers (native and non-native) have no idea what a canard is, and others can constantly, falsely, assert that "canard" is just the correct term here.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=anti+semitism+myths = 67,000 results

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=anti+semitism+canards&btnG=3,600

So, I care about this issue, but I don't want to spend endless time raising facts that some users will falsely assert the opposite. I don't know how these issues are best resolved in the wiki community.

When I view the following NGRAM, it seems "antisemetic canard" is something some author popularized in 1985ish. Is that person one of the editors of this page? <iframe name="ngram_chart" src="https://books.google.com/ngrams/interactive_chart?content=antisemitic+canard%2Cantisemitic+myth%2Cantisemitic+canards%2Cantisemitic+myths&year_start=1880&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=1&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cantisemitic%20canard%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cantisemitic%20myth%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cantisemitic%20canards%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cantisemitic%20myths%3B%2Cc0" width=900 height=500 marginwidth=0 marginheight=0 hspace=0 vspace=0 frameborder=0 scrolling=no></iframe><iframe name="ngram_chart" src="https://books.google.com/ngrams/interactive_chart?content=antisemitic+canard%2Cantisemitic+myth%2Cantisemitic+canards%2Cantisemitic+myths&year_start=1880&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=1&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cantisemitic%20canard%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cantisemitic%20myth%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cantisemitic%20canards%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cantisemitic%20myths%3B%2Cc0" width=900 height=500 marginwidth=0 marginheight=0 hspace=0 vspace=0 frameborder=0 scrolling=no></iframe> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjlebl (talk • contribs)

Your argument is that "canard" is unfamiliar; others argue that "canard" is more specific. Both seem used approximately equally. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Really. Google scholar indicates that "Antisemetic Myth" is used 20 time more frequently. Is that "about the same?" The word "carnard" is meaningless to most (95% or more) English speakers, not unfamiliar. It shouldn't be the title of the article if anyone cares about people actually finding the article. How, exactly, is "Antisemetic Myth," cited 67,000 times in google scholar, less specific than canard? How is canard specific when 95% of English speakers don't know what it means. Even in common usage, when people do know what it means, "canard" carries the connotation of something harmless and unfounded (though not necessarily untrue.)" The example usage provided by google define is "the old canard that LA is a cultural wasteland." That Jewish daughters are spoiled is perhaps a canard...that Jews run the world or poison wells is something rather more serious. Myth suggests something that can be bigger or more pernicious. "The myth of American exceptionalism." for example, as opposed to "The canard of American exceptionalism." IDK how these decisions or ultimately made, but I hope someone chooses a better name for the article AND removes the repeated uses of "carnard" throughout other than in quotes.Sjlebl (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Jay, just so it's clear to me, who is arguing that canard is more familiar? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@TylerDurden8823: I don't think anyone is arguing that "canard" is "more familiar". I think that people are saying canard is used with reasonable frequency in reliable sources, and that it's more specific and appropriate than myth. Canard and myth aren't synonyms, with the former being merely less familiar. "Myth" typically means something else; to quote the first sentence of the Wikipedia article, "Myth is a folklore genre consisting of narratives or stories that play a fundamental role in a society, such as foundational tales or origin myths." That's not what is described in this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Dictionary: myth

noun

1. a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

synonyms: folk tale, story, folk story, legend, tale, fable, saga, allegory, parable, tradition, lore, folklore; More

2. a widely held but false belief or idea.

synonyms: misconception, fallacy, mistaken belief, false notion, misbelief, old wives' tale, fairy story, fairy tale, fiction, fantasy, delusion, figment of the imagination;

I, honestly, don't care to be argumentative, BUT, Jayjg, I do feel that your discussion style consists of making false-ish assertions. The #2 definition of myth above is of course the one to which I am referring. In ordinary English, "myth" is FAR MORE COMMONLY used in the context of this article (i.e. important widely held false beliefs) when not discussing antisemitism. For example, google --myth racist cop-- returns 9.3 million hits, with top returns having titles such as "The Myth of the Racist Cop - WSJ". Google --canard racist cop-- returns 0.087 million hits. This, of course, is "myth" used according to #2 above. If no one believes that it is relevant to this discussion that "myth" is a MUCH MUCH MUCH more common word to use in this overall context and that canard is a rarely understood word, fine, BUT why keep making the argument in favor of "canard" based on false assertions?Sjlebl (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the point people are making is that myth has many meanings, whereas canard is much more specific. Those who prefer "canard" feel that specificity is valuable as regards the name of this article. Also, speaking of Google searches, a Google search shows that "canard" is used quite commonly with "antisemitic". The search "anti semitic canard" -site:wikipedia.org gets ~8000 hits, whereas the search "anti semitic myth" -site:wikipedia.org gets 5460 hits. Variations on the search yield similar results. It appears that the term "canard" is a term commonly prefixed by "antisemitic", and not just on Wikipedia. Even if you search for "anti-semitic canard" and "anti-semitic myth" on Google Scholar, you find that myth is only a little more popular (130 vs. 222 hits). Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

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

That would stretch the definition of "conspiracy theory" a bit I think. "canard" doesn't look that dated to me per [3]. VQuakr (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't know if Google can be used to measure WP:COMMONNAME, but "anti-semitic canard" gets 5,930 results, while "anti-semitic conspiracy theories" gets 45,000 results. Benjiphillips (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that "canards" and "conspiracy theories" aren't the same thing, so you're really comparing apples and oranges. This article discusses many things that aren't conspiracy theories, but are actually untrue stereotypes. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The thing about the word canard (as discussed here previously, now in the archives to this talk page) is that it more or less conveys to those in the know the meaning "narrative which keeps getting resurrected again and again and again, no matter how many times it's been debunked". Not sure if that's true of some of the proposed alternatives... AnonMoos (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the crux of this discussion is how best to balance the five WP:CRITERIA we use for names, particularly precision and recognizability. VQuakr (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

• few know the term – this can be dismissed. We don't decide on the title of articles based on how many people know the meaning of the term, but based on Article title policy. This is an encyclopedia, with 5.8 million articles; there are going to be plenty of articles with titles we are not familiar with. Here are some articles with some pretty opaque words in them: Hereditary progressive mucinous histiocytosis, Ferrer block, Mecklenburg vereinsthaler—as long as the titles of those articles meet policy requirements, the fact that they are not as recognizable and we are not as familiar with some of the terms is not relevant, or at least, not decisive. Precision and common name win the day, here; ditto with this article.

Secondly: in connection with the "few know the term" objection, I have to ask if you might not have an unconscious bias against words that you are not personally familiar with. I noticed your argument at Talk:Reactionary (here), where you objected to the use of status quo ante, shouting about how you had NEVER HEARD OF IT before, labeling it "pretentious", "unhelpful", and "legal[istic]", and suggesting an oversimplification instead. While I agree that simpler words are better when two options are equivalent (many readers of en-wiki are not native speakers), nevertheless, when they are not equivalent, the more precise term is the better choice, per policy.

• search hit comparisons – there is a whole minefield of problems lying in wait for those seeking to use comparisons of search hit counts, and I'm going to write an essay about it some day. With respect to your experiments, it's not enough to compare the search hit counts of two items that don't have the same meaning. (Jayjg already said this.) You point out that "Antisemitic myths" and "Antisemitic canards" have roughly the same hit counts. But "Antisemitic attacks" has five times as many results as either of those terms, so is that a good reason to change the title of this article to "Antisemitic attacks"? Obviously, no. But why not? The reason is because "antisemitic attacks" and "antisemitic canards" don't mean the same thing. That's easy to see, so we take that for granted. But the situation for "antisemitic myths" versus "antisemitic canards" is exactly the same: you can't compare the hit counts for those two expressions either; it's just a little less obvious, especially if one of the terms in use is one that we are not too familiar with.

Bottom line: this is an apples-to-oranges comparison; the hit counts comparison is not valid. You'd have a slightly better argument with "antisemitic conspiracy theories" (20,800 hits), but in the end this fails too, for the same reason: canard and conspiracy theory are related, but not the same thing; a conspiracy theory may be based on a canard (or not); a canard may be simply an unfounded rumor about Jews that doesn't ascribe any of the control or responsibility aspects of a conspiracy theory to them. Some do, so there is clearly an overlap (and maybe the article should do a better job of indicating that) but the terms are not equivalent. "Jews have horns" is a canard, but not a conspiracy theory.

• 1985 popular usage – You made a comment about the term becoming popularized in 1985. I don't think the term was ever "popular" in that sense, and still isn't. In any case, public popularity is not a criterion for naming an article. As long as you raised the topic of when it was used, I did a search and found one usage in 1917 (no quotation, unfortunately), and one in 1921, which, not suprisingly, refers to the Protocols. Canard is a term that comes up far more often in academic or professional literature, than it does in speech or casual writing. But, professional, academic writing makes up the core of the reliable sources that we use to determine things like notability and common name. The fact that it is hardly used in speech contributes to its unfamiliarity and lack of popularity, imho.
• ngrams results – The main objection to your results showing "myths" about twice as common as "canards" is that they are not the same thing, as previously stated. Another objection, is that ngrams data are based on Google books results, which has a minimum threshold of 40 books, before a search term appears at all. That's why you don't see anything for 1917 or 1921, even though we have the book sources for those years; there weren't 40 books containing the term in either of those years.

Here's another ngram search which shows "antisemitic propaganda" beating out all the other proposed terms; but once again, it may overlap but is not exactly the same thing as antisemitic canard. The reason not to rename it to "Antisemitic propaganda" is essentially the same as the reason not to rename it to "Antisemitic myths".

• 20 times more frequent – I mentioned the "search minefield" before, but this is pretty elementary stuff regarding quoted search terms. Your numbers are way off: "antisemitic myths" is about twice as common as "antisemitic canards" in google Scholar (115 to 60), not "20 time more frequent", as you claimed. (Your claim of 67,000 hits for "Antisemitic Myth" is off by 66,885.) That may all be interesting, but it's an irrelevant apples-and-oranges search. Scholar searches for "Antisemitic conspiracy theories" and "Antisemitic propaganda" beat them both out, the latter by over twenty times. But once again,this is irrelevant to the choice of article title; they don't mean exactly the same thing. Which is what Jayjg has been saying all along.

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

I appreciate the thoughtful responses. I still remain confused as to the opposition position. I personally knew exactly what an "antisemitic canard" meant, just as I immediately knew what "status quo ante" meant when I first heard Condi Rice say it, I object to the term because no one else knows what it means and people are confused by it and there are perfectly sensible alternative terms. I have an elite education, but I am an anti-elitist. I have extremely smart friends and family who are native English Speakers. None of them knew what a canard was (one said "a duck") exactly or even what an "Antisemitic Canard" was. I am a lawyer, but I hate jargon whenever there is a more straightforward word. "Antisemitic Myth" is a better term because it is far more understandable to most English speakers, even 2d language speakers, than "Antisemitic Canard." I guess I get emotional whenever I see knowledge being made, in my opinion, unnecessarily hard. As to ascribing bad faith, it is frustration on my part, and I did not accuse anyone of bad faith, just bad arguments. In your response, why would you quote technical scientific articles as examples with regard to a discussion about something that is clearly not a technical or scientific issue. As to precision and concision, "Antisemitic Myths" wins both, in that the second definition of myth, as I cite above, is exactly what this article is about, whereas as "canard," by itself -->an unfounded rumor or story. "the old canard that LA is a cultural wasteland"<-- is imprecise in that this article is not discussing "unfounded rumor or stories" about Jews, but is more discussing a "widely held but false belief or ideas" about Jews. Even in it's #1 definition "a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon," the scale of "myth" is far more appropriate when discussing Nazi or other European antisemitism. European antisemitic myths (both definition 1 and 2) were foundational to Nazism. Antisemitic canards, not so much. Again, in frustration, I just don't get why "Antisemitic Canard" is so vigorously defended. All the arguments fall. Even the precision one. Using ordinary English, a canard about Jews is that they really like food, not that they control world banking. They latter is something else, something bigger, something epic, something mythic, even. Sjlebl (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)