Talk:Antisemitism in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

VERY Biased[edit]

This article refers to on numerous occasions that Holocaust Revisionism is an anti-Semitic practice, which is simply untrue. Many Jewish men and women have come out in support of Revisionists (or are Revisionists themselves) such as David Cole, Norman Finkelstein, and many others. Also, might I add that 'Holocaust Denial' is an outright falsehood, as the 'Holocaust' was not a singular event that ANYONE 'denies'. What people DISPUTE, however, is the existence of Homicidal Gas Chambers and a Nazi plan of final solution, the end goal of which was total Jewish destruction. These parts of the Historical record have repeatedly been revised by the Auschwitz State Museum in Poland IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVISIONISTS. I hope to one day see a truly UNBIASED online encyclopedia which bows to no special interests and is concerned simply with factual evidence, but it seems Wikipedia is too far gone. Mathiasr101 (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

How about some evidence?[edit]

Not one sentence about what David Duke or Pat Buchanan actually said or wrote that is allegedly anti-Semitic (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Section regarding Black antisemitism[edit]

As a black man who speaks regularly with blacks i must say I find this 36% figure on black anti-semitism to be HIGHLY innacurate. I OFTEN hear blacks speak among ourselves regarding issues of race but i almost never hear anyone mention jews. I do not believe that the vast majority of black americans even has a consciousness of jews apart from that of whites. I would be very interested to know the particulars of that survey, namely the sample size, specific geographical locations from which the opinions were gathered right down to the specific cities and neighborhoods, as well as the specific questions asked. The results of this survey sound just too suspicious to me because jews almost never come up in disscusions of race with other blacks. If a full third of blacks held these sorts of views i and other blacks would certainly know it. (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

For more information on the study, click on the footnote at the end of the section and follow the link. Bear in mind that the study is already ten years old and evaluates not what respondents bring up in everyday conversation, but what answers they give to direct questions. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge suggestion[edit]

Please discuss the merge in Talk:History of antisemitism in the United States#Merge suggestion `'Míkka>t 02:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No mention of hollywood or banking allegations?[edit]

I notice this article contains a section on holocaust denial, but nothing on "control of hollywood" or "control of banking industry" which are certainly prominent themes of anti-semitism in USA. Are those covered in another article? --Noleander (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Noleander: do you take this for a balanced medium? Wikipedia has been dead for a long time now. (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Under Criticism, "Noted Scholars" is a misleading term, and should be deleted.[edit]

Noam Chomsky is not professionally regarded as an expert in civil rights or antisemitism -- he is employed as a linguistics professor, and despite having an interest in Jews and Israel, is not recognized for being an expert in this field. He is often amateurishly speaking in an area where he is NOT regarded as a professional expert, or "Noted Scholar." His views on antisemitism are as equally unqualified as a civil rights professor's views on linguistics might be.

Norman Finkelstein IS (or was) a professor with areas of supposed expertise in this area, however (as of 3/22/2011), he has been let go due to academic misconduct. His viewpoints hardly represent those of a "Noted Scholar," more like those of an infamous and professionally condemned ex-professor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


BulbBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Zionism & anti-Israel sentiments[edit]

One can certainly be opposed to Zionism, which is at its heart racist, and the current governmental policies of Israel, which is evil and warmongering, without being anti-Semitic. This article is so biased as to be entirely useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Your comment here is really the one which is actually "so biased as to be entirely useless". That is proved by how you said Zionism is racist (tip: see this) and how you called Israel's policies evil and warmongering (advice: read this), as if these two claims were undisputed facts. Please point out a sentence you think needs to be changed instead of being a hypocrite. -Yambaram (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Christian fundies not mentioned?[edit]

Christian fundamentalists aren't even mentioned in this article, despite a history of fostering anti-Semitism in the US, so shouldn't we at least mention it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, I will take a look at this and will add necessary information soon. Thanks, Yambaram (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Richard Nixon: avowed racist?[edit]

Doubtless, Nixon was both a racist and an antisemite. However, was he really an avowed racist? I would think that you're only an avowed racist if someone asks you "Are you a racist?" and you say "Yes," or something equivalent to that. The Times article linked to here never uses the word "avowed"; it just lists a bunch of actually racist (but not avowedly so) stuff that Nixon said. This article confusingly does call Nixon an "avowed racist," but then goes on to say that Nixon exhibited the gold standard of non-avowed racists: he denied being a racist. Shouldn't people like David Duke, or all of the people at Stormfront, who are so well documented all over the internet go in the "avowed racists" section instead of Nixon? (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

"Antisemitism: Different Perspectives"- is it relevant?[edit] According to the sources of this pretty new chapter (Antisemitism: Different Perspectives), it's all content based on one article published in 1997. The conclusion of this article is that most of the Americans are not anti-Semites and that those of them that do have anti-Semite opinions are only of certain origin or area. From a look at the conclusions of newer researches and the description of the latest hate crimes, I think that some of the findings of that 1997 research aren't relevant anymore... I suggest editing this chapter or at least qualify it. ScottyNolan (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

College campuses section has too much of a newspaper quality to it[edit]

I just deleted several passages of the college campuses section since they seem to be individual incidents that violate the idea that Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNP. I don't think we want to just have a random list of of recent anti-semitic incidents on campus that is ever expanding. Instead I think we want to give a more general picture. These changes of mine were reverted with little explanation. Let's discuss here and avoid an edit war. Dan Eisenberg (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Since there was no further discussion, today I moved forward and deleted these passages. Promptly an IP address reverted my deletion without explanation. I have reverted this and posted a notification about edit warring on the user's talk page. I hope we can discuss further here in a collaborative and productive fashion and that others can chime in. Thanks. Dan Eisenberg (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dan Eisenberg! Tnx for your last edits... even though I disagree with most of them. First of all, you gave the wikipedian community 4 days to react before you decided to erase (almost) a whole chapter. I think it would be more reasonable to give a chance for a real discussion to develope before removing so many cited texts. Second, I agree that the aim is to give a "more general picture", however, I think that the benefit of mentioning some incidents is that the sources of all the surveys and reports are not disconnected from reality. I can assure you that there were many more antisemitic incidents in campuses (u are invited to sneak a peek in CFCA) and that only those that represent certain trends got to appear on this page, to give some prespective of what's going on. Third, according to the 'back and forth' in the "view history page"' it seems that there are more users who believe the chapter should stay as is. In light of this, I'll restore some of your deletions. If you still think there are specific details that should be erased, I suggest they should be discussed here, and not removed at once :) ScottyNolan (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi User:ScottyNolan. Thanks for the collegial discussion. I hope my edit history reflects WP:BOLD and not a reflection of a lack of respect for the hard work of other editors. Unexplained reverts of my edits without discussions is something that I thought should not stand. Now that you have weighed in, I will of course discuss further and hope we can reach some resolution and/or that other editors can weigh in. I don't doubt that there are many more anti semitic incidents which could be sighted--but don't see any a good way to have a selection of these without violating the idea that Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNP or doing original research WP:NOR. How do you suggest we proceed while respecting these Wikipedia ideals? I am going to go ahead and remove the Khaled Abu Toameh passage for the reasons discussed below in the next talk section.. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Dan Eisenberg I am happy that for a change we find ourselves in a decent and respectful talk regarding such matters (its not a given at all). However, I must say that I agree with User:ScottyNolan. One cannot consider wikipedia as being a newspaper when actual and present contents are added to it. Making it more actual makes it even more thorough and accurate. It is more than important to make people realize the new form of Anti-Semitism that is growing and spreading throughout the world via the BDS movement for example. People tend to refer to Wikipedia as their main and primary source to know more of the world they live in. As many consider social networks and online contents obsolete, others consider them as being their main tool as a window to the world before referring to actual newspapers. Although this is not a way to give credit to anybody who might want to transform this amazing asset that is Wikipedia into an online newspaper, it's more of a way to make you reconsider the fact that by giving as much details and exact information as possible, this terrible yet very actual problem that is Anti-Semitism might get the pedestal it deserves. This topic is aged, and one thing that is important is that we all work Together in order to make it great. I believe it's important that we coordinate our actions regarding this article as it seems it's close to our hearts before erasing contents that we worked so hard on. Let's be a team on that one. What do you think? Best regards to all ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by N.F.B.R (talkcontribs) 00:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the collegial engagement here (you're right, it is unfortunately not a given). If there is good evidence from reliable sources of an increase of anti-semitism, by all means, let us include this. However, I am concerned if these newspaper articles are an attempt to paint this picture--since this I think amounts to original research which we as editors are not supposed to be doing. Which anti-semitic incidents should we list? How should we decide which ones? I don't see any clear resolution or addressing of these issues? - Dan Eisenberg (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Also see WP:RECENT. I think much of this content will not pass the ten-year test. Dan Eisenberg (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Good evening Dan Eisenberg As far as I know (I guess you know that too of course) if polls or researches are made and then referred to as academic sources, or reliable enough to be used as relevant sources for such a topic, then that's a go ! We are not supposed to do the researches that is true, however the researches are here to help us not make them but use their content. Regarding which content to use: I agree about the ambiguity of how to list and choose. In fact, I would say that this being with such a widen spectrum allows us to understand how tough and complex it is to find an answer to. Meanwhile, I would suggest us to refer to the title itself: "Anti Semitism in the United States": As long as we don't cross the boarders of the US, then I for my part would say that, if its chronologically and/ or well organized, then everything can be included. "Less is more" but sometimes "More is better than Less" if you understand what I mean. No need to hide the fact that the US have been subject to a growing Anti-Semitism in recent years. Showing some hidden and painful truths is painful by definition, but necessary to fix this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N.F.B.R (talkcontribs) 21:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

College campuses[edit]

A few issues on the College campuses section which I think should be changed:

"According to Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toameh, political activity focused on the Middle East on American college campuses "is not about supporting the Palestinians as much as it is about promoting hatred for the Jewish state."[1]"
This equates "the jewish state" with antisemitism, which I think we should not be doing here. The link also does not work so the reference can not be verified.
"Similar findings arise from an online survey conducted in the University of California. The results revealed that 70% of the respondents (229 self-identified Jewish students) had witnessed or experienced antisemitism on campus. Also, three-quarter of respondents reported that BDS campaigns promote hostile actions toward Jewish students on campus.[2]"
This source does not appear to be reliable and the methods of the study are not at all clear. I think it should be deleted--especially since the source above it appears more reliable so this is not really needed. Dan Eisenberg (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
What do you base on to say that "the source is not reliable and the methods of the study are not at all clear"? It appears to be an authoritative survey by a known Jewish organization in American universities (or students). As I explained you before, sometimes partisan sources are the only ones available which discuss such matters. Per WP:biased this is acceptable. Regarding the attributed opinion of Khaled Abu Toameh, hatred of the Jewish state is extremley related to antisemitism. Fortunately, I found a functioning link for the article (I added it moments ago).-- (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
First, thank you for collegially engaging with discussion here and for your work to fill in the link rot which inevitably occurs.
starting with the opinion of Khaled Abu Toameh: As the Antisemitism in the United States wikipedia article makes clear in the new antisemitism section, the idea that criticism of Israel is necessarily anti semitic is contested and should not be assumed to be so. The Toaemeh article more often refers to Israel or the Israeli state, and not the jewish state--and regardless bias against Israel is not necessarily anti semitic.
Surveys can easily be very biased--particularly online surveys. The survey from the methodology just says it "was disseminated through Jewish organizations on campus, such as Hillel, Chabad, and the Jewish fraternity AEPi, as well through Jewish student leaders on UC campuses". This doesn't tell us the context surrounding how recruitment was conducted which can matter a lot. For instance, if in soliciting respondents this was framed as a study for those concerned worried about anti semitism on campus (as one might expect an organization dedicated to this cause would frame things), than it is likely that mainly students who felt this was a problem would respond. The other survey seems to be much more rigorious in presenting its methods, and to be coming from an organization with less of an axe to grind and preconceived ideas of what opinions are. I also note that by targeting jewish organizations, the survey is telling us much more about jews in these organizations than jews in general. I think we should cut the 2nd survey and leave the 1st. Dan Eisenberg (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ On Campus: The Pro-Palestinian's Real Agenda, March 24, Khaled Abu Toameh, [1]
  2. ^ Rosen, Nicole. "MORE THAN 70% OF UC STUDENTS HAVE WITNESSED OR EXPERIENCED ANTI-SEMITISM, NEW SURVEY REVEALS". Amcha Initative. Retrieved 28 November 2015. 

RFC - Antisemitic incidents[edit]

NAC:There is agreement that the recent anti-semitic incidents should be removed as recentist and not necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

I think the article should omit the the lists of individual anti-semitic incidents in order to be more encyclopedic and better fit my understanding of wikipedia standards. The issue is that Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNP and this seems like a haphazard list of recent and not particularly noteworthy or historically significant anti-semitic incidents. Also see WP:RECENT. I think much of this content will not pass the ten-year test. Other editors seem to disagree with me, and it would be good to have some additional eyes on this. See above discussion under Talk:Antisemitism in_the_United_States#College_campuses_section_has_too_much_of_a_newspaper_quality_to_it although I think this same critique applies to lists of incidents outside the colleage campuses section. Thanks.-Dan Eisenberg (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Both lists of incidents seem to me to break the flow and style of the article. There are a number of excellent overviews; these are sufficient.
I can imagine, however, retaining one or two exemplary and particularly noteworthy incidents. HGilbert (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove as recentism. Such a topic could possibly be an entire article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove per WP:NOTNEWS. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove - Summoned by bot. Looks like the list was removed a bit prematurely without closure of the RfC. The list could be moved to a new page but should definitely be removed from this one. Meatsgains (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2016 (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.

An article in search of an editor[edit]

This article, imho, needs the loving care of an objective editor, it is crying out for sustained attention in the tag already atop the page. The problem, as i see it, is that it has a tendency to collect incidents, and then to have those incidents scrubbed clean by a persistent SPA (Dan Eisenberg), an account that appears to exist for the purpose of removing well-sourced material form articles about antiSemitism. The problem is, that this and other articles on antisemitism do have a tendency to accumulate indicents, but lack analysis. I hope that someone will step up to the plate here, and monitor and improve this article. Because the cycle this article is in, of adding and deleting specific incidents, fails to create a good article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Please look at my edit history before suggesting this is an SPA. I welcome improvements to this article as well--but they must be improvements which fit with wikipedia standards. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Antisemitism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)