body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents
Former good article nomineeAntisemitism was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 12, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
October 13, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former good article nominee

That line about "self-hating Jews" in the lead (?!?)[edit]

I can't possibly understand how this line stayed unchallenged for so long, much less in the first sentences of the lead : "Though antisemitism is overwhelmingly perpetrated by non-Jews, it may also be perpetrated by self-hating Jews."

1) "Self-hating Jew" is an unambiguously pejorative, if not insulting, term: it has no place on Wikipedia in the context that it's being used in this line. If it was somehow a neutral term, and this line definitely tries to present it as such, there wouldn't be news coverage and controversy whenever a public figure uses it

2) The notion itself of the "self-hating Jew" is far from being politically neutral and is overwhelmingly used by one side of the spectrum. Presenting it as uncontested goes against NPOV and makes Wikipedia appear as taking a side in an ongoing debate

There's very little doubt in my mind that the line and its high placement are a politically motivated attempt at giving legitimacy to a highly contentious label. I encourage anyone with the necessary credentials to heavily rephrase it, at the very least. WikiFouf (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is problematic. Firstly, from MOS:LEDE: Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. This comment on supposed 'self-hatred' appears not to be discussed elsewhere in the article, and accordingly doesn't belong in the lede. As to whether a discussion of 'self-hatred' belongs in the article at all, I'd note that only a single source is cited, and from a quick look at said source, the text it is being cited for is at minimum a gross oversimplification of a scholarly work. And I'd have to ask whether the book's take on the subject is necessarily representative of contemporary scholarship. If the article is to discuss 'self-hatred', it really needs more than one source to justify doing so, per WP:DUE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that nobody else has commented, and given the objections discussed above, I've removed the sentence. It clearly doesn't belong in the lede, and if discussion of this controversial claim belongs anywhere in the article, we need multiple sources, not one, and we need to comply with WP:NPOV policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good edit Zanahary (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove unsubstantiated "assertion" from non-expert[edit]

James Carroll asserted: "Jews accounted for 10% of the total population of the Roman Empire. By that ratio, if other factors such as pogroms and conversions had not intervened, there would be 200 million Jews in the world today, instead of something like 13 million."

This seems wildly off base considering that many if not most ethnic groups that existed during the Roman Empire are now extinct whether or not they were subjected to those factors. This includes the Romans themselves as a distinct ethnic group. That they continued to exist under pressure should be testament to their survival, not a revanchist dogwhistle from a source that has little to no authority on the subject matter. 2601:19C:5101:4750:7816:2040:1C9E:6A6A (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding ‘irrational and unjustified’?[edit]

On the Wiki page about Islamophobia, Islamophobia is described as 'the irrational and unjustified fear of, hatred of, or prejudice against the religion of Islam or Muslims in general, especially when seen as a geopolitical force or a source of terrorism.'

In the intro on the Wiki about antisemitism on the other hand, the words 'irrational and unjustified' are not included.

When looked at in context one could understand this as if to say that 1) there is no such thing as rational and justified Islamophobia and/or 2) antisemitism can be rational and justified.

I think this discrepancy has to be resolved. The easiest road to travel would be to add the words 'irrational and unjustified' to the intro on the wiki page about antisemitism (think of the uproar when you would suggest leaving these words out of the intro on Islamophobia..). I have no experience in editing Wiki articles though.

What are other peoples views on this? And could someone help editing the page? Dadavalobe (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories