Talk:Antisemitic trope/Archive 1

contradictory comments
Since my edit got reverted, i'd like to say that i disagree with the statement in the contradictory claims section:

"This catalogue of contradictory accusations cannot possibly be true and no single people could feasibly have such a total monopoly on evil."

OK, first, I'm certainly not saying jews are evil, but to state that the contradictory accusatiosn cannot possibly be true is not very neutral. Even if the material is quoted, I feel it would make more sense to end the quote before that sentence, not afte it.

Unless there is a very compelling reason, I'm going to be bold and remove that line. Feel free to revert and label me antisemitic, but I dont' think it changes the article by removing it. Lawofone 18:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate material about the militia movement in lead?
There's a block quote at the very top of the article that after making some general statements about antisemitic conspiracy theories, goes on to say The militia movement today believes in the conspiracy theory of the Protocols, even if some call it something else and never mention Jews. That's pretty debatable. And given that there's nothing in the rest of the article about the Patriot movement, it's not appropriate to mention it in the lead. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Add canards "Jews control Hollywood" and "Jews control Fed. Reserve"?
There are a couple of canards missing from this article, and - as far as I can tell - from the entire encylopedia. They are:

Jews control Hollywood - see http://www.adl.org/special_reports/movie_industry/print.asp

and

Jews control the U. S. Federal reserve - see http://www.adl.org/special_reports/control_of_fed/print.asp

I propose to add subsections into this article for the above two topics. I wrote an entire article on the "Jews Control Hollywood" canard several months ago, but it was deleted after a lengthy debate. But in that debate was the suggestion to add the canard into this article or the Anitsemitism article.

If you are wondering about the notability, there are lots of notable primary and secondary sources on the canards, which can be included as footnotes.

Also, as a measure of relative notability, the ADL web site has a series of articles on antisemitic myths, for instance http://www.adl.org/special_reports/kosher_tax/print.asp which is about the "kosher tax", which is mentioned in this article. The above linked web sites are similar ADL articles in that series.

Any comments on these canards, or how the sections should be structured? --Noleander (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The last time you wrote on the topic of Jews controlling Hollywood, you used a number of non-reliable, antisemitic sources. What sources do you plan to use this time? Also, your article presented the topic not as if it were a canard, but as if it were true. I note you've recreated that article in your user space. Do you intend to essentially recreate that deleted article in this article? Or are you going to actually create a section about an antisemitic canard? Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My intention was to write a very simple, small section, maybe 3 or 4 sentences, citing nothing more than the ADL article above, plus any other cites that editors think are necessary. My user page is simply there to retrieve any citations that editors think are necessary.


 * BTW: I read on the internet that you used to communicate with other editors via email to "watch your back" when you were starting to do some controversial editing.  Was that true, or was that just made up?  Just curious.   --Noleander (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3-4 sentences based on the ADL article sounds reasonable. BTW, article Talk: pages are for discussing article content and the improvement of the article in question. Please review WP:TALK. Jayjg (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! I'll add that sections in ... maybe you can help improve it after I have the draft text there.   --Noleander (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ive got the sections typed-up, with citations to the ADL site, etc. As I insert them into the article, they appear a bit provincial, too focused on the U.S.  This article has a more global scope, so I think it would serve the encyclopedia better to use titles "Canard:  jews control the media" (primary example of canard = Hollywood); and "Canard: jews control international finance" (primary example of canard = Fed. Reserve).  That broadens the scope and fits in the article better.  If those broader topics already have articles in this encyclopedia, let me know so I can cross-link. --Noleander (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the article Antisemitism in Europe (Middle Ages) which discusses how Jews were often forced into money-lending occupations in the middle ages (lending being a sin for some Christians). I think it might be helpful to put a link to that article (here in the new "Jews control banking" canard section).  But is there another article that is more on-point? --Noleander (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, it would have been much better if you had brought the sources here first, or relied on the ADL paper, as you said you would. The material you added had many issues. For example, these sources are unacceptable and have been removed: In general, the material used far too many inappropriate and/or primary sources. The sources used in this article should discuss the canard; i.e., be secondary sources. They should not be examples of those asserting the canard; those are primary sources. More importantly, the section missed the primary thrust of the canard, which is that Jews are a cabal that uses Hollywood to negatively influence American culture and subvert American values. I've cleaned up the section, and added another secondary source discussing the canard. Jayjg (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (a Wikipedia article is never an acceptable source)
 * (a Wikipedia article is never an acceptable source)
 * (no indication that this source discusses the antisemitic canard. In fact, this source is an example of the canard, as pointed out in other sources, but we're not trying to make arguments based on primary sources here).
 * (a Wikipedia article is never an acceptable source).
 * Sounds good. So an example can be given if it is quoted from the secondary source?  As in this example that is already in this article:


 * In Stalin's Soviet Union, the state-wide campaign against "rootless cosmopolitans" - a euphemism for Jews - was set out on January 28, 1949 with an article in the newspaper Pravda: "... unbridled, evil-minded cosmopolitans, profiteers with no roots and no conscience... Grown on rotten yeast of bourgeois cosmopolitanism, decadence and formalism... non-indigenous nationals without a motherland, who poison with stench... our proletarian culture."[50]
 * --Noleander (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I also see a good example you put in, where you included a quote from primary source Sandberg, as quoted by secondary source Weinraub (in a NY Times article, not as good as a reputable book, but certainly very notable). I'd like to add a couple of more quotes into this article (following this policy you decribe).  Reading this article, as it is now, is like kissing through a veil :-)  The key balance is to ensure that it gives the reader information about antisemitism, without turning into a overly offensive laundry list.  But the total absence of examples is not very helpful to readers, either.  --Noleander (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The material is detailed enough already, and we shouldn't be giving examples when they may be one-offs or unusual claims. The key to the Hollywood canard is, as I stated above, the subversion of American values by a nefarious Jewish cabal colluding to impose foreign values on an unsuspecting American public. Please discuss any examples here first, and gain consensus. Jayjg (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Two sections need improvement
There are a couple of sections that dont seem right:

1) "Viewed as social phobia" section seems out of place in this article (which is a list of canards) ... shouldnt it be (or is it already) in the Antisemitism article?

2) "Holocaust denial" section has no references. I suppose all the cites are in the refereneced main article, but still ... --Noleander (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No comments on this? Let me propose this:  we delete the "Viewed as social phenom" section, and add some cite tags to the HD section.  Okay?  --Noleander (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The "Viewed as social phobia" section does seem out of place, and not particularly helpful. Regarding the other, since the section in question is taken from the lead of the Holocaust denial article, and since Holocaust denial lead is copiously footnoted, it would have made more sense to simply copy the footnotes from there. Don't tag when you can improve. I've done that now. Jayjg (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sections seem a bit imbalanced?
Has anyone done any kind of statistical research (google counts or whatever) on the various sections in this article? They seem a bit imbalanced, but that is just a gut feeling. It looks like the minor canards have lots of detail (and even dedicated articles) yet the major canards have small sections. Some statistics could help determine if any sections need more detail. --Noleander (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are some stats, google-hit counts on Scholar, Book, and Web:


 * usury jews	"1,370,000"	"4,010"	"18,500"		2.92%	28.19%	17.44%		16.18%
 * militarism jews	"1,680,000"	"1,573"	"31,600"		3.58%	11.06%	29.79%		14.81%
 * cowardice military jews  	"6,700,000"	818	"24,400"		14.26%	5.75%	23.00%		14.34%
 * demonization jews	"5,420,000"	"1,027"	"16,900"		11.54%	7.22%	15.93%		11.56%
 * """control the world"" jews"	"12,200,000"	679	"2,120"		25.97%	4.77%	2.00%		10.91%
 * """control the media"" jews"	"11,000,000"	605	611		23.41%	4.25%	0.58%		9.41%
 * "jews ""control the worlds"" banks"	"5,560,000"	55	132		11.83%	0.39%	0.12%		4.12%
 * """blood libel"" jews"	"204,000"	"1,226"	"2,430"		0.43%	8.62%	2.29%		3.78%
 * """holocaust denial"""	"649,000"	922	"3,430"		1.38%	6.48%	3.23%		3.70%
 * deicide jews	"660,000"	975	"2,000"		1.40%	6.85%	1.89%		3.38%
 * "rothschilds ""federal reserve"""	"331,000"	741	"3,400"		0.70%	5.21%	3.20%		3.04%
 * """host desecration"" jews"	"52,000"	702	312		0.11%	4.93%	0.29%		1.78%
 * """well poisoning"" jews"	"32,700"	634	161		0.07%	4.46%	0.15%		1.56%
 * """jews are racist"""	"938,000"	35	4		2.00%	0.25%	0.00%		0.75%
 * """nile to euphrates"" jews"	"135,000"	71	21		0.29%	0.50%	0.02%		0.27%
 * """cause antisemitism"" jews"	"6,607"	84	59		0.01%	0.59%	0.06%		0.22%
 * """kosher tax"""	"42,000"	68	7		0.09%	0.48%	0.01%		0.19%


 * The sections are sorted from top to bottom, most-mentioned to least-mentioned (weighted average of Scholar, Books, & Web). Based on the above (granted, all google-search stats should be taken with a grain of salt) it looks like there are three sections that could stand some extra review to see if additional content is warranted:  (1) Excessive Militarism/Cruelty;  (2) Control the world's finances; and (3) Control the media.  --Noleander (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The latter two canards are already documented. Do you have any specific, reliably sourced canards in mind regarding "Excessive Militarism/Cruelty"? Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My point was that the stats seem to show that there may be aspects of the "big" canards that are not yet documented in the article.  One example, off the top of my head, may be that "Jews control the major U.S. newspapers and use that control to keep criticism of Israel out of the newspapers".  That is a more detailed aspect of the "Jews control media" canard that is widely reported, but not yet described in this article.


 * I dont understand your question about "militarism". There is already a section Antisemitic canard.  What was your point on that?


 * Jayjg: should we remove detail from the Kosher Tax article because an editor thinks it is overly detailed? Of course not:  as long as the detail in the Kosher Tax article is valid and supported, it belongs in the encyclopedia.  Do you agree? --Noleander (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I propose to add "expansion" tags to those three sections, since they seem so undersized relative to their web notability.  That tag may grab the notice of other editors who can either contribute or, conversely, comment here on the Talk page explaining why the current text is sufficient.   The tag may help us reach consensus. --Noleander (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I propose you not do so, since there's no indication they are "undersized" compared to reliable sources on the topics, and there's no indication any material is missing from them. Jayjg (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "indication they are ..." refer to google scholar/book stats above. "material missing" .. refer to "U. S. Newspapers do not print material that is critical of Israel" comment above.     --Noleander (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Google searches are meaningless in this context. Please provide specific examples of material that is described by reliable sources as an antismitic canard and is omitted from these sections. Jayjg (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize for misleading you: I am not proposing a specific addition, Im proposing to add tags to try to draw the attention of other editors so they could help on these sections.  The stats look like those sections may need some more work, and tags are traditionally used to mark sections so other editors passing-by might notice and help out.    --Noleander (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And I'm saying that this article receives almost no attention, and so it's unlikely that these tags will produce any more content; in particular because we have no evidence that such content actually exists. Don't deface articles on a hunch. Jayjg (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, why dont we give it a try on one obvious section (1 sentence "militarism" section) and if a couple of months go by with no input, we can remove it?  --Noleander (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

why restore "Viewed as social phobia" section?
Mbz1: Jayjg and I discussed (above) the "Viewed as social phobia" section and we agreed it didnt really belong in this article, and so it was removed. But you just put it back. Can you explain why it belongs in this article? I think this article is supposed to be a list of notable canards. That section is not bad, but maybe it would be more appropriate in another article? --Noleander (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not see you discussion with Jayjg, but my opinion is that the section should stay. In any case iy should have been discussed for at least 2 weeks before it was removed.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Can you explain why it should stay, in other words, why it belongs in a list of canards, rather in other articles that deal with antisemitism?   --Noleander (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion
I propose that the contents of 2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories‎ be merged into this article. The Haiti conspiracy page has basically been cut down to just two points: the accusation that HAARP triggered the earthquake, which is already discussed on the HAARP page; and a blatant antisemitic tale of organ harvesting by Israeli Defense Forces. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that canard (in other forms) is fairly notable, see
 * http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASInt_13/5604_13.htm and
 * http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Internet_75/5693_75.htm and
 * http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Semitism_International/blood_libel_algeria.htm.
 * Limiting the canard to Haiti may be too topical, too new-sy.   So if you put it in, be sure to generalize to  incorporate other data (e.g. from ADL reports above). .  All statements you add into this article must be supported by reliable sources, of course.  --Noleander (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is an earlier reference: http://www.adl.org/anti_semitism_arab/as_cartoons_harvest.asp
 * --Noleander (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, first I am accused of forum shopping and now I come and find this:a merge proposal. I am starting to see that people are realizing how as time goes by that this article is really not worth of being in a serious encyclopedia. Since there is no other option I support the merging of that article in here, maybe, just maybe that will give its contents some level of respectability if at all. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If it does end up being merged into this article, the two articles should be cross-linked to help readers (e.g. the original article could have a small section with a "main" link over to this new article; and this article could have a "seeAlso" link to the Haiti article). --Noleander (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There would be no need. If the organ-stealing material is merged here, the HAARP material is already covered in the HAARP article, so the original Haiti conspiracy article would simply redirect here. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 01:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. My mistake: I thought only a single section was getting merged, but you're talking about the whole article.  I see.  --Noleander (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly support a merge. The original article has nothing do with a conspiracy theory about the Haiti earthquake anyway and certainly does not warrant its own article. If the causation "theory" is already covered in the HAARP article then this can certainly be merged. Feudonym (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment only half the article deals with Israel (less, with the original version of the article - there was a section on Pat Robertson, and another on the "military occupation of Haiti by the US"), so it would still need to be a dab page with its current name. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support the merge. Merge this part and merge anything that needs to be merged into the HAARP article, and turn the article into a dab page. We can't just redirect since this isn't the only thing the article covers, right?   S warm  ( Talk ) 21:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose The IDF organ theft theory relates to the Israeli Government, not anti-Semitism.   I am suprised by all the references to the ADL - is that a reliable source?93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose Interesting idea, but this article is already far too long for us to seriously consider merging yet more stuff here. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support It fits perfectly in that article. Breein1007 (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to add section on "kosher tax"
There is already an article on that, but this article should have a brief section with a "main" link to it. --Noleander (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There have been no replies, and this seems rather benign, so I'll add it.  Please comment here if there are any issues.  --Noleander (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've re-written it to accurately reflect the gist of the canard, and to use a broader range of sources. It's inappropriate to ascribe and cite this solely to the ADL when many other sources also describe the canard. If I weren't assuming good faith, I might have thought this was done deliberately, as a sly means of undermining the description of the "kosher tax" as a canard. Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes
I don't think we should use Daniel Pipes as a reference for this article; he is potentially too controversial, and has made quite a few inflammatory statements; "The Palestinian people are a miserable people, and they deserve to be", is one particularly infamous "gem" of his; also, he has accused President Barack Obama of secretly being a Muslim and flirted with extremists in the past (such as John Hagee: and Geert Wilders: ). Since Daniel Pipes is arguably a bigot himself, I'm really don't think he's a reliable source for documenting other people's bigotry; doing so would be rather like using Louis Farrakhan or Malik Zulu Shabazz as a source for an article about white people's racism against blacks.

There are plently of Jewish (and non-Jewish) critics of antisemitism out there who don't share Pipes's bigotry problem. We could use them as sources instead of Pipes. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the "gem" that Stonemason89 refers to (i.e. "The Palestinians are a miserable people...and they deserve to be.") appeared in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs in July 2001. Pipes (in a letter to the editor published in WRMEA in October 2001) stated that this quote was falsely attributed to him by WRMEA reporter Elaine Kelley. In fact, Pipes wrote that he had never made such a statement and that "far from thinking the Palestinians a miserable people, I call attention to their dignity and talent." Pipes also discusses this claim on his on his website. Pipes also notesnoted that WRMEA has previously claimed that "Israel’s Mossad killed Kennedy, overthrew Nixon, and considered assassinating George H. W. Bush." Just something to keep in mind when considering this issue.


 * I stand corrected, then. That doesn't change the fact that Pipes is very controversial. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "militarism" section?
The "militarism" section was removed, but I didn't see a discussion here on the Talk page. I think this is a controversial article, so we should deliberate here first. I'm not saying it is a great section, but some editor (not me) put it in, so we should talk about its notability and sourcing first. If sources are needed, several days should be provided for the original editor (or another editor) to respond. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure thing; I'll wait a week and if nobody responds, then I might put it up for RFC. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was unable to find any sources to support this, so I'll go ahead and delete this section. If anyone can find sources for this, please speak up.  --Noleander (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Move "Contradictory accusations" to another article?
This section seems out of place in this article. I think the section content is okay (although a bit quote-heavy) but perhaps it would be better on a higher-level article about antisemitism in general? This article would be most useful if it were a simple list of antisemitic canards. Any comments? --Noleander (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Perhaps it should be moved to History of antisemitism. Speaking of which, there is quite a bit of content overlap (not necessarily word-for-word, but there are passages that deal with the same subjects) between that article and this one. Is that considered OK, or do you think "redundant" content (content that appears in both articles) should be removed from one of the two articles? Stonemason89 (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not too sure about moving into History of antisemitism ... it would probably just get moved back to this article :-)  So, instead I moved it down to the bottom of the article, so it is not so prominent.  There is still the odd situation that this article is titled "Antisemitic canard" and the first top-level section's name is identical:  "Antisemitic canards".  That doesnt seem right:  maybe we can find a better wording for that first section? --Noleander (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Idea: Move all the individual canard sections up to be top-level sections (and eliminate the empty "antisemitic canards" section)?   --Noleander (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The opposite makes more sense. There are far too many headings in the article, the headlines should be changed to bold text. Jayjg (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you've got a point there. Maybe it is best to just leave the levels as-is.  Making them merely boldface would prevent readers from clicking on the table of contents to jump down to a specific item.  --Noleander (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Jazz, Rock N Roll, etc.
I remember seeing a movie called Swing Kids in which the Nazis blamed Jews for the popularity of jazz and swing music, both of which they despised; they focused particular ire on one popular swing musician (forgot who) as he was a black man who converted to Judaism, and at one point in the movie there was a poster of a (caricatured) black man playing a saxophone while wearing a Star of David armband, and below it was the caption "Neger-Kike musik". This seems to have been a quite common antisemitic canard during the Nazi era, and it is still heard today (albeit to a lesser extent) among people who don't like rock n' roll and feel that Jews control the music industry and are using it to "corrupt" the youth. Would this be worth mentioning in the article? Stonemason89 (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that specific example above is a rather narrow. Perhaps if it were generalized to "Jews control the music industry and use it to corrupt youth", and if you found reliable sources for that, it could be included.  But be sure to sketch it out here first.  (This article already has a canard about Hollywood (" Hollywood's motion picture industry and subvert American values") but that is specific to the movie industry.)  --Noleander (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I found some sources that cover this canard in pretty good detail. The sources are:
 * Paul Buhle, "Jews and American Popular Culture (Vol 2)"
 * Robert Singh, "The Farrakhan phenomenon: race, reaction, and the paranoid style in American politics"
 * Norman Kelley, "R&B, rhythm and business: the political economy of Black music"
 * Eric L. Goldstein, "The price of whiteness: Jews, race, and American identity"
 * Steven Gary Marks, "How Russia Shaped the Modern World: From Art to Anti-semitism, Ballet to Bolshevism"
 * I propose to add a new low-level section (sibling to the existing "Hollywood" section) that captures the canard, as described by these sources.  --Noleander (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, go ahead! Stonemason89 (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like you already did. Well done. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Overly detailed footnotes?
Footnotes #63 to #66 (I think mostly from Holocaust Denial section) are extremely lengthy ... does anyone have any idea why? I dont see any explanation in this Talk page or its archives. Granted, the footnotes seem accurate, and may even be useful to some readers, but shouldnt that be in another article? Why is that level of detail in this article? Are we aiming for that level of detail in all footnotes? --Noleander (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They're accurate, highly informative, and do no harm. Complete footnotes are a virtue, not a vice. Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you have no objection to additional footnotes for other sections? --Noleander (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Which footnotes, and to what end? Jayjg (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no specific footnotes in mind at this time. The end would be to provide additional, accurate information to readers, much like footnotes #60 to #63 do.    --Noleander (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weren't you going to start focusing on something else besides negative claims regarding Jews? I believe that was supposed to start last week, wasn't it? Jayjg (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jayjg: Talk pages are for discussing the content of the article.  See WP:Talk.  Thanks.  --Noleander (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Noleander, what Jayjg was trying to say is that your account looks more and more as wp:SPA. Please find something else to do. I agree with Jayjg on footnotes and everything else concerning this thread. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

New subsection on "Accusations of controlling the newspapers"?
I propose to add a new subsection (under "Accusations of controlling the media") about "Accusations of controlling newspapers". This would be a sibling of "control of Hollywood" and "control of music industry". The content would be a sentence like: An antisemitic canard is that "Jews control the newspapers", and that the control is used to promote Jewish interests or to exclude news coverage that reflects negatively on Israel. Supporting sources would include: .... --Noleander (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Antisemitism: a historical encyclopedia of prejudice and persecution. A-K, Volume 1; Richard S. Levy;p. 375-376
 * Jewish Americans and political participation: a reference handbook; Rafael Medoff; p. 61-62
 * Arafat's War: The Man and His Battle for Israeli Conquest; Efraim Karsh, p. 95
 * Antisemitism in Canada: history and interpretation; Alan T. Davies; p. 76

Is the ADL a reliable source?
I don't think it is, and I do not think it should be cited as such.93.96.148.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC).
 * The JDL is not cited in this article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * references 103 on - suggest you read the references before contributing.93.96.148.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC).
 * I suggest you read them. Take a careful look. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry - meant the ADL, which is a pressure group, and not a reliable source in my oppinion.03:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)93.96.148.42 (talk)

Question
Hi,

I have been referred to this article by someone of the Reference Desk at Wikipedia regarding my question about a possible control of the media by the Jews.

I am providing a link to an artcile written by the LA Times that I have just read (that can hardly bee categorized as "antisemitic") which says that Jews do indeed control the media in the US - and the artcile has been written by a Jew. So i am a bit confused: WHO IS LYING HERE?

Thank you. 69.116.236.229 (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It depends on what you mean by "Jews control the media". Jayjg (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * there is only one sense possible to the question. Do they or do they not? 69.116.236.229 (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify: the opinion piece in the LA Times claims Jews control "Hollywood" which is only a subset of "the media". There is certain amount of hyperbole in Joel Stein's piece. No one group of people "controls" an industry as large as Hollywood, much less "the media". Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people work in the U.S. film industry most of whom are not Jewish. —D. Monack talk 23:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You are playing with words (again); For your info I eat lawyers for breakfast! (just to clarify) :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.236.229 (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're going to accuse people of lying, you should be clear about what was said. I am not a lawyer. —D. Monack talk 23:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * eating like "to eat", essen (German), manger (French). I hope i am clear now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.236.229 (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And I eat bigots for breakfast, as in essen (German). In any case, to answer your question, Jews have certainly been prominent in Hollywood, yet they do so as individuals, not as representatives of Judaism. Despite the stories you might have been told, there is no conspiracy by Jews to control Hollywood and subvert american values. American Jews have as much right as any other citizens of the United States to work in the motion picture business.  I wonder if in Iran they would have the same freedom. Marokwitz (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In Iran, since you talk about it, Jews have a reserved seat in the Iranian Parliament and yes they can work in the motion picture industry as they wish - without any restriction. It's the Baha'is who cannot, origin of my family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.236.229 (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "there is only one sense possible to the question" - actually, there are many. But if you're asking for a simple answer, then it's "No. The 'media' are all large, publicly traded companies, controlled by their (or their parent companies') boards of directors, shareholders." On the other hand, if you're asking "are there several Jews in senior positions in Hollywood companies", the answer is "Yes. So what?" Jayjg (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Establishing the facts:


 * Media Reform Information Center - "Number of corporations that control a majority of U.S. media: 5"
 * "Six Jewish Companies Own 96% of the World’s Media" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.236.229 (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read our WP:RS policy regarding reliable sources. Marokwitz (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, you didn't come here for answers, you came here to spread antisemitic canards. Please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Instead of name calling, can you please address the issue at hand? Namely, helping establish the FACTS. See WP:NPA and WP:Civil. I posted a link to the 2 articles above  after making a quick online search TODAY because their facts contradict what a few people are saying here under this thread. I am not here to 'spread' anything but to find the TRUTH about it only - through QUESTIONS - Because it would affect the article itself (& only for that reason). Check my edit history and you will see that I have thousands of edits under my IP. 69.116.236.229 (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, with your thousands of edits, you must have heard of WP:RS by now. In case you haven't, though, both those sites clearly fail. Let me offer you a little help by pointing out some red flags you can look for that should make it clear when a site is probably full of shit. When you see a headline like "1127 days left for Age of Transition to begin! Prepare For The Worst – Plan For The Best!" And an opening sentence that reads "There are prophecies and oracles from around the world that all seem to point to December 21, 2012 as New World Age ( World is not going to end but millions of people will die in the process of New Age Transition)." it's probably best to confirm anything you find there from multiple, independent, reliable sources. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, and "9/11 was a master plot, concocted by a handfull [sic] of Israelis and dual passport Americans and carried out by the resources of the Mossad." . Talk about reliable sources... Marokwitz (talk) 07:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you are misrepresenting what is in those 2 articles, OBVIOUSLY, and including things which are NOT there, I take your answer as a resounding "YES" to my first question under this thread. Thanks! 69.116.236.229 (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * “You know very well, and the stupid Americans know equally well, that we control their government, irrespective of who sits in the White House. You see, I know it and you know it that no American president can be in a position to challenge us even if we do the unthinkable. What can they (Americans) do to us? We control congress, we control the media, we control show biz, and we control everything in America. In America you can criticize God, but you can’t criticize Israel…” -Israeli spokeswoman, Tzipora Menache


 * PS: I can only invite readers to go and read those 2 articles for themselves and make their own opinion. One article is just a list of names and control positions in the media and the second is referencing a book by Ben Bagdikian about this subject. 69.116.236.229 (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The quotes we provided are from the site you linked to, not the article. The purpose of this was to demonstrate how worthless the site is, not to make claims about what's in the article.
 * There's no such person as Tzipora Menache. The quote is an unscrupulous, lying fake. CAUTION Don't google "Tzipora Menache". Doing so is likely to lead you to a site that downloads a virus.
 * You should actually try reading the response you got at the Reference Desk. It explains the issue quite well. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I did some further research and this is what i found online:


 * This quote is from a Pakistani source. It appears to be fabricated, but loosely based on a statement made by Ariel Sharon. Sharon made the statement in Hebrew during an exchange with Shimon Peres, who said something to the effect of the Americans won't approve. Sharon retorted something to the effect of "We, the Jewish people, control America and the Americans know it."


 * To get back to the core of the subject at hand here, this is the first part of the content of the article that I have referenced above


 * My question has not been answered yet; do all these people verifiably exist or not? Do they have the position described in this article at the time the article was written, yes or no? Is this is a control position, yes or no? I am sure you agree that it's all that matters at the end. 69.116.236.229 (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh Yes, Disney has expanded into the production of graphic sex and violence, and that's because the CEO is a Jew. Go figure... Stating that a company is run by A Jew is fine. Holding the belief that it is run by The Jews (as in your question, "control of the media by the Jews") is antisemitism . But something tells me that you are not really here for an answer. Marokwitz (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Sharon quote was fabricated too. See this. Do you have any changes you with to make to the article, based on reliable sources? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, no, you are not entitled to an answer to that question. The only question that merits an answer here is "Is pakalert.com a reliable source?" Answer: no, for the reasons stated above. If you doubt this you may visit WP:RSN and seek more opinions, but I can promise you you'll get the same result there. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Your repeated proces d'intention (French) and your constant concerted effort to focus on peripheral issues instead of answering my question at its core tells me that you may have an agenda here and something to hide. The next step is to ask for comments. Agree? 69.116.236.229 (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, is this second article TRUE or NOT? & you did NOT answer my first question yet :)


 * Since you say there are "viruses" when there are none, I am pasting the quote below:

"In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called "alarmist" for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote "in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media" -- controlling almost all of America's newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. He predicted then that eventually this number would fall to about half a dozen companies. This was greeted with skepticism at the time. When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world's largest media corporation.

In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth."


 * PS: Marokwitz, in your statement above you said that I am an "anti-semite" for "holding a belief''. But I am NOT holding any belief here since it is only a question :) When I said "I eat LAWYERS for breakfast" I really mean it.


 * You better improve your reading skills before eating lawyers, since I never said so. Read again. You are not an antisemite, it is obvious that you hold great respect for Jews and only came here seeking an answer for your academic question. Marokwitz (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * PSS: Steven, I think you are mixing 2 concepts: one is reliable source and the second is FACT as in "Jesus walked on water" (as reported by the King James Edition) - clearly a FACT. Marokwitz do you agree with us? :)

69.116.236.229 (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Do you have any changes you wish to make to this article, based on reliable sources? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Eventhough it is imposible to get to the FACTS here it seems (please see above), I would like to say a few things:


 * This article says that "The jews controlling the media is untrue", yet from the purely statistical and factual point of view, it seems otherwise. So yes, I would like to reformulate this article and say something more neutral as per WP:NPOV.
 * Second, I would like to know if you consider the King James Bible a "reliable source" for this article, since my second edit would be based on the assumption it is, as far as Wikipedia is concerned.
 * Thirdly, I would like to know if you consider (Professor) Ben Bagdikian and his book "The Media Monopoly", as quoted above, a reliable source? Thanks. 69.116.236.229 (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't add your own statistics to articles. Please review WP:NOR.
 * The King James Bible would not count as a reliable source for this article. Please review WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY.
 * Bagdikian would not be considered a reliable source for an article on antisemitic canards. Please review WP:RS.
 * Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Those are not my statistics per say, but those I have found so far on the internet. These can be verified easily by using Wikipedia's own vast resources of sourced articles on individual media companies. Unfortunately, you and your friends have tried to censor this information (as is the case here:) because what is there displeases and contradicts everything you are saying in the open here to us, the readers.
 * To my knowledge, The King James Bible is indeed an accepted verified source on Wikipedia. I don't see the concept of RS being applied selectively across Wikipedia.
 * Professor Ben Bagdikian is "an American media critic and a journalist and the dean emeritus of the University of California, Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism" as per his Wikipedia entry. I don't see why his book should not be referenced in this article. 69.116.236.229 (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems you are failing to grasp the concept. "Jews hold many key positions in the media" is true, it is mentioned in the article clearly, and that's the only thing that can be deduced from your examples. "The Jews are controlling the media" is untrue, since (A) there is no such organized body as "The Jews", and (B) Deducing from several examples of Jews in prominent positions in the media does to the assertion that "Jews control the media" is a false deduction. Examples are not "statistics". Feel free to find a reliable source making that deduction. (C) WP:NOR says you can't make up your own "statistics" to prove a point, you need a reliable source for that. Marokwitz (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * IP editor:
 * Statistics you invent based on your own calculations are original research. Please find reliable sources for all such claims.
 * As an ancient, primary source, the King James Bible is only accepted as a source for simple claims directly concerning the King James Bible itself, not concerning other topics. Please review WP:PRIMARY.
 * If Bagdikian were a reliable source, his reliability would only be in the area of media, not in the area of antisemitic canards. Please review WP:RS and WP:NOR.
 * Rather than continually repeating yourself, please review the policies and guidelines that you have been repeatedly pointed to. Also, please review WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:NPA and WP:ICANTHEARYOU. You need to start listening to other editors, rather than making comments about them.
 * Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 14:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent article move
A few minutes ago User:SSZ moved this article to Accusations against people of Jewish faith. I've moved it back because SSZ, please discuss your proposed change of this article topic here. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The article is about antisemitic canards; that is, persistent, false, antisemitic claims against made about Jews. It is not an article about "accusations".
 * 2) The canards are directed at ethnic Jews irrespective of their faith. Thus "people of Jewish faith" is also incorrect.


 * Indeed Antisemitic canards is the name used by all reliable sources. By the way, according to their edit histories User:SSZ appears to be the same person or closely related to the IP editor above. Marokwitz (talk) 06:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Anti-semitic canards related to money, banking and finance
I have created a draft article at User:Pseudo-Richard/Antisemitic canards related to money, banking and finance. The premise here is that there is a related subset of antisemitic canards that are related to money, banking and finance and that should be discussed together. This new article provides a way to do so. The text of the new article was created by copying the relevant text out of this article and expanding various sections. Please take a look at it and provide your feedback on the Talk Page. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight given to some concepts and not to others
This article does not adequately explain why the charges described are hoaxes and are not mere misinterpretations or misconceptions. There are several examples where the author(s) fail toprovide a convincing alternate argument. Some examples are below


 * Deitism - Although the authors explain the charge and its history. They fail to convince why this should be considered a hoax. If its not true that the Jews of the time were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, then who exactly were responsible apart from the Romans? The Mayan's? The Chinese? The Hindu's? Although the church said the Jews should not be blamed for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, they also don't state that this was a hoax. That is entirely a conclusion derived by the author. The author very patiently tries to show how various authorities believe that the Jews were not the sole participants of the act, but that too does not mean its a hoax.


 * Accusations of usury and profiteering - The section does not state that these did not exist, instead it states that the hate generated for these actions was undue bias. Hence, the two accusations are not technicaly hoaxes, its just that they are unfair. Point granted, but the section does not belong here then.


 * Kosher Tax - The same argument as above, and again its not a hoax, the author assures that the tax existed, but for a very good reason. Again, point taken, but this section does not belong here.

In the sections Accusations of racism and Accusations of organ harvesting the authors fail to clarrify what exactly is the hoax and what isn't. While admitting to the degrees of thruth the author spend the rest of the space in dishing out what I feel are vague conclusions and vieled threats against the usage of these incidents in the future. In fact, the whole article reads like a vieled threat against the contemplation of any kind of opposition to any view or action of the Jewish people as it promisies to use even the flimsiest of excuses as a proof to support every Jewish interpretation of History and reality. Wikishagnik (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it sounds a little like you're throwing a lot of things against the wall to see what will stick. Have no idea what "dietism" is, but as for deicide (a.k.a. "Christ-killing"), the Romans of ca. 30-35 A.D. did not allow the local native Jewish authorities (High Priest etc.) of the Roman province of Judaea to impose the death penalty, so the execution took place under Roman auspices, and a Roman official had to take direct personal responsibility for ordering the execution (as is clear from the New Testament account). As for usury and profiteering, the article doesn't say that they didn't take place, but rather that Jews who committed usury and profiteering did so while occupying one of the very few positions which Christians allowed them to fill -- in fact, in many cases, it seems that Christian societies reserved the role of usurer for Jews in order to deflect the guilt of usury from Christians onto Jews. And the "Kosher tax" thing is complete nonsense if it means that the costs of obtaining kosher certification add significantly to the retail prices of most Kosher-certified food items... AnonMoos (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * AnonMoos, perhaps you could add to that section, because it's quite badly written in its current form.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

jewish newspaper haaretz reports

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/israeli-sentenced-to-2-5-years-in-prison-in-u-s-for-dealing-kidneys-1.450543

just like Anti-non semitic canards, when it is TRUE. THEN its an anti-non semitic canard and thus I would propose it be described as such for equality. that said it was mostly against jewish law and not just the roman law itself, thus it should be rewritten as such. Hence why they had pilate do it.

one of the few positions is false aswell. there were plenty. the positions werent all because they believed from previous accounts that jews behaved badly and should be under a watch. naturally not all jews did this but it was better safe then sorry. bad leadership of the jews in this case. like the leadership of gentiles in american banks.

Now the organ theft certainly do happend, it would fit in the article about the abuse of the anti-semite charge and also that when certain facts such as the brooklyn jew did here, when its true, then obviously denying this fact can be anti-non semitic?

Again just some proposals in the article to be rewritten to balance it out.109.225.103.210 (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Add a mention of "Plan A" into well-poisoning section?
When I first heard about "Plan A", it was on a Denier's web site... but then I found what seemed to be a reputable statement (interview during a PBS program) that it was true, from one of the actual people who was in the underground during the war and then became a Nazi-hunter after the war.

So at first, I thought it was a canard, then found it's probably true... I think it deserves mention in the well-poisoning section either way.

(For those who don't know, "Plan A" was (true or false) a plan by Nazi-hunters just after the war to poison Germany's water supply, and thereby exact eye-for-an-eye revenge in the form of 6 million dead German residents.

Please, no personal attacks here &mdash; I am in earnest, and care about the truth, and am not any sort of anti-semite &mdash; point me to truthful documentation if you can. <BR>&mdash; Mwr0 (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If it's not a well-known commonly-recurring motif in anti-Judaism, then it would appear to have little relevance to this article... AnonMoos (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * <B>Thank you for commenting, AnonMoos.</B>
 * Of the 19 categories in section 1, I was completely unfamiliar with 9 of them. I think that the "well-known, commonly-recurring" criterion doesn't serve Wikipedia as being encyclopedic.  ((People who already know this stuff don't need the article.))
 * (Minor point, I see that the title uses "anti-semitic", not "anti-Judaism"; elsewhere, that's apparently been a bone of contention.)
 * I still think the existence of an actual plan to carry out what had been a canard for hundreds of years deserves mention. Was the long-standing existence of the canard part of why "Plan A" was formulated? (That might be a defense offered against someone who strongly criticizes the people who came up with "Plan A".)
 * &mdash; Mwr0 (talk) 07:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You use quite a few different colors in your comments, but my opinion remains basically the same as before. If it never progressed much beyond being someone's idle revenge fantasy, it wouldn't appear to have great inherent notability. -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I can use 'tics' instead of colors for emphasizing, if you want.


 * What's your source for saying it 'never progressed beyond...'? (And using a singular rather than plural noun?)  The mentions I saw indicated that the plan was foiled in the early stages of an attempt, rather than being given up before it was tried.


 * It still seems relevant that they seem to have adopted the attitude of <U>"How should we strike back? By doing exactly what, for a thousand years, they've been falsely accusing us."</U>  But I guess it'd be more proper to blame those few revenge-takers, rather than all Jewry, and if it had succeeded, the resulting universal blame would have become ... yet another canard.


 * No need to go any further with this. But maybe somewhere in Wikipedia, "Plan A" should be mentioned, at least once?


 * &mdash; Mwr0 (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC
An 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 16:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

On Reliable Sources
I would like to note that it seems contradictory to Wiki's source rules to reference the Anti-Defamation League as source regarding the issues being discussed on this page. By this measure, I would think then that any organization which is chartered to argue one side and one side only of a particular issue would carry a certain amount of bias, and may in fact have an agenda. I have gone through some of the archived discussions, and I also find it mind-boggling that reliable sources are mainly prescribed as those in Main Stream Media, which is the subject of one of the issues represented as a canard. I have done a great deal of reading using this very site on the ownership of media in America, and the ownership of those half dozen media conglomerates most certainly dials back to individuals who are Jewish. In so far as that ownership goes, why would it be considered a Canard if when researching these companies using Wiki (which themselves follow Wiki rules for sources) confirms these as facts? How is stating a fact in-and-of-itself anti-semitic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.14.110 (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The ADL simply has more credibility than Ernst Zuendel or Stormfront. We shouldn't blindly accept something said by the ADL if it's rejected by other significant reliable sources, but it's useless to try to be "neutral" or "balanced" between the canard-spreaders and the anti-canard debunkers when on average the anti-canard debunkers are much more reputable... AnonMoos (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting! Thank you for enlightening us that Jews control the media, is that in the article as one of the canards?  Well, it certainly is one.  And I'd love to know how the ADL and other rights groups argue only one side of the debate.  What's the other side they should argue, that Jews are evil criminals who control the world with their long noses?  Be real. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Jethro   B  23:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think if you will re-read my comments, I ascribe nothing to the 'Jews'. I have noticed no distinction is made in these discussions, between like-minded individuals of a group and the group as a whole. "Muslim terrorists" is a popular phrase in the MSM, but I am quite positive that doesn't refer to the group as whole, and doesn't necessarily make it a canard either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.14.110 (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, you wrote, "and the ownership of those half dozen media conglomerates most certainly dials back to individuals who are Jewish." I don't know your intentions, but this is often used to support the conspiracy theory that Jews control the world, because it's an evil crime to establish a successful business (assuming, of course, the claim is true). --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Jethro   B  00:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. Note: "individuals". My intent is only to seek out truth, without prejudice. If there is anything I have learned in this life, it is that there are two sides to every story, and the truth is most certainly found somewhere in the middle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.14.110 (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And what exactly is the "middle" when you have ADL saying that Jews don't actually control the world and it's a canard to say so (you've rejected ADL as a source), and neo-Nazis claiming that in fact Jews are elaborate decepters who secretly control the world... That Jews only control half the world, and media outlets? This is going to be interesting. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Jethro  B  19:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, "99.239.14.110"! What a fruitful false deduction! You're saying that anyone in the world can make up any accusation at all, and thereby MOVE THE TRUTH!


 * Say someone, perhaps General Wombat himself, asserts that General Wombat is not a rapist. That's ONE side of the story. Now anyone can make up the OTHER side. and say he is a rapist, and "99.239.14.110" says the truth MUST now be somewhere in the MIDDLE -- meaning General Wombat is at least somewhat a rapist! Bull.  And anyone who is "against" any person or group can claim ANYTHING AT ALL, and "99.239.14.110" will support them by saying that their claims must be at least partly true.


 * Some statements are true, and their negations are false, and the truth is NOT somewhere in the middle.


 * Hey, have you considered claiming that every Jewish synagogue has a secret divinely powered "radio" in their holy of holies, and that's how they all coordinate their secret evil plans? Then the Jews (oh, no, you always say "individuals who are Jewish" so that you can deny ever using the term "Jews" (where have I seen THAT liar's stratagem before?)) some individuals who are Jewish can say there are no such radios, and you will have proved that they have something that works kind of like a radio in every Holy of Holies... Gosh, your "experience has taught me" concepts and "logic" prove false again... &mdash;Mwr0 (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of anger, rhetoric and venom here - none of which I will engage directly, because I think that is precisely what is desired. It is always much easier for a person to feel justified that another person's viewpoint is invalid if you can demonize or characterize them one way or another. Character assassination is not a valid argument. Once again, my point, to be perfectly clear - is that the ADL's raison d'etre is "to Stop the defamation of Jewish people", therefore it is one viewpoint that is specifically referenced here to dispel any such notions that there may be truth to what are herein referred to as canards. My question at the onset of this post, was that if certain notions or topics can be proven to have an element of truth (reference to media ownership), does the idea of 'canard' still hold true? It is intellectually dishonest to not recognize that there is in fact a component of media control by Jewish individuals. Stating so is a fact (if you consider Wikipedia itself to be a valid source), and therefore is in no way defamatory. So what is the actual canard? Is the canard that there is a conspiracy? Then I would think the balanced approach would be recognizing that while ownership of specific media conglomerates can be traced to Jewish individuals, that there is no evidence of a "Jewish conspiracy". It's your article, and I have no intent of editing it, or defacing it. Let it stand as you wish it to be presented. In my opinion, leaving a record of objection to the encyclopedic attributes of this article for others to consider is enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.14.110 (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * (("Venomous" and "soapbox" and "demonizing" apply to the posts of "99.239.14.110". Don't apply those labels to me just for refuting him, and unjustifiably delete the refutation!)) This "99.239.14.110" stated "If there is anything I have learned in this life, it is that there are two sides to every story, and the truth is most certainly found somewhere in the middle." This declaration was not made randomly, but in order to posit its "worldly wisdom" as a sound logical principle &mdash; which it is not!! The short refutation:

"Some statements are true, and their negations are false, and the truth is NOT somewhere in the middle. Generating a false statement in opposition to the truth does NOT change the situation so that the truth is somewhere between the true and the false statements."


 * In other words, the existence of two sides to any argument does NOT prove that "the truth is in the middle". That's logically absurd and unsound. &mdash; Mwr0 (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What's logically absurd is presupposing that one side of an argument is absolute truth while the other side is inherently and undeniably false. Those that argue "a side" in any discussion are committed to their "version of the truth", and therefore will say anything to discredit any statements to the contrary. My "worldly" wisdom comes from the experience that when two sides are in a dispute, both have a viewpoint that usually (not always) contains some measure of truth to each, which is inevitably skewed based on each person's particular biases. That skewing is where fact may blur into fiction, and can only be clarified by independently verifiable facts that can prove claims one way or another. So if one is to objectively investigate any given claim, both sides must be heard equally and commonalities begin pointing at truth; hence the truth is in the middle. It's a figure of speech. Of course if you choose to take everything completely literally - then you will be completely obtuse to the concept that what I am really saying is there is "some truth to each side". I believe this is the same principle that is used to form Wikipedia articles in an encyclopedic fashion. The concept that anything anyone says contradictory to the claims of one side are immediately and inherently false just demonstrate the concept of absurdity that is so painfully obvious, it is dumbfounding that you dared offer it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.234.221 (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not "neutral" in the dispute over whether the earth is flat or quasi-spherical, nor in the dispute about whether the sun orbits around the earth or the earth orbits around the sun. If there are specific problems with the ADL's literature, then we can certainly look at them in the context of other reputable sources.  However, Wikipedia is simply not going to "balance" ADL against Stormfront and Ernst Zuendel, so any such demand is doomed to frustration from the start. AnonMoos (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Rhetoric comparison of my argument to the history behind the debate on whether the earth is flat or spherical does nothing to denigrate the argument I put forth. I am quite sure these statements are made with the intent to be derogatory and patronizing, but realize you are not debating with a simple mind, who will be exhausted by red herrings. Encyclopedic content presents what is verifiable. We all recognize the earth is round because it is independently verifiable, not because one side weighs in more heavily than another with opinion. At this precise moment in time I have no knowledge of Stormfront or Ernst Zuendel, therefore this argument is lost on me. I have not referenced these sources to begin with, and as such, I will dismiss these presentations as irrelevant to my point - although I am sure they certainly have some significance to those commenting here. As far as I am concerned, what is blatantly obvious, is that this article depicts first and foremost what the ADL promotes, and by those in this forum claiming that what ADL promotes to be true, and all other sources contradictory to what ADL promotes are inherently false - shows itself to be blatantly bias, one-sided, and intellectually dishonest. As stated before I can demonstrate via Wikipedia's own articles on media ownership (which follow these very WP rules on sources), that the half dozen major media conglomerates in the United States are owned by individuals whom are Jewish. Whether or not that translates to conspiracy is subject to independently verifiable proof. As with any concept of conspiracy, most remain relegated to theory because much of it is unprovable without significant corroboration - much like scientific concepts of 'string theory' or the 'big bang theory'. Until these theories can be corroborated they will remain theory in the eyes of those who seek absolute truth. The bottom line is that just because one group vehemently contends that something is a canard (a.k.a 'a lie') that does not make it so. The more this is debated, the more I am convinced that this is not encyclopedic content at all, but rather PROPAGANDA that has no place in Wikipedia. Rather this content should remain within the confines of it's source, for consumption by those who seek out such propaganda. Joseph Goebbels is a historical figure which all here should be familiar with, and it seems to me he said something to the effect of 'if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it people will eventually believe it'. I am not sure whom this article is really intended to convince - whether it for the benefit of the Jewry or the Goyim, but I assure you that in the end YHWH will not be played a fool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.234.221 (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Revert by Jethro B
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitic_canard&diff=519087806&oldid=519087228 ref ths revert, the claim that it is unexplained is not correct. See the history. The word however is POV and should be avoided. The main point is the claim that Jenny Tonge ............gave credence to the organ harvesting claims by suggesting  .....  This is BLP, it is POV, and  OR since the RS does not say this. This edit should be removed, and this claim of giving crecedence should be removed, or an RS provided that states that, and the claim attributed to that RS.86.128.43.102 (talk) 07:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with 99.238.234.221's argument and with his standards for epistemology. Wikipedia has demonstrated repeatedly, over the years, that its NPOV is no such thing where certain topics are concerned, and the politics regarding Jewish history and/or Jewish interests are among such topics. Just in the above exchange, I see one side arguing that objectivity should be maintained when examining Jews; i.e., that exceptionalism should be avoided, that assumptions friendly toward Jews are as improper as are assumptions hostile toward Jews. And I see the other side making unsupported assertions generally to the effect that every antisemitic opinion must necessarily be false. Wikipedia is obviously not in hands capable of recognizing neutrality on this subject. Instead, those hands try to place their "mark" of neutrality somewhere that it should not be, or to characterize neutrality as something it isn't. Among those who have the biggest say, or the final discretion, in what stays on these pages and what will be removed, there is a history, long and strong, of establishing what "credibility" is, who has it, and who does not, by declaration. The assignment of degrees of credibility here flows from political motives. To be sure, as one writer said, (specific) statements are either true or false, and there is no middle truth-value between them. But that summary of circumstances is, perhaps intentionally, incomplete. Complex descriptions contain many statements, any of which may be either true or false, and you should take them one by one when trying to determine which statements are false. Further, just because each specific statement must be either true or false does not mean you may pick the truth-value that you prefer, skipping all analysis and pretending that, in this case, the setting forth of evidence is something that need not be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.80.226 (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

They could also be pro-jewish canards
Some of these canards could actually be described as being pro-jewish since they make the gentile people look dumb and superstitious or "evil". The canards are also used to shut down any discussion as to the real reason why jewish people experienced anti-Semitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.44.38 (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Whatever -- an anti-Semitic canard is a negative tale which ends up getting perpetually recycled and resurrected, no matter how many times it's factually debunked. Not sure what the opposite would be, and if it's not a recognized phenomenon, then it's "original research" as far as Wikipedia is concerned... AnonMoos (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:3D Test of Antisemitism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is the Aftonbladet controversy here?
Oh the weird stuff one finds when browsing Wikipedia...Why is the so called blood libel that AB put up here when it has been proven to be more or less true? It's not a libel then, or a canard is it? So officially they stopped doing it 9 years before they published the fact, is that what makes it a canard? 213.100.108.86 (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It wasn't "true" in the form in which it was originally reported. It was another medical tissue bank corner-cutting scandal among many in many countries (see http://articles.latimes.com/2004/mar/11/opinion/oe-goodwin11 etc. etc.), but it only had a rather tangential relationship to the Israeli-Arab conflict. AnonMoos (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

ImageWithoutSource
The cartoon of the Jew riding the pig is without source, date, publication, artist, national origin, or any other authenticating information. It may have been drawn to illustrate this article -- who knows? Additionally, the caption describes things that are not obvious in the drawing. Where did the editor who inserted the drawing get this information? Wiki standards require a verifiable source. Slade Farney (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually the rules governing images are a little different from the rules governing articles... AnonMoos (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The caption was a copy paste of the quote in the article body, which is undesirable. I shortened the caption and identified the source, since Sfarney requested it, per the spirit of WP:BURDEN. you can get more information on an image by clicking it and navigating to the information page on commons. The person who uploaded it (in 2005) gave some info (in German). It is an image of an engraving, not a "cartoon." VQuakr (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , yes, I double clicked on the image. Then I clicked on the words, "View author information." The text says "Antisemitic 18th-century engraving from Frankfurt am Main."  No author, no artist, no publication, no source, no date.  "18th Century."  We would have all of the City of Frankfurt and no less than 100 years to verify the authenticity of this drawing.  How did it come down to us?  It does not say.  How does the originator know it is from Frankfurt or from the 18th century?  He/she does not say.  Why is he/she being so mysterious?  What we have here is a fragment of doubtful origin and shadowy date on a questionable subject posted by an unknown contributor on whom we should depend for authenticity.  Compared to this, there is more authenticity in the Shroud of Turin. Slade Farney (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and "based on a 15th century painting." Indeed?  What painting by what artist?  Does anyone really know this?  If so, why is he/she not telling us?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfarney (talk • contribs) 07:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is why I added the source, which before was just across from the image in the article body but now is also in the article caption. VQuakr (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Antisemitic canard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060530075420/http://www.fsumonitor.com:80/stories/012805Bigotry.shtml to http://www.fsumonitor.com/stories/012805Bigotry.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 12:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Jesus, neutral tone
I'm just curious, it says in the introduction that a "canard" is something that is "false by definition", yet the very first one on the list is that Jews killed Jesus of Nazareth. Is this not a fact? Jewish individuals did kill Jesus. As for collective guilt, who has the authority to state categorically that they don't share collective guilt? So the Pope did, but he doesn't speak for all Christians. Whether you believe it is true or not, it cannot be categorically stated any more than you can state that it is a "fact" that God doesn't exist. It all depends on what people believe. You cannot say that the idea that Jews are responsible for Jesus' death is "false by definition", because that's just your opinion. Personally, I think the notion is ridiculous, but it's wrong to state it as if it was something that was proven one way or another: it cannot be proven or disproven, not in this world, anyway. For that matter, I'm uncomfortable with calling anything "categorically false"; to me, it should be that "evidence indicates" that something is or isn't, or that there is a "lack of evidence" to support the latter. That is unbiased, because it doesn't specially say any one group IS wrong. That's not supposed to be Wikipedia's job. Even on pages about pseudoscience, it doesn't say "homeopathy is wrong", it says that "homeopathy is considered to be a pseudoscience, and outside the medical mainstream". That way, it is not Wikipedia telling people who believe in it that they are wrong, it's telling them the real fact that most people consider to be wrong, and evidence exists to support that. I think this page ought to follow the same format, as matter of consistency, regardless of how heated the subject may be. AnnaGoFast (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The Romans were the ones who actually had the power of life and death. AnonMoos (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And Romans were the ones who actually performed the execution. Anyways, most of the Jews present at Jesus's religious trial are no longer living. VQuakr (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality
Calling all of these views "false stor[ies] inciting anti-Semitism", especially as a group, is inherently not neutral. Moon landing conspiracy theories have been thoroughly debunked, yet we describe them neutrally. Religions cannot be proven, so if we allow this to stand, what is to stop them from being described equally un-neutrally as canards in the future? While the prominent mainstream view needs to be made clear when describing fringe theories, they must still be described neutrally and not blatantly dismissed as false, at least as long as NPOV is one of the core content policies. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 00:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia cannot take a position as to what is the one true religion, but if there are repeated assertions about the nature of Judaism as a religion, and stories about the role of Jews in history, and the overwhelming consensus of reputable sources is that such assertions and stories are factually false, then Wikipedia can report on this consensus. Wikipedia is not neutral between the world being flat and the world being quasi-spherical -- any such "neutrality" would be a pernicious phoney pseudo-neutrality... AnonMoos (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * P.S. Those who push Moon-landing conspiracy theories are not anti-Moon, but those who push Antisemitic canards are almost always anti-Jewish in some way... AnonMoos (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * We describe the concepts neutrally (e.g. Flat Earth and Modern flat Earth societies), which isn't being done here. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 18:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * AnonMoos's response covers everything I was going to say. Godsy, WP:Neutral point of view on WP doesn't mean the same as in journalism. Please read the linked policy for clarification. WP reflects the most reliable sources, which in the cases of the antisemitic canards mentioned in this article, indicate that they are false claims. —PermStrump  ( talk )  06:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand the NPOV policy. Describing a group of views with words that convey that they are "fals[ities] by definition" is not neutral. If List of religions and spiritual traditions was named List of religions and spiritual canards, the same arguments you and AnonMoos have put forth would apply to defend it as a title. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 06:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The article isn't saying Judaism is a canard. What part of the article specifically are you talking about? —PermStrump  ( talk )  06:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't imply this article said "Judaism is a canard". I'm not talking about part of the article specifically, rather a general issue with the neutrality of "canard". "Claim", "belief", and perhaps the best option, "conspiracy theory" (or other more neutral descriptors), would better fit the bill (i.e. being written from a neutral point of view). — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 06:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Godsy -- article titles are subject to some special considerations which are not exactly the same as article text, so the two should not be indiscriminately lumped together. See discussion of "Boston Massacre" at Article titles. In any case "false by definition" merely means that being false is part of being appropriately described by the word "canard". What the word "canard" mainly means in the context of this article is assertions and stories which recur again and again no matter how many times they've been debunked. Not sure whether that definition is found in any dictionary, but it's the functional meaning in the context of this article... AnonMoos (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * what exactly is your concern with POV here? An antisemitic canard is false by definition. Stating as such in the first sentence of the article is absolutely necessary in order to be compliant with WP:NPOV. VQuakr (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that Gody's Twinsday's insertion of the NPOV hatnote was against consensus and it remains unclear what the reasoning behind it is, so I posted about this on WP:NPOVN to get more input, FYI. —PermStrump  ( talk )


 * Yes, saw this on the noticeboard. "False stor[ies] inciting anti-Semitism" seems rather neutral to me. The arguments offered here for keeping the POV tag have not been convincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Firstly, Twinsday added the POV template to the article (Special:Diff/726087160), not me. Secondly, the notion that consensus is needed for the addition of a cleanup template is absurd. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 03:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I thought it was added in one of your recent edits. I corrected myself here and at NPOVN. Consensus isn't needed to add one, but a clear explanation is. I originally thought it was added today after consensus was building that it was unnecessary, which would have been different than adding one without seeking consensus first. —PermStrump  ( talk )  03:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making that correction at both forums. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 03:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)