Talk:List of antisemitic incidents in the United States

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 October 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Judaism Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jewish history Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

On 28 August 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from List of antisemitic incidents in the United States to List of antisemitic and anti-Jewish incidents in the United States. The result of the discussion was not moved.

2023 Detroit synagogue leader

The media has unfortunately abdicated much of its responsibility and polarized anti-semitic discourse in the last few years. The notion that a rabbi killed in the aftermath of October 7th, when anti-semitic crimes have risen 400% this year, was not a hate crime, is a moral failing that is deeply injurious to Jewish peoples across the country. I suggest this ought to be added https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-charged-murder-death-detroit-synagogue-leader-rcna124908 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:3802:27F3:145E:B896:100:7D20 (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Kenosha synagogue vandalism

I've removed this section for now. Neither the JNS source nor a couple other sources I found after a quick search – Jewish Journal and JTA – explicitly call this an act of anti-Semitism. JJ quotes several tweets by advocacy groups that use that term, but don't call it that themselves. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ilhan_Omar#RFC has an RFC

Talk:Ilhan_Omar#RFC has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Benevolent human (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List becoming unwieldy?

If we include every incident of verbal abuse and vandalism, this list will be unending and also overshadow major incidents. I advise we stick to major incidents of violence (including planned terrorist attacks). Open to other proposals. Loksmythe (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reservations about the proposal. I added the arson incident at Congregation Beth Israel in Austin, Texas almost a year after it occurred, and I was surprised it hadn't been added immediately. The perpetrator certainly hoped to burn down the sanctuary, and due to the extensive smoke damage, the congregation was prevented from using it. While this incident might still qualify under your proposed criteria, acts of vandalism directed at synagogues and Jewish institutions such as museums are hate crimes meant to instill fear among Jews everywhere. I am more worried about incidents not being reported. I'm also worried about who gets to decide. A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A.T.S. in Texas The Austin synagogue arson would assuredly qualify under the "major incidents" classification. It was meant to be violent, even if no one was hurt, and received widespread and sustained coverage, including in local and national RS, over the course of several years. I'm sure if there are disagreements about what qualifies for inclusion, this talk page would be a proper venue for reasonable discussion. Longhornsg (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Technically, every one of the hundreds of antisemitic incidents (ranging from verbal abuse to violence) with RS coverage (many of them), in addition to US-related incidents mentioned in Antisemitism during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war and the largely unsourced List of attacks on Jewish institutions in the United States would qualify for inclusion here. This could be thousands, most of which are relatively non-notable and don't receive sustained coverage.

Propose we rescope and rename this page to List of antisemitic attacks in the United States and merge in much of the content from List of attacks on Jewish institutions in the United States, to include only incidents that receive more than passing coverage and have a violent or notable aspect to them. Longhornsg (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add the violent Charlottesville, VA march where the white supremacists shouted "the Jews will not replace us"

You need to add the violent Charlottesville, VA march where the white supremacists shouted "the Jews will not replace us 173.166.164.113 (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just saw your message on this page. I will add it. Steven1991 (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Charlottesville incident has been added. Steven1991 (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning incident "April 2024"

Apologies if this is improperly formatted or if I shouldn't comment on potentially restricted subjects, but the description states "A Jewish woman was beaten at the scene." sourced to WP:NATIONALREVIEW unattributed. Furthermore, the video linked in said source is of a man in a white shirt, as reports show in photos, videos, & articles. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have replaced it with sources from The New York Times and Los Angeles Times. Steven1991 (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of antisemitic incidents in the United States → List of antisemitic and anti-Jewish incidents in the United States – Not all of the attacks listed here can be verified as antisemetic -- that is, targeting Jews or Jewish institutions because they are Jews. Some, like the January 2024 assault, are presumed to be antisemitic, but authorities have not confirmed such a motive. Other attacks like the 2018 attempted murder of 2 Jews outside a Los Angeles synagogue, targeted Jews but perpetrated by someone with mental illness. New title, while a little wordier, more accurately and comprehensively covers the scope of the items on this list. Longhornsg (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose status quo is more concise. Anti-Jewish is antisemitic, I don’t understand the argument there

Kowal2701 (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, my understanding is that antisemitic is more or less equivalent to anti-Jewish.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Same difference. Any incident where the victim was coincidentally Jewish but their Jewishness wasn't relevant to the incident should be excluded in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Preventing link-rot

As the majority of citations for incidents are citations to online news articles, there is a great chance of link rot, to prevent this every citation with a url should have an archive url collected from the Wayback Machine, so even if the article is removed/deleted readers can access a snapshot of the material. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sourcing & BLP violations

@Steven1991 Your addition of Paul Kessler's death here is a massive issue for several reasons. You are citing deprecated sources (Daily Mail), and are breaching WP:BLP & WP:SYNTH by putting in wikivoice that Loay Alnaji was responsible for his death, something that hasn't been determined yet

You said that you'd be more carful with citations & WP:NPOV, but this is showing to be a consistent issue. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will amend it. Steven1991 (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Lawrence College incident

Hi all, I removed the incident from the list, as I looked over the source again and couldn’t determine whether antisemitism was involved. Steven1991 (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So as the Columbia University Hamilton Hall’s takeover incident. Steven1991 (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In-passage October 7 classification

Terming it an “attack” trivialises the nature of the events that happened on the day. What is the fact is that the events consist of a series of racially motivated massacres, with the targets overwhelmingly Jewish. Some scholars also use “October 7 massacre” to refer to the events.

The presence of conspiracy theories about Jews and calls for Jews’ mass murder in their 1988 charter (Article 7, Article 22 and Article 28) is obvious. Their slight revision in 2017 hasn’t effected a change in their perception of Jews either.

If we are not terming the Holocaust (worst genocide in history) “an attack”, why would it not be conscionable to term the October 7 events as “October 7 massacre” ? Steven1991 (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As determined with the specific article, RS support the labelling of the multitude of events that occured on October 7 collectively as an attack, as I detailed in edit summaries, "massacre" ignores the non-massacre crimes and atrocities committed on the day. There is also, when specifically quoting sources in this article, we use their exact phrasing, we do not rewrite them, as you did with some of the quotes. Whatever opinions you have, or theorising you engage in with the supposed or potential reasoning and thoughts of Hamas are irrelevant, we go off of what RS say. Finally, different things are different would apply firstly, and secondly the analogy is just inappropriate, at a basic level the Holocaust would not be called "an attack" due to it being a systemic process that involved multiple individual attacks, massacres, etc. as per the reasoning of RS. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was an attack and that's the matter of it, Hamas were open about their aims to kidnap civilians and trade them for Palestinians help captive by Israel. They also massacred a lot of innocent people and soldiers at the same time as @Cdjp1 mentions there were too many different factors to list it simply as a "massacre" since that's an immense simplification.

I'm going to add your comment (as well as your edits in the page re-adding unsourced entires) show a significant amount of Bias here which I believe is in violation of NPOV.

"Their slight revision in 2017 hasn’t effected a change in their perception of Jews either." racist characterisation with no evidence and still referring to a charter that is older than 80% of the population of Gaza.

"Holocaust (worst genocide in history)" there is no such thing as the "worst genocide in history" it may be the most prominent/well-known and one of the most damaging in terms of humans killed but saying it's "the worst" really is saying the suffering and death inflicted on other groups throughout history isn't as bad even if the death toll is higher just cause. Galdrack (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no POV issues for recording what happened to or targeted any members of the Jewish community. It is also not “racist” to point out the Hamas are still antisemitic as evidenced by their targeting of majority Jewish civilians on that day. Steven1991 (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's racist to use a charter from the 1980's to characterise people born long after who had no part, that is clear and so was my point. You're not only mischaracterising the events but the points made by other users here.

"by their targeting of majority Jewish civilians on that day." In a location with a majority Jewish population? The same argument clearly applies to Israel then yes? All Israeli bombings that kill civilians are clearly massacres because the majority of the targets are arabic Muslims? Exact same logic which is why it doesn't apply.

The point is this is entirely your own personal opinion and perspective, while many members of Hamas probably antisemitic it doesn't allow you to assume their motivations and post it in a neutral encyclopedia when they clearly state their aims and goals which is how the IDF are treated also. Galdrack (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May you name me a genocide that killed more people than the Holocaust (11 million, 6 million Jews inclusive)? Steven1991 (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on how they're characterised one could argue Mao's great leap qualified and killed more people but you're missing the point. Arguing "The worst genocide ever" is extremely depraved for the reasons I mentioned above and you seem to be ignoring that point. Galdrack (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Leap Forward was horrible but it hasn’t been academically classified as a genocide. Steven1991 (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

StopAntisemitism

Currently this article cites StopAntisemitism for several incidents on this list & describes it as a civil rights group. In actuality however, they are an advocacy group, self-described as "a grassroots watchdog organization". I do not believe they are a reputable enough organization to be cited for this subject & may potentially risks this article's credibility, doubly so with their history of doxing & participation in harassment campaigns.

I'm willing to remove them from the article myself, but wanted to seek other's opinions on the matter first. I'm also willing to take the matter to WP:RSN if deemed necessary. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying @Cdjp1, @Steven1991, & @Galdrack as recent participants on this talk page. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, would probably be best to bop this to a full discussion on reliable sources, you’ll have more people, with more time, who can do better digging and analysis. Secondly, if we have RS news sources reporting these incidents, we don’t really need StopAntisemitism as a source. This is supported by the fact that looking at their website, the incidents they report are all cited to news outlets, and they only provide a little opinion if anything novel to it. Thirdly, considering that they engage in the antisemitic trope of conflating Jews/Judaism with Israel, this can bring some of the incidents into question, as well as their website overall. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification :@Butterscotch Beluga I'm going to be away for a few days but I also agree with your post so far, I've also made another post on 3 additions made by @Steven1991 which I also don't think meet the criteria required and I believe a lot more specifications will be needed if so many stories are to be added here as the curation currently is rather poor. Galdrack (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1.) I’d appreciate if a definition can be given for “reputable” in this context

2.) The hate crimes reported by the group are mostly supplemented with reliable news sources, some found within the reports on the group’s website itself, which do not compromise the authenticity to any extent, unless you can prove that the crimes have never occurred

3.) Despite the group’s presentation manner of some reported crimes being debatable, I find it difficult understanding what is meant by “doxxing” or “harassment”, when many of those exposed by the group to have committed hate crimes did so in public spaces. The only exception is if it involves anything private being publicised in contravention of U.S. federal laws

4.) Further to (3.), most of those hate crimes are reported by verifiable sources simultaneously. Are those sources, some of which are established media outlets, also engaging in “doxxing” or “harassment” ? It is understandable that there are real-life consequences for committing hate crimes. One cannot claim “doxxing” or “harassment” when they face repercussions for illegal actions, which are matters of public interest

5.) I object to such an exclusion as the group’s website does not appear to have been classified as an unreliable source in any respect on Wikipedia Steven1991 (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to cite an advocacy group for any incident as, if it's notable enough to be listed here, news organizations &/or civil rights groups will have already covered it, so we don't need to add StopAntisemitism to help corroborate it.

Almost their entire twitter page consists of them publishing individual's private information, including their real names, locations, & their place of work, to a large number of followers as a response to perceived antisemitism (regardless of if the accusation is true or not). Those are definitely acts of doxing & harassment, a behavior unbecoming of reputable sources & of which you wouldn't see from any news or civil rights group. Most of the incidents they report there did not occur in public spaces & would never be considered hate crimes (I'm not saying any of those types of incidents are cited here, but their attitude towards such cases reflects poorly on them as a source). Their twitter account's consistent willingness to exaggerate incidents does not help their credibility either.

Their lack of classification regarding their reliability is why I offered to bring this to WP:RSN. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The incidents for which I cited the group involved hate crimes that had occurred in public spaces and did not involve private information publicised illegally. Feel free to tell me if there have been such violations and I would remove it immediately. Also, point (3.) and (4.) do not appear to have been addressed. Steven1991 (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically stated "(I'm not saying any of those types of incidents are cited here, but their attitude towards such cases reflects poorly on them as a source)".

I directly addressed points 3 & 4 + their own website states that their targets will be "met with real-world consequences including but not limited to job loss and school expulsions", in the same vain as groups like Canary Mission. I also repeatedly specified their twitter page, of which I was hesitant to link due to said material.

I am not saying that these events didn't happen or are unbelievable, I'm saying that we should follow WP:NOTNEWS & try to not bloat this page, especially with sources of questionable credibility.

While we wouldn't "dismiss a report by the Fox News certifying that Trump lost the election", we would never use it for a source on such a statement, because there are better sources.

Now please stop insinuating that I'm trying to minimize any victims here or am being prejudiced because of my dissatisfaction towards StopAntisemitism's quality, especially as I myself am literally Ashkenazi, so I will be having none of that. I'm trying to collaborate here, but your passive-aggressiveness & regular questioning of my intent is making that difficult.

Also, please try to respond in a single message, it's quite bothersome to try to respond to 3 separate messages at once. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t engaged in passive-aggression. I am simply pointing out the core issues. Also, for everyone’s reference:

Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Steven1991 (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement "I’d appreciate if alternative “reliable” sources can be proposed, or are we going to pretend that certain hate crimes have never happened? I hope not." reads as passive-aggression.

For posterity, these were the remarks I was referring to, but were removed as I was typing my response -

"I hope not." originally said "to the detriment of their victims?"

"May I know if the same standard would be applied if the subject is related to hate crimes against members of other ethnic groups? I would like to make sure that we are applying the rules equally."

I hope you understand how those comments read to me.

Your point about reliable sources does not address the issues I described, especially as that quote is followed by -

"When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering."

None of which StopAntisemitism does. I'd like to wait for others to have a chance to comment, if not, then I will bring this to WP:RSN, at the very least, to establish a community opinion on the subject. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of which StopAntisemitism does.

This is your personal opinion, which is not necessarily representative of the truth. As I mentioned,

I just revisited the group’s website and am struggling to find instances of unauthorised publication of personal information as alleged. Would you mind sharing the exact links that such violations have been committed?

The webpages I cited from the group were those which belong to their official website rather than their Twitter, which is itself a “semi-banned” source on Wikipedia. It is wrong to conflate the two. Steven1991 (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'd like to wait for others to have a chance to comment. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is good. Still, I am waiting for substantive evidence for this claim:

Most of the incidents they report there did not occur in public spaces & would never be considered hate crimes [...] Their twitter account's consistent willingness to exaggerate incidents

I would appreciate if it can be provided, much more preferred if there’s a bit of statistics for credible illustration. Steven1991 (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to directly link specific examples as they would, inherently, risk violating WP:DOX.

I am also unable to make any comments related to WP:PIA as I'm not WP:XCON, however you should be able to see their twitter page for yourself & the amount of their posts calling out others for their online comments. Also, their twitter page is a direct representation of their organization, it's not "wrong to conflate the two", they are the same group. We don't cite twitter posts, but that doesn't mean we should pretend they don't exist.

Now please, give others a chance to comment before continuing as this section has grown needlessly long already & it may be hard for others to follow. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, their twitter page is a direct representation of their organization

I am not sure what this means, but it does not look objective. Hate crimes are matters of public interest. Members of the public are allowed to be informed of it for their safety. I don’t see there is anything wrong with the advocacy group exposing hate crime suspects as long as (1) there is sufficient evidence (2) it does not interfere with police investigation (3) it does not impede any existing legal proceedings, nor how it may have compromised its credibility. I have yet to see a convincing explanation backed by substantive evidence. Anyway, this would have gone beyond the scope as we are not legal professionals in the same jurisdiction. I regret that I cannot agree with you on this issue. It is not personal but a matter of principle. Steven1991 (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, whether a news report is reliable, it depends on the content rather than the source. I guess we wouldn’t dismiss a report by the Fox News certifying that Trump lost the election just because it’s the Fox News. It is totally unreasonable to dismiss entire reports simply because a particular source of information is not agreeable to oneself. In addition, legacy media wouldn’t report on every single crime or incident that happens either. Does it mean those crimes or incidents are all unbelievable? Definitely not. I’d appreciate if alternative “reliable” sources can be proposed, or are we going to pretend that certain hate crimes have never happened? I hope not. Steven1991 (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just revisited the group’s website and am struggling to find instances of unauthorised publication of personal information as alleged. Would you mind sharing the exact links that such violations have been committed? I hope that it has not been confused with a similar platform called the Canary Mission whose content I have never cited. I have also not cited any materials from Twitter for any incidents being recorded on this page. Steven1991 (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the incidents they report there did not occur in public spaces & would never be considered hate crimes [...] Their twitter account's consistent willingness to exaggerate incidents

Can you please provide evidence for this claim and how those incidents “would never be” considered hate crimes? Which state/federal law requires a hate crime to be committed in public in order to be considered as one? What do you mean by “exaggeration” when it comes to hate crimes? Does every hate crime need to be a physical assault causing tangible injuries in order to be considered as one? Does it require a victim to be assaulted to the point of hospitalisation in order to have a report not considered as “exaggerated” ? Steven1991 (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts and edits recently

Recently @Steven1991 has been making a lot of entries in this page and quite a lot of them have had serious NPOV issues as they don't fit the clear definition of an "Antisemtic Incident", the list is quickly becoming a news reel from any source claiming an incident is antisemitic to news stories not even considering it antisemitic, naturally the list is becoming unclear in it's focus as stories such as this one about a student posting anti-zionist (specifically) statements is considered an equally antisemitic incident to the Unite the Right rally or the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting.

Three brief examples of posts that clearly don't belong here but the Steven has reverted several times without any rational beyond his opinion:

The aforementioned Khymani James video where he said "All Zionists deserve to die" is pretty specifically about Zionists, claiming "most Zionists are Jewish ergo it's antisemitic" as Steven did when re-adding it isn't a valid reason as that itself is antisemitic since you're assuming all Jews are Zionists when they aren't. It doesn't belong here.

Hafiza Khalique tore down posters of the hostages that were planted all over universities between oct->dec of 2023 after the attack, she specifically stated that it was in opposition to what she believed (and many others) was a propaganda campaign used to justify Israels invasion. Again there's nothing antisemitic here unless you're making assumptions.

Tireek Myrick assaulted a Jewish Rabbi in what is not considered a hate crime in Washington as the police have not charged him with one, even the news articles aren't claiming it is and the attacker is wanted for previous crimes. The only reason given is the assumption it was antisemitic as the attacker said "you people" amongst other phrases like "you're giving bad energy" before attacking but never anything clearer. This is just open speculation on a random assault case and doesn't belong here.

I think most of these edits have been extremely poorly researched and these are only a few in the last few days you need to stop adding any story you can find and actually read them over first. Galdrack (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, but it’s not a “POV” issue. They are objective descriptions of what happened. It is not right to call it “POV” over disagreement with the suitability of their inclusion. Also, in real life, it doesn’t matter what the suspects claimed as suspects would always deny guilt. What matters is the nature of their actions. A hate crime wouldn’t stop being a hate crime simply because the suspect denies ill intent. None of the convicted war criminals at the Nuremberg Trial admitted that they were antisemitic, nor did a few of them admitted that they had committed a genocide against the Jews when most Holocaust victims were Jewish. Are we going to take their claims at face value and assert that all of them, including the Holocaust, were “not antisemitic” ? Definitely not. Steven1991 (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if YOU think they fit the description of an antisemitic incident, it matters what RS say about it. If RS do not say its antisemitic, it can not be supported in being added here. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then the sources that say so would be cited. Steven1991 (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and none of the sources listed call these events antisemitic, some of them suggest it could be a factor but don't state it is, so adding these events is entirely POV of the user so they should be removed as @Cdjp1 stated. Galdrack (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Provide examples if possible, or it’d be merely your POV as well. Steven1991 (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steven1991 The sources do not provide the statement, there's no "examples" to be provided, if you want those stories to remain listed they require specific reputable sources referencing it as such. I will remove these after 19OCT2024 if there are no further sources as this has been open for over a week already. Galdrack (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about those in future, if any, reported as antisemitic by reliable sources? Should they be included promptly unless evidence surfaces that their law enforcement doesn’t deem it an antisemitic hate crime? It appears that there’s no consensus on the definitive criteria but merely subjective individual judgments despite clear evidence pointing to the involvement of antisemitism in some of the cases. Steven1991 (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Khymani James’ case, I have to point out that Jews in Israel make up around half of the world Jewry, while as many as 80% Jews in the US and UK support Israel (Zionist by textbook definition) or identify themselves as Zionists. I don’t see how James’ statement is not antisemitic when James was implying that the vast majority of Jews in the world did not deserve to live? I am afraid that the nature is far worse than that. Steven1991 (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See any of the hundreds of organisations and Rabbis who comment on viewing "Jews/Judaism" as synonymous with "Zionists/Zionism" as being an issue, that does stray into reinforcing antisemitic tropes. Then look at the mass of Zionists who are in fact not Jewish. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1.) Saying “Zionists don’t deserve to live” when half of the world Jewry live in Israel and ~80% Jews in America and Britain support the existence of Israel is obviously a form of dehumanisation, if not an incitement to extreme racially motivated violence towards the vast majority of the world Jewry. Whether the person is biased against any Jews to any extent is irrelevant when they don’t see an issue with employing such [violent] rhetoric in public domain. I don’t think that this is justifiable unless one thinks that convicted Nazi war criminals involved in Jewish executions could “not be antisemitic” because of their denial – criminals often deny their crimes. If the Nazi war criminals had claimed that they were merely “anti-Zionist”, would we have been going to deny the antisemitic nature of their actions and/or ideology? It’s not the semantics but reality that matters.

2.) The fact that the person got suspended by the university under regulations related to harassment and discrimination speaks volume about the nature of the person’s actions.

2.) It is important to note that David Duke invented Zio as a slur against contemporary Jews to make it sound “better”, while it is widely reported that the word is common among some of those purporting to be merely “anti-Israel”, with the word being used in conspiratorial context about Jews to evade scrutiny by giving the public a false impression it is “merely about Israel”.

3.) The classification of Khymani James’ hate speech as antisemitic is based on complex consideration of the factors as briefly discussed above. I won’t go deep into it for the sake of clarity, but it’s important to note that calling for the death of a significantly large group of people, most of whom are Holocaust survivors’ descendants, is apparently objectionable. Steven1991 (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1.) No it isn't at all, near 100% of Nazi's were German yet saying "Nazi's don't deserve to live" isn't anti-german is it? When someone specifically calls out a political movement like Zionism then they are specifically aiming at that ideology which isn't Antisemitic, the person in question is literally doing the one thing they need to do to clarify they're not talking about any other group so calling them Antisemitic for this is just inaccurate.

2.) All it shows is that the university doesn't want to be associated with anyone who posts videos that potentially threaten a lot of people, one could also easily argue the university is engaging in political censorship too though they seemingly do have the legal right to do this anyway.

2.) The spurious claim it was popularised by Duke wouldn't change the fact Zionism is independent of Judaism and insisting that critiquing Zionism on insulting Zionists = Antisemitism is in fact Antisemitic and any other attempts at aligning the two are just antisemitic and merely censor discourse on any topic about Zionism.

3.) Another way of saying "She wasn't called antisemitic but I think it is personally because reasons I won't explain". Her actions were political as ascribed by her and the sources themselves merely suggest or claim it could be antisemitic. Once again bringing the Holocaust into a conversation that it isn't a part of is just trying to leverage moral weight rather than fact, she was clear about her actions and motives and there isn't evidence to suggest otherwise. It's spurious to state it's an antisemitic event and highly disingenious to place it alongside mass-shootings committed by Neo-Nazi's. Galdrack (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dehumanising 80% of Jews is not simply an “insult”. It is obviously a form of hate speech inciting extreme racially aggravated violence towards Jews given the (1) statistics shared in the links in the comment above (2) public perception that Jews are “representative of” Israel. Using “Zionists” in place of “Jews” wouldn’t change the antisemitic nature of a speech if the context is apparently based on some conspiracy theories about Jews or calls for violence towards a sufficiently large proportion of Jews.
You appear to have twisted the issue and downplayed it unreasonably due to your own perceptions which don’t seem to be right as explained. You appear to be still refusing to acknowledge the point.
Moreover, nobody has ever said that Zionism equated Judaism in this thread, neither have I. It appears to be your own interpretation due either to misunderstandings or misconceptions.
It’d be advisable for you to reread and rethink what have been written before, one of which is

Whether the person is biased against any Jews to any extent is irrelevant when they don’t see an issue with employing such rhetoric in public domain. I don’t think that this is justifiable unless one thinks that convicted Nazi war criminals involved in Jewish executions could “not be antisemitic” because of their denial – criminals often deny their crimes. If the Nazi war criminals had claimed that they were merely “anti-Zionist”, would we have been going to deny the antisemitic nature of their actions and/or ideology

before formulating another argument or making far-fetched Nazi comparisons not seeming to bear any semblance to the issues concerned. Steven1991 (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As editors we do not make judgements of what is and is not, we cite sources. Sources don't say something, we don't say they do. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for clarification. Steven1991 (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the antisemitic content of the Hamas charter is still in force. The policy document the Hamas signed in 2010s never repealed or replaced the origin covenant.
Hamas officials said so many times:

One of Hamas’s most senior officials said on Wednesday a document published by the Islamist Palestinian group last week was not a substitute for its founding charter, which advocates Israel’s destruction.

Steven1991 (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts about deletion or massive reduction?

This list is a WP:CONTENTFORK of Antisemitism and Antisemitic trope. Moreover it fails WP:NOTDB and is literally every local town's latest antisemitic hate crime.

Worth documenting on the web in newspapers, but each incident by itself has no inherent encyclocepedic value unless it passes notability. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, unless if the incident would pass notability by itself, is there a real reason to note it in this page without it becoming a literal database? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see WP:SELCRIT Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on experience with List of genocides, I would err on the side of the having the list cover instances which have independent articles on Wikipedia. As while wikipedia is not a source, if articles have been created, they are likely to have all the necessary sources showing notability already collected. There will inevitably be cases this course of action misses which are both notable and evidently antisemitic (as stated by sources), but it would prevent constant arguing over this article. Ideally we'd have folk who have the want and will to create the articles for such missed cases, but that would be down to others taking up the task. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Well explained. Steven1991 (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all incidents with a single citation only and without a standalone article. That's the most basic WP:SELCRIT, though its up to folks in discussion to figure out what should be noted on here and what can't be without turning this article into WP:DB. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with removing incidents which do not have stand-alone articles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel we should also still include incidents that are highly notable, well cited (more than 2 or 3 from reliable sourcing), but nobody has gone through with making an article yet. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that any are notable by all means treat them as so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steven1991 See this discussion for the reasoning why i removed many of those incidents. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t subscribe to this message and so wasn’t aware of it. It’s not an edit war when the reversal had only been done once. I would appreciate if you can remove the message from my Talk page. Steven1991 (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. The warning stands because you have done more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. I am not pursuing this to WP:AN3, but I am giving the warning to remind you that you cannot just revert every edit anyone else does on here WP:1AM or display WP:OWNING behavior.

Edit: Apparently the guy who did a lot of the changes was a vandal, so technically you're right that reverts wouldn't count towards the rule. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for your clarification. You may go ahead to make any proper restorations, but I believe that the July 2019 Miami synagogue shooting and the September 2024 Congress swearing incident get to stay as they are significant enough in nature. Steven1991 (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to see most of the rows that I removed are no longer included in the article. The only people who would consider Pro-Palestinian protests and slogans like "Globalize the Intifada" as hate speech or anti-Jewish physical or verbal attacks are zionist sources, many of which are unreliable like the ADL, and it was ridiculous that this article included them as antisemitic incidents.

I'll use this topic to ask why we are including incidents that are only being investigated as hate crimes, though have not been proven by a court of law to be so. In a different article/topic I was told by an admin that, if a living person was accused of sexual assault, many reliable sources would need to be used when including that in their biography, in order to make a distinction between baseless allegation and encyclopedic, noteworthy incidents. I appreciate that many of the incidents have multiple sources included, but I am confused how we can include something that is only being investigated as hate crime.

Take for instance this incident from 5 October 2024: "A 19-year-old Jewish man was reportedly punched in the face outside a Queens synagogue. The victim in traditional Hasidic clothing was standing outside of Congregation B'Nei Abraham-EF in Kew Gardens Hills when the assailant appeared." Jewish News Syndicate states "The FBI’s NYPD Hate Crimes Task Force started an investigation into the crime and requested the public’s assistance in identifying the assailant." No one other than Jewish sources is labelling this as antisemitic, and authorities are merely investigating it. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that someone randomly committed this act of violence without being biased towards the individual for their Jewishness, thus making it an act of violence but not an antisemitic incident. Before being blocked I removed an incident where a synagogue had been set on fire twice in the same night, and IIRC it was not being investigated as a hate incident, though this was also a case where the antisemitism was ambiguous at best, and it seems this particular incident has not been re-added since I removed it, probably because other editors realize that there isn't enough information/sources to determine that it was antisemitic.

I'm not sure if there will be any major changes to this article given the points that have been raised, but I'll make a separate topic to discuss the Adas Torah synagogue incident and whether it should be included in this article. Wikipedious1 (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn’t make it. You are free to make one if you wish, but I would appreciate if everything can be polite. Steven1991 (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s an allegation. Nobody can yet prove it holds water. Not an excuse to picket a synagogue and assault the attendees either. Steven1991 (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're responding to exactly, but should we not strive to verify that every incident here actually is antisemitic, or is it okay to have allegations listed as antisemitic incidents?

While you're here I also don't understand why you're still reverting my edits. You don't own this article. I have reformed from my previous behavior that got me blocked, namely mass changes without discussion and improper edit summaries. Yet you're still reverting my edit.

@Bishonen @Butterscotch Beluga Just as I predicted any change is quickly nulled if it does not pass the Steven Entity's parameters, even when going about it how one is supposed to. I'm still new to wiki so am I missing something or what?? Wikipedious1 (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it'd be better to propose the change as a new topic on this talk page for a more focused discussion. You can see I've done as such myself here before.

I personally think we should only include incidents directly confirmed as hate crimes + historical incidents universally considered antisemitic, but I'm uncertain if that level of restriction would reach consensus.

(Also again, do not refer to others as an "Entity". It is uncivil & innately dehumanizing). Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind me asking, how does something reach consensus? I know for changing the name of an article there is usually a vote, but in this case, would it be informal? I know this is something I can learn elsewhere, so, feel free to respond, or not. Though I would appreciate it of course.

>Also again, do not refer to others as an "Entity". It is uncivil & innately dehumanizing

I will refrain from using this term in this talk page and towards Steven. Wikipedious1 (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can be a little tricky as consensus is a rather nebulous term (hence why there's always arguments on when it's been reached), but I'd say it's when, after discussion & potentially some compromises, editors can generally settle on something.

Disputes require dialogue, conclusions require compromise.

I'm actually a rather new editor myself, but was a lurker for ~a year before I started editing. I hope that helps. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I deserve an apology. Steven1991 (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agree that Wikipedious calling an editor an entity is wholly uncivil, especially for a topic that is contentious. Please avoid namecalling and personal insults against an editor and focus entirely on policy and the article. WP:PERSONALATTACKS suggests the policy around it, and that continued failure to adhere can eventually lead to sanctions. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are the person who made most of the reverts, with continuous aggressive editing summaries – apparently personal attacks, while claiming likewise when encountering disagreements in the form of a single revert alike. I have tried my best, if not exhausted my capacity, to engage you in the most gentleman manner, but it is hardly reciprocated as you insist on me adopting your “standard” of assessing the nature of every single violent assault on (a) Jewish person(s) and show a tendency of subtly changing your assessment criteria or argument substances. I am not berating you or so but expressing my perception of the discussion’s evolution based on how correspondence is coming from your side. As I said, I already made a significant compromise by removing the vast majority of incidents you have refused to deem antisemitic based on your partisan perception, supplying with the ones on the list with reliable sources and temporarily ceasing to further expand the list. I am not sure what you are expecting from me? I find it difficult understanding what you prefer, so would be grateful if you won’t mind summarising it in a single comment below my response. I may or may not look at it soon as I am not patrolling this page 7/24. Steven1991 (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if it does not pass the Steven Entity's parameters

You seem to be engaging in a personal attack again. I would appreciate if this wouldn’t be used again. Steven1991 (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already brought this up with them & they've said they "will refrain from using this term in this talk page and towards Steven."

I hope we can now consider this water under the bridge & focus on content? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with this now - while I understand the cutting of the page because the topic at hand is so common and the definition can involve many different things, + BLPCRIME and NOTNEWS issues - is that if it's only going to include incidents with their own page not sure if this page really justifies its existence anymore? We already have an article for "List of attacks on Jewish institutions" (I was going to improve that article but was lazy and stopped halfway through), including the US. Almost all of the "notable" antisemitic incidents on this page with their own articles now are just that. And how much do we need to catalogue them under a term as vague as "incidents"? Not sure. Only including incidents that pass WP:NEVENT, this would almost entirely overlap with the attacks/terrorism page - so why does this exist?

Every single incident on this page with its own article is also on the attacks list except:

Attack on Matt Greenman - this badly fails WP:NOTNEWS from the sources in this page, and if there aren't more sources this should probably be deleted
Attack on Joseph Borgen - also kind of has notnews issues but less bad than the one above, not sure
Leo Frank
Alan Berg
General Order No. 11 (1862) - I'm not sure if this is even in the scope of the page. Is this an "incident"?

I think this page should maybe just be deleted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should delete similar articles associated with incidents of Islamophobia if the standards are to be applied this way. Steven1991 (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had proposed doing so before, but no one seemed interested.

I will ask however why you brought up islamophobia specifically here, rather then just refer to any/all other types of "lists of bigoted incidents" in general? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the standard is to be applied equally, then yes – it would be advisable for the suggestion to be considered. I disagree though. Both articles serve their respective purposes.Steven1991 (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You just exposed yourself, LOL. Wikipedious1 (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand what you mean. This doesn’t sound friendly.

Hi @Bishonen, would you mind having a look at this?

The user just left this in the editing summary when he reverted my well-explained reversal of his unilateral deletion of a part of the well-sourced content:

You are in the wrong now. Respond on the talk page like a mature Wikipedian before attempting this again.

implying that I am not capable of communicating as a mature human. I am not sure if his remarks would be considered as violations of the WP:HA and/or WP:NPA. (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to @Wikipedious1, they did question if it should be listed here further up in a comment you responded to. I'd understand if they thought you were ignoring that part of their comment, but I think they were too quick to outright delete that entry.

I'd say that their summary should've been more civil, but I wouldn't consider it a breach of either WP:HA or WP:NPA. If they wrote that under the assumption that you were ignoring them, I'd understand the tone (though wouldn't condone it), however I don't think that assumption should've been made.

They are a new user, unfamiliar with Wikipedia's etiquette, so I ask for some patience to allow them to acclimate. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny enough, I did take it as harassing and a personal attack when both of my edits were removed by this user, after I had went about what I was told was the correct way of making edits. I inquired how to properly dispute edits on Stevens talk page here: User talk:Steven1991#How do I dispute your reverts of my edits on the List of antisemitic incidents in the US and I did what I was told after my block was lifted.

This editor claims to not have known about my talk post in their edit summary here

"Undid revision 1251771966 by Wikipedious1 (talk) You deleted the part unilaterally without any input from me or any other users working on this article. I had not even seen your message on the Talk page when you deleted it. This is not supposed to be how things work"

But my edit summary was (emphasis mine) "This incident has not been proven to be an antisemitic hate crime by a court of law, and at present cannot be determined to be antisemitic. Please discuss in the recent topics if you feel this edit is wrong" I didn't say talk page for some reason but I think it's clear what I meant (where else would this be discussed)

My talk message concerning this edit was not responded to, and I took the lack of response as a go-ahead to make the change. Steven's preferred version is live, and my talk message still has not really been engaged with by this user.

This is not supposed to be how things work?

As far as my edit summary, "You are in the wrong now. Respond on the talk page like a mature Wikipedian before attempting this again." Yes this is not an appropriate edit summary, it was made out of frustration. Would agree with beluga that it is not harassing nor an attack, but in all fairness it was personal and addressed to the user.

I'm not sure how far the "I'm new to wikipedia" defense goes though it is true. However I do accept the judgement of the authority, just as I accepted the previous judgement made against me and strived to learn from it, I am here in earnest. What I perceive to be as owning behavior, hypocrisy (telling me to discuss in talk page, not responding when I do, immediately rolling back my edit, which is what I said would happen in Steven's talk page), and personal attacks against me (immediately reverting my edit) is aggravating and makes it difficult to engage with others. It seems another user (admin?) highlighted Steven's WP:OWN quality above. Wikipedious1 (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We may as well tag them, @Bluethricecreamman Wikipedious1 (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made my points clear. I am sorry if you find agreeing with me difficult, but I have already made a significant compromise by removing a tremendous number of cases you did not consider as “fit” for keeping in the list, so I don’t believe that it is unreasonable for me to expect a degree of respect in editing engagements. Steven1991 (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind restating your reason why the "Queens synagogue" incident should be included, just for the sake of potentially easing conversation?

I feel communication here has become somewhat disjointed, so it may help if both of you start over & discuss the matter from scratch in a new topic. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikipedious1 I haven't looked at this in a while, but i'm pleased to see more citations, which seem to indicate at least somewhat noteworthiness for many of these incidents. IDK what a good WP:SELCRIT is, but it does seem fair bit more manageable a list.

to Steven1991 and wikipedious, see WP:BRD, and figure out who did the bold edit and who does the revert. this seems to be a slow-moving editwar, which may require WP:EDITWAR protocols including possibly escalating to WP:AN/EW. please remain WP:civil. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This incident has not been proven to be an antisemitic hate crime by a court of law, and at present cannot be determined to be antisemitic.

I would like to hear why a Jewish person in Hasidic attire getting attacked right outside a synagogue should “not” be deemed an antisemitic incident. I simply find it unconscionable that it “cannot” be considered antisemitic. Is your rejection of such classification based on personal views or an objective judgment derived from any parameters, codified laws or police records associated with this case? Steven1991 (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I perceive to be as owning behavior, hypocrisy [...]

I don’t find this respectful. I am happy to engage if you can avoid these phrases. Steven1991 (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a “personal attack” to revert, with reasonable justifications, an edit. I would like to know why you consider an ordinary disagreement as a “personal attack”. Also, I am allowed to revert an edit if I have an impression that it involves a mass deletion of well-sourced content without reasonable justifications as you did last week. As clearly shown in the edit log, I removed a tremendous number of cases you had refused to consider as antisemitic. I don’t see how this is “owning behaviour” when I relented to your demands despite me not finding them reasonable. I believe that there needs to be a sufficient level of respect. Please be reminded that behind every screen there is a living human entitled to their well-being, who are not supposed to be subject to an inordinate amount of vitriol over a minor disagreement. You said that you “accepted the previous judgement and strived to learn from it”, but what is tangible is that we continue to be communicated with in an aggressive manner as if we are not equal.Steven1991 (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EDITWAR indicates that unless you can convince an uninvolved admin that the edit you revert is vandalism, they will count it as evidence in editwarring. i know wikipedious has been blocked before for edit warring by not including edit summaries. but if they do edit summaries and engage in the talk page discussion, i think an admin will consider both wikipedious and steven's edits and reverts. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. Steven1991 (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Butterscotch Beluga Do we have any other lists attempting to qualify "incidents" and not attacks like this? I can only think of this and the Islamophobic one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, after checking, the closest I could find was List of incidents of xenophobia during the Venezuelan refugee crisis. I don't know why I thought there were more, but no.

That kind of leaves them as outliers. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that article should be left alone as it may be currently handled by other editors – I haven’t checked its edit log but prefer to err on the safe side. Steven1991 (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the confusion, I was referring to this article & the one focused on islamophobia as outliers. The Venezuelan article was just the closest I could find that was at all comparable. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am not following the discussion but strongly oppose any massive reduction or deletion of the article. Andre🚐 19:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is actually one of the Wikipedia’s important guidelines that controversial topics should be handled by reverting only when necessary:

Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of reverting only edits covered by the exceptions listed above or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute, they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse, i.e., they revert only when necessary. This policy may be particularly appropriate for controversial topics where views are polarized and emotions run high, resulting in more frequent edit warring.

Steven1991 (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure if that's realistic, but certainly, we should prefer discussion over edit warring and avoid repeated reverts when it's clear there is a dispute, and seek reconciliation. This topic is likely to spark tensions.

In terms of the substance, I think it's reasonable that every entry on this list should have a clear source. I'm not sure it's strictly necessary for every entry on the list to explicitly relate to some larger topic. This is a list article, which means not everything on this page needs to have its own article. Lists are often merge targets for things that aren't notable enough for standalone articles. For example, for a much lower-stakes analogy, List of Mario characters. Cranky Kong exists on that list and as a member of the List of Donkey Kong characters#Kongs, but lacks his own article (Cranky Kong is a redirect to the Kong family part of that list article)

Similarly if some not particularly notable antisemitic attack, provided it's got an antisemitic element or was described that way, can be added to a list article like this one, which is not the same as the overview article, so the argument that it's a fork is prima facie invalid. Andre🚐 19:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to keep this article, which I'm not apposed to, I think we should only include incidents directly confirmed as hate crimes + historical incidents universally considered antisemitic.

What can be considered antisemitic may differ greatly depending on who you ask, so I'd like us to establish a solid benchmark for inclusion that'd diminish arguments breaking out over what may or may not belong on this list.

What are your thoughts on my proposal? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the bar should be whether reliable sources describe the situation as possibly antisemitic. Hate crime is a legal basis, but this isn't the list of hate crimes, it's the list of antisemitic incidents, so all that is needed is a reliable source describing it as antisemitic. There could be a separate, narrower list article called List of antisemitic hate crimes which only accepts strictly-speaking hate crimes onto the list. Wikipedia:Wiki is not paper, so there's really no reason to want to exclude incidents unless the sourcing truly doesn't describe it as antisemitic, but possibly antisemitic, in my opinion, is fair game. That doesn't mean every time someone attacks an Orthodox Jew in Brooklyn it was antisemitic. There isn't a presumption of antisemitism and sadly, crazy people punch other people or shoot at them or drive cars toward them all the time in NYC. One time, they punched Rick Moranis for no reason. However, if the source says it's being investigated as a hate crime and a possible case of antisemitism, I'd say that is worthy for inclusion here, though, it would also in my opinion suffice if the article about the incident referred to it as a possibly antisemitic event even if it is not being investigated as a hate crime, because legal jurisdictions and standards of evidence differ. Andre🚐 20:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the cases kept on the list is a June 2024 LA synagogue scuffle widely condemned as antisemitic, including by Biden, but one of the users objected that by dismissing Biden as an “unreliable source” over his philosemitism – so this gets really tricky. Things seem to have gone down the path of ideologically motivated objections rather than evidence-based interpretations. I have the impression that this is a big obstacle to reasonable consensus on the inclusion criteria for the list. What do you think? Steven1991 (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Biden described it as antisemitic, it absolutely belongs on the list. Just attribute it to Biden. I would say if any public elected official describes it as antisemitic it must be included. Biden is not an unreliable source, he's the president! Anything he says is almost immediately worthy of inclusion, just attribute it to him, not used for facts. Andre🚐 20:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an objective reason for inclusion as Biden being president does not make him in any way an authority on what is & isn't antisemtic. If Trump were to say the same when he was in office, would you treat him as a reliable source? I wouldn't.

The protest also had nothing to do with religion or ethnicity, so I'd contest putting such an incident on this list. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The protest also had nothing to do with religion or ethnicity

By whom? Are there reliable sources, or better, expert analyses, to show that it is not motivated by any biases? Steven1991 (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean this as a genuine question, as a wiki editor with less than 150 edits, how exactly do we know Biden is a reliable source, and why exactly do you describe him as reliable? Is there a wiki policy or something that assumes no questions asks that members of the american government are reliable? I would say Biden, a self-described zionist whose regime has arrested hundreds of pro-palestinian protestors while giving tens of billions of dollars in military and surveillance tech to the zionist project, is the exact opposite of reliable with regards to antisemitism especially with regards to describing pro-palestinian protests as antisemitic. If there is anyone who would describe a pro-palestinian protest that is protesting the selling of Palestinian lands, which is what the protest at the Adas Torah synagogue was (feel free to ctrl f "adas torah" for sources and prior discussion of this), of course it would be Biden.

If the consensus is that the ADL and other zionist sources are unreliable then I cannot see how we could not apply the same to Biden. Wikipedious1 (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend following WP:PIA until you are extended confirmed, or you may risk being blocked. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I am just speaking in the context of pro-palestinian protests being regarded as antisemitic, which is relevant to this article, as one of the incidents in contention is a pro-Palestinain protest being described as antisemitic by Biden who is materially and self-described zionist. Not the Palestinian conflict in general, of course. BTW, unrelated, but I wanted to say I appreciate your participation here and your efforts at mediation - thanks for participating. Wikipedious1 (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, I try my best.

I will say however that the restriction is purposefully broad & enforcement is extremely strict. Protests relating to the conflict will almost certainly be considered to fall under the restriction. As you'll notice I've actively avoided referring to the topic as much as I can as I'm not extended confirmed either. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another participant on this page is also not following it, but it seems nobody reminds them. I am not so sure about the most specific rules, though I agree that attention needs to be paid to. Steven1991 (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would make more sense to cite Biden as a reliable source for an incident that is not a pro-Palestinian protest.

There are probably thousands of cases of members of the american regime, including Biden, lying their asses off about their policies especially when being confronted by protestors haha. So why would we automatically take Biden to be reliable? Wikipedious1 (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Biden isn't a source, we're simply saying that Biden described something as such. That is enough to include it here Andre🚐 21:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly how that incident was phrased – it clearly stated that it was condemned by Biden as antisemitic. Steven1991 (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me. Andre🚐 21:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But none of the supplied sources call the incident antisemitic in their own words, they're only quoting politicians. I also haven't seen anything about investigating this event as a hate crime. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, previously defined the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth". "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add information to articles simply because they believe it to be true, nor even if they know it to be true.

Steven1991 (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide reliable sources for your claim? Steven1991 (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is covered by the extended confirmed restrictions (ECR) stipulated in the WP:ARBECR, as the article has become intertwined with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Under the restrictions, you are not allowed to make or reverse edits without approved edit requests. As such, unapproved edits can be deemed invalid and reverted by any extended confirmed users under clause C and D of the WP:ARBECR. An extended confirmed user exercising their right to revert such unapproved edits will not be considered as edit warring.

I humbly request you to desist from the article until you have accumulated at least 500 edits and become an extended confirmed user in order to avoid further ECR violations. Steven1991 (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is very simple. I only hope that it would be accepted as part of the consensus. Steven1991 (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind expounding more on this statement and explain more of why you feel this way?

> However, if the source says it's being investigated as a hate crime and a possible case of antisemitism, I'd say that is worthy for inclusion here

My contention is that as you point out, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that an attack on a visibly Jewish person isn't antisemitic and was motivated by other factors, even if it is violent and law-breaking. There's an incident on this list that I removed which Steven took offense to and reverted, and the current edit war seems to have spiraled from there. It seems that incident was removed again by another user with the edit summary,

cur prev 17:23, 18 October 2024 Galdrack talk contribs 115,288 bytes −1,982‎ Undid revision 1251779651 by Steven1991 (talk) Wikipedious1 was wrong in their wording but this incident isn't classified as antisemitic per the sourcing, there's nothing to demonstrate the motivations of the attacker. This has been explained in the Talk page before and as such this incident can't be listed here. undo thank Tag: Undo

I would agree with this user here, the attack on the Jewish person in this case cannot be described as antisemitic, and should not be included. Even though per the sourcing it is being investigated as an antisemitic incident. I think it would be fine to add if the investigation concluded and reliable sources reported that it was deemed a hate crime.

Now to make some distinction, suppose a major crime happens, that is reported at a national level, and that every national newspaper describes as antisemitic. Even though a court of law has not technically concluded its investigation and deemed the incident antisemitic, I think it would still be fine to include here.

Of course this is a complex issue, so there are other cases. The most recent incident listed on this article is the beating of Todd Richman, description here: Todd Richman, the Jewish co-chair of the left-leaning Democratic Majority for Israel, was left bloodied after being assaulted by individuals hurling insults with antisemitic tropes. I don't think there is any consensus that the cited sources describing the attack as antisemitic are reliable. I did some cursory googling and can't find any reliable sources describing this incident as antisemitic. However from msn.com (link here: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/cops-hunt-for-pro-palestinian-activists-who-attacked-man-with-israeli-flag-on-oct-7-anniversary/ar-AA1s2Uuq), we find, If captured, the four suspects sought for the attack on Richman could face assault charges. The NYPD’s Hate Crime Task Force is also looking into the attack. Because the incident has not been proven to be antisemitic by a court of law, and no major or reliable sources have independently described the incident as antisemitic, I would be in favor of removing it from the article. Wikipedious1 (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the recorded involvement of an antisemitic tirade by the attackers full of extremely offensive language, e.g. dehumanising names about Jews and conflation with undesirable entities, towards someone Jewish or whom perceived as Jewish by the attackers – as quoted in one of the references of that assault – I don’t see how it’s “not” motivated by antisemitism. Steven1991 (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedious never said they'd "be “happy” with inclusion as long as the law enforcement investigates it as a hate crime", where are you seeing that?

They've been quite consistent this entire discussion, so may you please comment on content, not users? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In one of his messages responding to Mr. Andrevan. Steven1991 (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link it? I might just be missing it. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I would not mind agreeing with. I hope that other qualified users will agree with it so that any lingering disputes can be dispelled. Steven1991 (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you can take over to some extent as I am finding it difficult keeping things gentleman when one of the users doesn’t seem to stop addressing me as an entity or leaving aggressive remarks in editing summaries, not mentioning that the user only has 133 edits, i.e. not an extended-confirmed user, and is not supposed to get so involved in articles tangentially related to the A/I conflict. What do you think? Steven1991 (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly keep an eye on the article to ensure that a deletion or massive removal proposal / bold edits don't go unchallenged / reverted, to the extent I can if there isn't a consensus otherwise. If you are feeling any Wikipedia:Wikistress I agree it's a good idea to take a break and go out and try to focus on the real world, or at least less controversial articles. This isn't the venue to discuss behavior, so let's take that to those users'/my/yours' talk pages as necessary. De-escalation though is often a wise choice. Nothin' wrong with being a legal entity, corporations are people after all! </snark> Andre🚐 20:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with this list is that the scope is so broad that it is a nightmare. An "incident". This is as opposed to terrorist attacks or violent hate crimes, which tend to be far more notable as events and have less of the same concerns - which we have a separate list for. We only have two other pages like this (the Venezuela and Islamophobia ones). Maybe we should delete all three of them. Making this article even close to comprehensive would be massively, massively oversized, and have NOTNEWS and BLP issues. So as is it's just an arbitrary collection of recent news. To attempt to list every single thing ever called an antisemitic incident by the news or another commentator would be utterly unencyclopedic. I don't think we should have any pages like this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was my thought as well. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know if this article’s creator is still active on Wikipedia. Steven1991 (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were blocked as a sockpuppet Special:Contributions/Loksmythe. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern though disagree – I believe that such type of articles have their purposes of existence since it’d make the Antisemitism in the United States unusually long and boring if the notable incidents are to be included there as opposed to (a) separate article(s). Steven1991 (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steven1991 Well, I mean the major ones should probably be covered there (Leo Frank, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, off the top of my head). Other than the few really big ones the vast majority of this article is things like vandalism or one off assaults, which wouldn't need to be included in an article like that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is your opinion. I don’t agree and have stated my viewpoints. I am not too familiar with the most complex rules, so I would leave it to other relatively senior editors. Steven1991 (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to start an AFD. Barring that, continuing to say the article should be deleted instead of improving it seems counterproductive. I am fairly confident the AFD would end in a keep, but ya never know! Andre🚐 21:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Started deletion discussion. I also doubt it will get deleted. But we will see! PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Steven1991 (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a proposition in the bottom of this page. Steven1991 (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rescoping

As per individual editor requests, I would like to make a proposition defining the scope of the antisemitic incidents to be retained in or added to this article.

Only include incidents involving the following types of violence:
- Assault on any Jewish persons that causes ~~causing~~ hospitalisation
- Arson to any Jewish facilities, e.g. yeshivas, synagogues, community centres, advocacy or organisation offices
- Serious vandalism causing significant property damage or physical injuries to any of the facilities as mentioned
- Murder of any Jewish persons
- Manslaughter of any Jewish persons, e.g. a Jewish man confronted by a mob allegedly displaying Nazi swastikas or Celtic crosses, or hurling insults with antisemitic canards, falls to the ground and suffers a deadly concussion

An incident to be included must be reported by at least two reliable sources and purportedly investigated as bias-motivated harassment or a hate crime

An incident of bias-motivated verbal abuse would not be recommended for inclusion unless it happens inside the U.S. Congress, a state capitol, a city council or a court of any level, preferably during a legal proceeding

~~Only extended confirmed users should be allowed to delete more than 500 bytes of content from any section of this article~~

Feel free to discuss. Steven1991 (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though I find most of this acceptable, I do also generally agree with @Wellington Bay's perspective. I think it'd be better if this article mainly focused on incidents that are independently notable, though I also think hate crimes are fine to be included.

I do however object to the "Only extended confirmed users" as I see no reason for it. Non-extended confirmed editors are already limited in what they can edit here so I don't see the benefit of further limiting editing capabilities or why specifically "500 bytes". Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

incidents that are independently notable

I believe that an incident is notable when it is reported by at least two reliable sources, though it would be much better should the incident elicit strong public reaction and media attention, e.g. series of ensuing discussion articles to be published by reputable magazines like The Atlantic, the Foreign Policy or Time Magazine. Steven1991 (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

to request EC user protection, see WP:PP and post on WP:RPP. Generally, unless there is a clear pattern of vandalism or high-level edit-warring by non-EC users, most admins would prefer to keep wiki open, and even if there is a pattern, admins will only put in the protection temporarily.

see also WP:ARBPIA, generally anything related to israel-palestine conflict, including subsection of non-EC-protected articles that aren't about israel-palestine, should not be editted by non EC users. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think limiting events to those covered in at least 2 RS is the right direction, but I have some disagreements. Why not simply define an antisemitic incident to be an incident that is described as antisemitic by an RS? And of course there should be a distinction between "we report that Joe Biden said that this is antisemitic" and "we report that this is antisemitic, and that Joe Biden also said it was". Public figures are not RS and reporting on their opinions should not alone determine that something is antisemitic.

To illustrate the difference, let's consider a hypothetical incident where a Jewish person is physically attacked and is "hospitalized". Let's say we have several RS reporting on the incident, but none describe it as antisemitic. If we accept your proposal, then that incident can be added to the list because it's a case of physical violence on any Jewish person and it's been reported by 2 RS. But if we provide some bounding and say the RS must describe the incident as antisemitic, then this hypothetical incident could not be added. That is the difference.

Furthermore, I think it's entirely possible for antisemitic incidents to be outside of the cases that have already been described here, and I'm also baffled by how loose some of these cases are. As I've said before I'm confused why we are seeking to narrow antisemitic violence to be any attacks on Jewish people, barring literally all context. I don't even think the ADL would consider any attack on a Jewish person to be antisemitic. There is a difference between assault and hate crime. As an example it's entirely within the realm of possibility for a visibly Jewish person to be attacked for reasons other than their Jewishness. Let me know if I'm missing something or misunderstanding. Wikipedious1 (talk) 05:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Limit to incidents that have led to the creation of a Wikipedia article (or a substantial section of Wikipedia article). Wellington Bay (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose limiting to only article-bearing incidents. I think it should be any incident that has been described as antisemitic in RS by at least 2-3 reliable sources, or if a major politician or leader or notable figure was involved or had commented on it. Andre🚐 01:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree so that the serious problem of antisemitism in the U.S. would not be downplayed on the largest online encyclopaedia in the world, when 2023 FBI statistics showed that 68% religion-based hate crimes were committed against Jews. Steven1991 (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Described as such in the source's own voice or described as such by someone quoted in that source?

I also don't think that a notable public figure commenting on something should be enough for inclusion. Individual's opinions, unless a subject expert, are unimportant. Otherwise, we would also consider adding rebuttals from other notable figures.

An incident should be notable with or without a public figure's opinion. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support including the public figure and the rebuttals if they exist. Andre🚐 02:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would lead to more headache than we already have. Wikipedious1 (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the headache you refer to is. It doesn't give me a headache when someone includes information in a Wikipedia article. Andre🚐 05:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I have never had a headache from adding content to a Wikipedia article as I know that some folks would benefit from being shared specific knowledge, regardless of the knowledge’s usefulness to them at a personal level. Steven1991 (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing "rebuttal" to be added to incidents, as things stand now, would only intensify the current contention and impasse that already exists, because it would add complexity and raise many more questions, leading to more disagreement, thus headache. But maybe I misspoke, I was thinking about this in the current situation now, instead of in a future where consensus has been reached. And I guess disagreement is just the wikipedia experience, but engaging with editors here has not really felt civil or pleasant, as an example see the below discussion/bickering about WP:PIA. That is the headache I refer to haha. Hope that dispells any confusion Wikipedious1 (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is covered by the extended confirmed restrictions (ECR) stipulated in the WP:ARBECR, as the article has become intertwined with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Under the restrictions, you are not allowed to make or reverse edits without approved edit requests. As such, unapproved edits can be deemed invalid and reverted by any extended confirmed users under clause C and D of the WP:ARBECR. An extended confirmed user exercising their right to revert such unapproved edits will not be considered as edit warring.

I humbly request you to desist from the article until you have accumulated at least 500 edits and become an extended confirmed user in order to avoid further ECR violations. Steven1991 (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the third or fourth attempt you've made at trying to stop me from engaging with this article, and it's just as ridiculous. Wikipedious1 (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the ECR made by me? No. Steven1991 (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know they're already aware of ECR, they were aware before you started alerting them.

They're allowed to edit this article, just not be involved in WP:PIA. Now stop harassing them by spamming alerts at them. You've been told before not to do this with other users. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are legitimate reminders. Reminders are not innately negative. I’d appreciate if both the WP:AGF and WP:ARBECR can be adhered to. Steven1991 (talk) 05:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this article, “Israel” is mentioned 48 times, “Palestine” is mentioned 6 times while “Gaza” 3 times. Most of the content, particularly the incidents on the list, is ~~tangentially~~ related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I don’t see how my reminders are not legitimate. Steven1991 (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't just say "assume good faith" whenever somewhat is unhappy with your conduct. Templating someone 4 different times, especially in such a short period of time, for something they already know is not a reminder, it's harassment.

I already pointed out that they are allowed to edit this page as antisemitism as a whole is unrelated to WP:PIA & just because some aspects under ECR are included in the article, does not mean the entire article is under ECR.

Now please, leave them alone, stop aggressively trying to kick them off the page, & focus on content. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What conduct? I have been extremely cooperative throughout the thread. I have removed most of the incidents that the user objected to ~~have been removed by me~~ regardless of reasonableness. I followed nearly every demand being ~~made~~ dictated to me while being called an “entity” alongside a series of offensive language for dozens of times. Still, I have tried my best to be polite, patient and humble. This is a platform built on mutual respect. I am nothing but a volunteer here – a human entitled to their well-being. I am not supposed to endure an inordinate amount of vitriol and somehow be bulldozed into accepting any kind of abuse. I wouldn’t have come up with such a proposition after midnight in my local time if I had “not” been participating in good faith, much less continuously making contributions to other tangentially related articles. Steven1991 (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can continue discussing with them concerning the suitability of my proposition for the article’s content. Given that a consensus is needed, I’d take a step back after I’ve explained my take. Thank you so much for your understanding. Steven1991 (talk) 06:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the ECR, an uninvolved admin ruled to another non-EC user that this example (from this page), despite not mentioning the war directly, also constituted an ECR violation. It’s not “my definition” but how they perceive it:

You [another non-EC user] cannot engage with this topic on the talk page, and this is another ECR violation. I suggest you stay well away from anything that is even tangentially related to the Arab/Israel conflict until you are extended-confirmed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Steven1991 (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding rebuttals would be unnecessary if an incident is purely a hate crime. Simply rephrasing what’s written in a reliable news source concerning the hate crime or bias-motivated incident within an edit would be more than enough. Steven1991 (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extra point

Hi all,

Given the presence of irreconcilable differences on how this article should be written, coupled with difficulties in me manoeuvring the realm, I believe that it is preferable for me to leave this article, and perhaps relevant ones, given that I have already made the contributions I wished to. I hope that this will bring an end to any remaining disputes.

@Cdjp1 @Andrevan @EducatedRedneck Thank you so much for your collaboration in the previous month. I would appreciate if you three can take over. Steven1991 (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19yo in Queens incident

I do think this probably does merit inclusion though perhaps not with the current source. Daily News says A 19-year-old Jewish man was punched in the face by a stranger outside a Queens synagogue in an unprovoked antisemitic attack, police said Wednesday... The assault took place on the sabbath and a day after the end of Rosh Hashanah. A few days earlier, the NYPD announced it would be putting extra patrols around Jewish houses of worship to tamp down any antisemitic violence during the high holy days and the first anniversary of the beginning of the Israel-Gaza conflict.^[1] So we really think because it says "police said" it can't be included here? Andre🚐 03:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apology & edit request

About 2 hours ago, I published a small edit to this article, which can be found here: diff. I did not realize that only extended confirmed users are allowed to edit this article, a fact which only came to my attention reading this talk page afterwards. I apologize for my violation and I have reverted the edit. I would like for a user with the appropriate permissions to review said edit and publish it for me. GenderBiohazard (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was significant drama on this article around that incident in this talk page.

You are allowed to edit this article. You should stay away from anything related to Israel/Palestine conflict.

For example, while most of this article can be editted by you, your removal of the keffiyeh detail is possibly not allowed? its debatable, as you can tell on this page

See WP:ARBECR if you want more info. Feel free to be WP:BOLD and thank you for contributing. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the keffiyeh edit is clearly ARBPIA. Andre🚐 05:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, that is precisely why the detail should not be included. An unidentified man wearing a keffiyeh is no more pertinent a detail than if he were wearing a fedora, an orange t-shirt, or a pair of denim blue jeans. Unless an article of clothing is specifically antisemitic in nature (i.e. featuring neo-nazi symbology), it shouldn't be mentioned on a list of antisemitic incidents.

The mention of the keffiyeh reads as unnessecarily linking the incident to the Israel-Palestine conflict, as well as implying that it is an antisemitic symbol. For these reasons, I have requested that someone remove it. GenderBiohazard (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

alright, done. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. GenderBiohazard (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I suggest the restrictions on this article be made more readily apparent, to prevent mistakes like this in the future. GenderBiohazard (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Jewish teen punched in face in Queens unprovoked anti-Semitic attack". New York Daily News. 2024-10-09. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

[1] "Jewish teen punched in face in Queens unprovoked anti-Semitic attack". New York Daily News. 2024-10-09. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

[1]