Talk:Anti-antisemitism in Germany

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Rjjiii talk 17:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that although the vast majority of violence against Jews in Germany is committed by ethnic Germans, accusations of antisemitism focus on minorities? Source: "usually, with around 95% of them [antisemitic physical attacks] committed by right- wing (leaning) white German individuals"[1]; "public accusations of antisemitism are increasingly directed at two groups: (1) designated Others (Muslims and other racialized minorities who seldom engage in anti-Jewish hate crimes) and (2) public intellectuals who are for the most part white ethnic Germans (including Jews and Christians) who demonstrate solidarity with these minorities" [2]
  • ALT1: ... that one researcher found that nearly a third of the people cancelled over antisemitism allegations in Germany have been Jews? Source: In addition to the source cited in the article, it can be verified here: "According to the researcher Emily Dische-Becker, almost a third of those cancelled in Germany for their supposed antisemitism have been Jews."
  • ALT2: ... that Eyal Weizman said that descendants of Nazi perpetrators "who murdered our families ... now dare to tell us that we are antisemitic"? Source: numerous
  • ALT3: ... that Hannah Arendt and Albert Einstein might have been banned from speaking in German public institutions because of antisemitism rules? Source: https://jewishcurrents.org/the-strange-logic-of-germanys-antisemitism-bureaucrats
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mehmet Şerif Fırat

Created by Jayen466 (talk) and Buidhe (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 250 past nominations.

(t · c) buidhe 05:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC).

• All hooks look very good to me and the article itself is high quality. It meets the size requirements without any copyright violations. The nomination is timely. The hooks appear in the cited sources; I do not have familiarity with them to be able to comment on reliability but I trust the nominator to know their stuff about this subject matter. G2G--NØ 11:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Third or quarter?

@Buidhe, is the number of Jews as a proportion of people cancelled over antisemitism allegations a third or a quarter? The DYK says third, but the article says quarter.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Vice regent, as you can see in this diff, Jayen466 changed the estimate to refer to a different source that provides a different value. I have no opinion which is better, but the hook should match the article. (t · c) buidhe 00:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the other figure. Both figures are attributed so we don't violate NPOV and the attribution explains the difference.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Both passages are ultimately based on statements by Dische-Becker; one is specifically about 2023 data collected by the Diaspora Alliance (Dische-Becker heads the German branch of it), the other is a more general statement she has made about "recent years". I have now made that explicit in the text. For reference, please find the relevant source texts below.

Deutsche Welle says:

• Similar warnings have been coming from Diaspora Alliance, a Jewish-led international organization dedicated to challenging the instrumentalization of antisemitism and to fighting what they identify as genuine antisemitism. Diaspora Alliance is currently compiling a list of Germany's cases of censorship or deplatforming related to claims of antisemitism. Their data, which should be made available online in 2025, not only shows that Palestinians and the broader community of Muslims and/or Arabs have been the most directly affected by Germany's particular stance, but also that a highly disproportionate number of Jews have been affected. Among the 84 cases of deplatforming or event cancellations documented by Diaspora Alliance in 2023, Jewish individuals or groups including Jews were targeted in 25% of the incidents. This statistic was confirmed to DW by Emily Dische-Becker, director of the German branch of the organization. As a caveat, she pointed out that being a Jewish-led organization, they are presumably more directly informed of cases affecting Jewish people. Jews make up less than 1% of the population in Germany.

The Guardian says:

• Germany has proscribed many criticisms of Israel (such as describing its treatment of Palestinians as “apartheid”) and banned many expressions of solidarity with the Palestinian cause. The main targets have been Muslims, but Jewish supporters of Palestinian rights have also been deplatformed and arrested. According to the researcher Emily Dische-Becker, almost a third of those cancelled in Germany for their supposed antisemitism have been Jews. There is, as the Israeli-born architect and academic Eyal Weizman has acidly put it, a certain irony in “being lectured [on how to be properly Jewish] by the children and grandchildren of the perpetrators who murdered our families and who now dare to tell us that we are antisemitic”.

The Guardian cites the source we were citing, a podcast that is over two hours long and unfortunately does not come with a transcript. If either of you know the precise time code, that would be great; for now I have added the Guardian article as a second reference that is more accessible for readers wanting to see the underlying source. Best, Andreas JN466 08:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't like the WP:WEASEL term "many" here as comparing the percentage of Jews living in Germany (1%) with the percentage of Jews targeted by deplatforming as documented by Diaspora Alliance (1/4 or 1/3) is suggestive but not very meaningful for various reasons. One reason is acknowledged by Deutsche Welle: Emily Dische-Becker pointed out that as a Jewish-run organisation, they [the Diaspora Alliance] are presumably more directly informed about cases involving Jewish people.

Most importantly, both cited sources (Guardian and DW) attribute the statistic to Diaspora Alliance/Dische-Becker, while we use wikivoice to state that Many of those arrested and cancelled in Germany over allegations of antisemitism have been Jews critical of Israel's policies. This is problematic. Emily Dische-Becker and The Dig are WP:BIASED sources that should be handled with care. So I suggest we take one of the following two options:

1. We state in the lead "Some of those arrested and cancelled in Germany over allegations of antisemitism have been Jews critical of Israel's policies".

Maybe not ideal, but at least factually correct - we avoid any subjective judgement on the relevance of this statistic, while DW+Guardian give the information due weight.

1. We state in the lead "According to Emily Dische-Becker from Diaspora Alliance, nearly one third of those arrested and cancelled in Germany over allegations of antisemitism have been Jews critical of Israel's policies".

More accurate, provides information on the primary source of information (which may be perceived as weak/biased), but also less readable and concise.

I'd be fine with both of these options. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

While it's possible that Dische Becker's numbers are an overestimate, even if they are a substantial overestimate (let's imagine the real number is several times lower—say 5 or 10 percent) it would still indicate that Jews are targeted by such policies to a vastly disproportionate level, which your suggested wording doesn't capture. (t · c) buidhe 12:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Jews are targeted by such policies to a vastly disproportionate level. Well, disproportionate compared to what? It is not obvious that it makes sense to compare Dische Becker's data with the percentage of Jews in the German population. It is likely, or even obvious, that the percentage of Jews among the organisers and participants of events that could be targeted as " antisemitic " is much higher than the percentage of Jews in the German population: Jews are more interested than German non-Jews in publicly addressing Israeli politics. So the claim that a third/a quarter is "many" is a subjective assessment, and given the lack of data on the percentage of Jews in Germany who participate in initiatives on Israeli politics, it is also an unsubstantiated assessment. Most importantly, it is an assessment that is not attributed to any source, i.e. it falls under WP:WEASEL, which is a guideline, not a policy, but still relevant in this case. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

"Disproportionate" is not my opinion—it is drawn from the sources cited above. The stated objective of these policies (whose aim is fighting antisemitism in general, not just "Israel-related antisemitism") is to protect Jews, but the implication of Ditsche–Becker's evidence is that it does not succeed in this objective. If the estimate is very far off, then it should not be included at all imo, but there is no evidence of that. (t · c) buidhe 19:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The sentence from DW Their [Diaspora Alliance's] data, which should be made available online in 2025, [...] shows [...] that a highly disproportionate number of Jews have been affected [by censorship or deplatforming] becomes in our article Many of those arrested and cancelled in Germany over allegations of antisemitism have been Jews critical of Israel's policies. I think that we should follow the source: attribution is needed per WP:WEASEL ("views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source") and WP:VOICE ("Avoid stating opinions as facts"). By the way, do we have a source for arrested? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Illustration

The image in question, illustrating the #Ideology section

One of the article's two images, File:Banderole, boycott.jpg, isn't from a German demonstration at all but from a French one. Is there any picture of a German protest that could play a similar role? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Chaotic Enby arguably because of the nature of this topic, the pro-palestinian marches in Germany don't have official-looking banners and all the signs on commons seem rather unofficial. But it may be possible to replace with this one (also relevant: [3]) (t · c) buidhe 03:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! It's true that it might be hard to find an exact analogue (mentioning both boycott and the characterization of Israel's policies as apartheid). The second picture you link is also interesting, and could make for a good illustration on its own. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Jews canceled

A cursory background-check into the names of the Jews mentioned here (who are complaining of being called out unfairly over their antisemitism) will show that their views are clearly indeed bordering on antisemism. (While their views cannot be proven to be antisemitic, at the same time, all their views are favorites of antisemites).

Therefore to give a proper neutral point of view, I believe it would be fair to mention, after mentioning their names, a few of their views (so instead of saying, for example, "Scholar Noam Chomsky has published an open letter 'opposing ideological or political interference and litmus tests in Germany'", the article should state "Scholar Noam Chomsky, who calls Gaza a "concentration camp", and says that listening to American mainstream media is like listening to "Israeli propaganda", has published an open letter" etc.)

This will not demean or undermine Mr Chomsky in any way since the article will not be accusing him of antisemitism in any way, it will be left to the reader to form their own judgements. It will simply give context to the people who are lambasting Germany's policy, without making the reader think that these scholars are all impartial. Mrclapper1 (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

All the article says is that certain individuals, who are Jewish, have been "cancelled" over antisemitism allegations. This is a provable fact. The article doesn't go into whether such "cancellation" is merited, which is not for Wikipedia to decide. (t · c) buidhe 21:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

When you write that this article doesn't go into whether such cancellation is merited, what do you mean? The article is full of voices who say that this cancellation is not merited. (I would say half the article is made up of this).

Therefore, since it seems that the article does indeed go into whether the cancellations merited, I would think that the context of the views of those who say that it is unwarranted should be explained. It should of course be clear to the reader that the article is not accusing these people of antisemitism, but to give context that these voices are not impartial.

Or perhaps all these voices should just be removed? I don't think that's a good idea, as wikipedia is a comprehensive encyclopedia with as much information as possible. Mrclapper1 (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The article does quote reactions to the "cancellation"; most of the reactions quoted so far are negative, but it's possible that positive reactions also exist, in which case they could be added, taking into consideration WP:DUE and other policies. (t · c) buidhe 22:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

OK thank you. Of course the same effect could be had, instead of just adding opposing reactions, to add context for the negative reactions. (Mr Chomsky, for example, may indeed be correct in calling Gaza a concentration camp, I don't know. But it's not for us as editors, or for Wikipedia, to decide, as you rightly said. It's up to the reader to decide.)

(This brings me to an important point. It would never be neutral to include opposing viewpoints just for the sake of "neutrality". The views already mentioned may be already correct. But it is important to give the context of those giving the views. If Mr Hitler would have had an unknown nickname, and we used that nickname to give his view on something, calling him a "world player", would be...yeah.) Mrclapper1 (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Antisemitism in Germany

Perhaps some will find that useful (if restored). Or not, I don't remember what was there, except that it existed. Maybe ask an admin to restore it to subpage here for reference and checking for useful tidbits? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and it is mildly amusing we now have article on this, but still no on Antisemitism in Germany (just a redirect). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Happy to userfy/draftify on request, but at a glance it's unlikely to be a useful starting point. A quote from and summary of Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners. A ten point timeline of Jewish people being expelled from what were later German territories. A list of related Wikipedia articles. No citations. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a separate article on Antisemitism in 21st-century Germany, although it doesn't look to be in good shape. (t · c) buidhe 12:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)