Category talk:Antisemitism in the United States

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per a recent CFD consensus, biographies of people should not be in such categories. I'm going to start removing them. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See for example the category headers at Category:Homophobia, Category:Anti-Arabism,Category:Racism, Category:Anti-Protestantism,Category:Anti-Hinduism,Category:Anti-Buddhism,Category:Anti-Ahmadiyya,Category:Ageism,Category:Misandry, etc. I will update the header of this anti-semitism category accordingly, according to consensus.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Seconded because that's the current consensus. If you think consensus has changed, please begin a new discussion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So why is it OK to put them in "anti-Jewish writers"? How is that not the same thing? Since this is really about Eustace Mullins and presumably others like him who were antisemitic in about thirty different ways, how is it even possible to categorize under these rules?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it's the same thing and was unaware of the separate category tree. Surely that should be deleted? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was created today, and its on the chopping block. People must stay in that cat, temporarily, while the discussion is ongoing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the closer of the CfD you linked to only mentioned BLPs, not biographies in general, and only mentioned parent categories, not subcategories. It's not obvious to me that that close recognizes consensus for recursion through subcategories and it's particularly obvious that it does not cover biographies of dead people. So maybe you all should start a new discussion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The close specified individuals and organizations, not living individuals and non-defunct orgs, although it mentioned the BLP policy. If we're not sure, we can ask the closer.

I myself am not entirely satisfied - I think consistency is the highest good here, because what we had before this decision (and, apparently, even still) was "it's okay to label someone antisemitic for a single comment, but god forbid we label someone homophobic if their life's work and the source of their notability is their homophobia". BUT not allowing individuals or organizations does impede navigation to articles where people or organizations are principally notable for whatever bias. As I commented at Obi-Wan's talk page, the logistical implementation of a hypothetical flipped decision would be really complicated - how antisemitic, etc. does someone have to be to be in the category? Putting aside other potential concerns with BLP. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are other ways to get at this. For example, we have groupings of white nationalists - they call themselves this, others call them that, there isn't much debate. But the anti-categories just don't work for bios (alive or dead). --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem. If "Antisemite" is a defining characteristic of a person per reliable sources reflected in the article they should be in a category about antisemitism. Consistency isn't even the lowest good. It's not a good and it's not attainable. Obi-Wan, antisemitism is very different from whatever other anti categories you're talking about. The sourcing is much better generally and it is studied as a thing in itself by whole academic departments. You think the press got angry about the novelists? Wait till someone notices that you're trying to take Eustace Mullins out of the antisemitism category. None of your explanations will convince anyone.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until Ezra is taken out! The press will have a field day. And Mullins learned from Ezra. I thought my jaw couldn't drop more, but I am absolutely stunned at this.

talk) 17:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Did the NY times write an article when these categories were summarily executed - thus removing "everyone" from such lists?

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_12#Category:People_accused_of_antisemitism

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_20#Category:Alleged_anti-semites

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_4#Category:Allegedly_anti-Semitic_people

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_27#Category:Anti-Semitic_people (another one)

This has nothing to do with whether anti-semitism exists, or even whether sources can be found to say X is anti-semitic. A line has to be drawn, and consensus is that people and groups do not belong in these anti-categories, for whatever reason - that's just a reflection of how we use, and don't use, categories. This is not me speaking, look at the votes - consensus is quite clear. And no, anti-semitism is not that different than homophobia or racism or anti-catholicism or whatever else - they are all studied, and people are labelled as all of those things - we just don't categorize because of it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those categories are brain-dead and should have been deleted. This one is not. There are people who belong in this category. People are bringing up the press, distasteful or not, as a way to ask you to look outside the intrawiki mindset and think about actual reality.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People being in this category is the same thing as saying those people are "alleged anti-semites". And that category was deleted and salted. People outside need to understand why we have these rules in place about POV and placement in categories, especially of people. Don't ask me, bring it to CFD, see what they say - hell, have an RFC about it for all I care. Current consensus is clear, regardless, per both CFD and the headers at Category:Anti-semitism and elsewhere.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People inside need to understand why people outside will never understand the rules since the rules don't make sense. How is CFD even the right place for the discussion? It says right at the top that Categories for discussion (Cfd) is where deletion, merging, and renaming of categories (pages in the Category namespace) is discussed. It doesn't say anything about it being the place for discussion of what belongs in an existing category whose existence is not considered problematic. How is that not a matter for ordinary editing?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus at CFD is to delete those cats BECAUSE membership is problematic, POV, etc. Thus, the same consensus applies here - if you can't have Category:American anti-semitic people, you can't just put those people in the parent as a result.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're inferring the consensus for these categories rather than saying that there's an explicit consensus? Also, my question about CfD was serious. I have no idea how it works, and I don't think I'm alone.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please read the first CFD I linked to: [[1]] - which says, right at the top: "Consensus for a unified approach to these categories; most support to ban individuals & organisations. This has been a lengthy discussion but both the general trend and the BLP policy incline against the inclusion of individuals and organisations." You have to please READ the links I provide. So, no, I'm not INFERRING consensus at all - *all* of these categories were brought to CFD, and an admin closed with a declaration of said consensus. That said consensus was not pasted to the top of this particular sub-category is just an oversight, but the intent was that it be applied across the board.

CFD is the venue for discussing problematic categories, and that was what was done on February 9, 2011. If you want to bring the whole anti-semitism tree back before the CFD jury to see what they say, 2 years later, be my guest - but until then, existing consensus should be followed. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have notified previous admins and editors [2], [3], [4] involved in these discussions to this page, and I notified wikiproject on biographies of living people [5], [6]. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I was one of the admins who closed one of the previous discussions. I agree with all of what User:Obiwankenobi has said about this. Not including people or organizations in categories of this type is the most recent consensus position that has been established. I think that should be respected until we can recognise that there is a new consensus on the issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to be clear: does this apply to persons who are no longer alive? Thanks.
  talk) 22:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I have the same question. And I'll add the comment that I think we are being a bit too politically correct here. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's unlikely to be anything but a duck. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Not to mention that it's written about repeatedly in histories of the duck as being a quintessential example of a duck and is in fact studied in great detail by experts on ducks as being quintessentially representative of duckitude and not really discussed in reliable sources for any other reason than being really really duckesque. This is why slippery slope is a fallacy. Mel Gibson is not a duck. The wrong people can be kept out of here by ordinary editing.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My interpretation of the discussions is that it applies to any person or organization, alive or dead. But more especial care has to be taken with living people, of course—which is why it was specifically mentioned. It sounds to me as if the issue should be raised in a CFD to see if the previous consensus still holds. An RFC might be appropriate to get around the issue of whether this peripheral issue really belongs at CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's this level of frustration building on the part of a number of editors because every time someone tries to discuss which articles should be in what categories they're told that wherever the conversation is taking place is not the correct venue for that conversation and they should take it to CfD, or that it's not possible to discuss a given category and the parent category has to be taken to CfD, or whatever. It feels like a runaround and like the goalposts are constantly being moved. It's evidently hard for many editors, myself included, to understand why it's not possible to build a local consensus on an article talk page for which categories that article should be in or on a category talk page for how that category should work.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to go to the effort to put together an RFC on this matter, they are welcome to. I suppose the somewhat innocent question might start with, can "confirmed" anti-semites or anti-semitic organizations, alive or dead, be placed in anti-semitism categories? But you'd have to address and perhaps draft what are the objective criteria for determining duckitude (must it float? be lighter than wood? etc) - and esp how to deal with nazis - are they treated differently? What about BLPs - can they ever be so-placed? If not, does it make sense to have a category people can only join once they're dead and incapable of defending themselves further? I can't think of any categories we have right now that you can only join if dead - people have tried, and they are usually removed.

You'd also have to address questions of whether Racism, Homophobia, Sexism, ageism, misandry, misogeny, and other sorts of things will also now be allowed (in terms of categorizing people or groups so-labelled), which will open up a floodgate. If you *don't* want to allow those categorizations, you'd have to defend, cogently, why? Racism is real, racists are real, and they've caused as much harm as the anti-semites (in a way, anti-semitism can be seen a form of racism). So I know Alf doesn't like slippery slopes, but once you open the door to classifying anti-semites, you will definitely have to classify anti-catholics, and anti-muslims, and anti-buddhists, and so on and so forth - it will be hard to argue a special case for anti-semitism, in spite of the special nature of this particular form of villany.

We already have a tree that has recently blossomed of anti-muslim organizations, and there is another tree of anti-catholic organizations, both of which I think violate current consensus, but since it's about orgs people are less touchy about it. I'm thinking of nominating the lot for deletion at CFD - I'll be sure to invite you all to the bonfire.

Rather than the above, a better approach might be to look at a different set of categories these people could belong to, like white nationalism, fascism, far-right, etc. - e.g. not categories that describe them as being against an entire ethnic group (even if, by all rights, some are), but categories that describe what they're *for*.

In any case, can we at least agree that for the time being, we should follow the current consensus, until we have established a new one by said RFC? It seems every time a touch a category, I end up either ANI or RFC.... ugh.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per this by Alf: "why it's not possible to build a local consensus on an article talk page for which categories that article should be in or on a category talk page for how that category should work." - again this is a broader issue, which you should bring to the CFD discussion board (or somewhere else - be my guest!) where you brought the notification issue below. I think there is nuance here, it's subtle. Yes, local consensus can decide certain things about a category, and consensus on the article can decide whether Hemingway is a war novelist or a romantic novelist, but global consistency is also important. We should not have, IMHO, countries where you classify all of the anti-semites, and other countries where you absolutely don't - that violates NPOV. As such, categorization rules have to be somewhat globally applied - which is why when people nominate categories for discussion, the nominations are often declined because the scope is too small - they need to nominate the whole tree, and make a decision about the whole tree at once. In this case, the whole tree, more or less, *was* nominated, and a decision was made in 2011 to not allow bios or organizations in this tree. Entropy means such bios have crept in, and this whole mess started when I tried to clean it up in line with what I understood (and what Good Ol Factory has confirmed) to be current consensus... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not necessary to solve those problems before this one can be solved. That is also a fallacy, and it's a time-worn evasive political tactic too. We don't need an RfC, all we need is for a serious discussion to take place on this page about this category and apply it here. Then afterwards anyone else who cares can discuss other categories wherever and whenever. There is absolutely no reason not to solve one problem because it's not possible to solve a bunch of other problems at the same time. Categories exist for the reader, not for the categorizer. Some people belong in this category, not in other ones that might possibly apply and also suit your needs.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors imitate categorizations that happen in one part of the tree. So let's say we start adding a bunch of bios to this tree. Then the french-anti-semitism followers may see that, and start adding french bios, and thus it spreads - even though a broader discussion was never held. Alf, just read the logs and talk page histories on various category boards and BLP boards and so on - this issue has come up again and again, in multiple forums, dating back 6 years, with broad-reaching and wide discussions on same. This is not the first time anyone has pondered this, and it hasn't *only* been at CFD. The discussions which did end up at CFD had huge participation from dozens of editors, which is not normal at all - so I'm pretty confident that consensus they arrived at was solid and there was probably broad notification.

Finally, Local consensus cannot override global consensus, that is a wikipedia policy, btw, not just something cooked up by the denizens of CFD: read

Wikipedia:LOCALCONSENSUS#Level_of_consensus --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Hmm. Malleus (who now edits under his real name, Eric Corbett) has argued for a long time that the whole category system is more trouble than it's worth -- and I'm starting to think that he might have a point. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break

As the one who closed the discussion over two years ago I'd agree that by far the clearest agreement in that CFD was that a unified approach should be taken to bias categories and that is a very stong consensus against individual categories starting up local consensus outside the arrangements. If somebody disagrees with either the global approach decision or which particular approach then fine, but on such a controversial area you need to explicitly rediscuss it and when the decision is to have a global approach then by definition an individual talkpage is the wrong place to decide on an opt-out.
Rules for parent categories invariably roll down the tree to specific sub-categories so there is no need to explicitly state that. Although BLPs came up, they were not the sole factor relating to the treatment of individuals, whch in most cases is the same whether living or dead. So at the moment the standing position is that individuals should not be included. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So who's gonna put their money where their mouth is and take Adolph Hitler out of Antisemitism in Germany?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This category draws a dangerous precedent. Who do we list as an "antisemite"? Because many people such as Desmond Tutu, Joe Slovo, Stephen Hawking and George Galloway have been called anti-semites. Do we list Desmond Tutu under the category "antisemitism" as well, to appeal to a few far-right radicals? Where do you draw the line? "Category:antisemitism in the United States" would be almost every politician from founding of the nation onward...and we still don't know who is anti-semitic behind closed doors or not. I thus think this article should only include people who are directly related to anti-semitism, such as the writers of "Protocols of Elders of Zion", scholars of anti-semitism, and organizations that deal with anti-semitism. Otherwise, you just risk throwing too wide a net. Solntsa90 (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Tutu, Hawking, and Galloway have been called anti-zionist, which is not at all the same as antisemitism -- although some Israelis equate the two (unfairly, in my opinion). Joe Slovo was Jewish, so that's just silly. Is anyone really arguing for that? For including anyone who has been accused of antisemitism because of their opposition to Israel's Palestinian policy (or other flimsy reasons) in the antisemite category? Random unsourced accusations don't cut it anywhere else here, so why would it be considered valid for categorization? Inclusion should require documentation via reliable sourcing, just like all other content. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 06:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Solntsa. This category should be dealing with subjects whose antisemitism is a defining characteristic. Sources may speculate that certain subjects held feelings of prejudice "behind closed doors" but I don't think that is enough to be placed in a category like this, which should be reserved for people who are directly related to antisemitism.LM2000 (talk) 07:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Joe: Not true. Here are several sources which support calling Tutu anti-semitic (this was 5 minutes with google, mind you - and I don't do this lightly, as Tutu is one of my heroes)

• "Bishop Tutu Is No Saint When it Comes To Jews" by Alan Dershowitz "Were he not a Nobel laureate, his long history of bigotry against the Jewish people would have landed him in the dustbin of history, along with a dishonor roll of otherwise successful people, whose reputations have been tainted by their anti-Semitism such as Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, Patrick Buchanan and Mel Gibson."
• "Tutu's "anti-Semitic" speech"
• "Archbishop Tutu: Please, Apologize to the Jews"
• "Zionist Federation of SA claims Archbishop Tutu is an anti-Semite

I could go on and on. And yes, we could dispute those sources, and say "But Tutu is a wonderful fellow, and he won a Nobel prize, and Dershowitz is just a hack and the Zionest Federation are crackpots and his speech in Boston wasn't really anti-semitic" and it could on like that for days - and all this for a fellow like Tutu! How many speeches called anti-semitic does it take to get him into the cat? Once he's in, can he ever be removed, if he's really nice for a couple of years?

I just read about another, more unsavory character, Charles Coughlin, who has been called anti-semitic - reading over his bio, he doesn't seem like the kind of priest I'd want to have over for dinner. But the guy wrote a whole treatise called Am I an anti-semite - wherein he describes his whole philosophy, and talks about his feelings for jewish people and so on and so forth, and basically claims, that NO, he is not an anti-semite, his views have been misunderstood and misrepresented, etc. Read his article to see how this is treated.

In an article, we can say "source A claims X, while source B claims Y", but in a category, we can't do that - by placing someone in a category, we're deciding, for good, for once and for all, that they're an anti-semite (or a racist, or a homophobe, or whatever), and that label is irredeemable and unchangeable, and then you click on the category link and get an undifferentiated, unsourced, and un-nuanced list of a bunch of other supposed anti-semites.

There is no middle ground, no compromise with a category - someone can't be half in, half out. You can fiddle with language, you can tweak the wording, you can bring more sources to the table and cover all sides in detail, but you CANT do that with a category. It's a zero sum game - one side has to win, the other side has to lose - looking at the edit history for Charles Coughlin, these categories have been edit warred for years - add/delete/add/delete. But at the end of the day, the guy either is in the "anti-semitism" category, or he's not.

If you look at the talk page for most of these bios, there are discussions about the extent of their anti-semitism, was it just fascism or more general racism, how did those sentiments evolve over time, did they ever have Jewish friends, did they harbor anti-semitic feelings their whole life, did it come at one time and go at another, etc. There is no single authoritative source on anti-semitism, anyone can make this claim, and many academics have and will continue to, and I don't doubt some of their claims have merit, nor do I doubt that antisemitism is a real thing.

It's also the case that there *are* open/shut cases, which I don't need to outline here. But how do you define the edge of that - at what point does a case no-longer become open/shut? That's the issue. There is a fuzzy fuzzy line, and it runs right through people like Tutu and Mel Gibson and so on.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here, Obi-Wan, is a link to my talk page where you explain that you're in favor of bending this rule in order to keep biographies of Nazis in antisemitism in Germany. Even you, with your insistence that everyone else satisfy your need for black-and-white rules before proceeding, can see that it's not possible to find them. Also, if you think Desmond Tutu and Mel Gibson are fuzzy cases you're badly confused about what the issue is here. Your red-herring arguments about "racist,...,homophobe,...whatever" are beside the point as well. You yourself can't even come up with a rule for this category (no biographies in antisemitism) that you're willing to defend in practice. How can you ask others to come up with one that covers both antisemitism and racism and a zillion other categories beside?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would add only that Obi cites good sourcing for including Tutu in the category -- and then argues that he shouldn't be included! I'll stand by what I originally said: If there is good evidence, via

WP:RS, that someone belongs in the category, he or she should be included. If the shoe fits, and all that. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

And there you have it folks - I think my (somewhat minor) point is proven - a duck is a duck is a duck, right? Alf, do you agree that Tutu should be in Category:Antisemitism in South Africa (why is that red??), based on the sources provided? It sounds like, NO. So even you guys don't agree on inclusion criteria - and that is just a taste of the endless debates that opening this up to bios would create. Alf, you keep egging me on, and are frustrated when I decline - let me be clear on my position - I would support anyone who wanted to remove all those called antisemites from Category:Antisemitism in Germany, including Adolph, and if you gave me a fresh anonymous account I'd do it myself - I just don't want to end up as the next scapegoat for wikipedia's ills - categorization of bios, especially famous ones, is now a political act, highly scrutinized. But, if there's going to be a big RFC, I'd rather just wait and avoid the attendant drama.

By asking others to try to create the rule, whether for anti-semites or more broadly to racists or homophobes or sexists, I (secretly) believe such a rule is not possible and will always be too subjective and subject to too much drama, which is why on any such RFC, while I would help draft, I will likely vote to not allow bios in "bias" categories. IMHO, it's an impossible task to create a fair rule that can be followed consistently, and the voters in the CFD linked up-top agreed. But, I'm not going to stand in the way if someone wants to try.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And there you have it, folks -- the argument, if I understand it correctly, is that no one -- no one -- including Adolf (not Adolph) Hitler -- should be classified as an antisemite because we cannot agree on whether Desmond Tutu meets the criteria? Is that really the argument? Is it further the argument that reliable sources say Tutu is an antisemite, but you disagree, so we should go with your opinion over reliable sources? On the day I opened my account, the very first thing I was told was, "Your opinion does not matter here. What matters here is sourcing." Was that fundamental principle repealed during the night, when I wasn't looking? I understand that this is a touchy issue, but dodging it entirely is not the answer. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, yes - it's a baby/bathwater approach, frankly (my understanding). If we can't agree on a line (and previous consensus was that we couldn't), the safer path is, (a) delete any such cats which only contain people, e.g. Category:Racists, Category:Sexists, Category:Anti-Jewish writers, and (b) restrict broader topic cats from containing people so labelled (thus avoiding an end-run around deletion of Category:Antisemitic people. As to this "Is it further the argument that reliable sources say Tutu is an antisemite, but you disagree, so we should go with your opinion over reliable sources?" - no, I was using Tutu as an example of the sorts of debates one might expect if we opened this up to bios. I frankly can't say if he'd be in the (currently non-existent) category or not, as the inclusion criteria is not written for now - it seems to be floating somewhere in the minds of those commenting here. If it just takes a few RS calling him one, then he's in. If he has to have been fundamental to the development of Antisemitism in south africa and the architect of antisemitism in africa more broadly, then he's out.

Consensus has been, as Tim notes above, to dodge the issue as you say, let the article space deal with it, and NOT categorize people into bias categories based on alleged or confirmed bias, sourced or not, completely-crazily-obvious, or not.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then the next logical step would be no categories at all -- and as Eric has said, that might not be such a bad idea, especially if the consensus really is to dodge the issue entirely. That solution is a little too politically correct/koombayah/no cojones for my taste, personally. But consensus is consensus. Anybody else care to weigh in? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) One more word - just to be crystal clear. None of this has anything to do with my opinions on anti-semitism, or whether Gibson or Pound or Tutu or Hitler are anti-semites, nor should it be construed as a way of downplaying antisemitism in general, nor should removal of bios from these categories imply that I (or anyone doing this) believe in any way that these bios are not in many cases guilty as charged. It is simply a procedural point, but an important one, about how we should and shouldn't use categories to describe people, and about following consensus already clearly established. That's why the bright line is useful - if some people *are* in the category, and some are not, then removing someone is equivalent to saying "X is not an antisemite" If no-one is allowed in the category, then removing someone who shows up there is a much more neutral action, as we are saying, let the article make claims of bias, don't use the category system to do so. Let me know if that makes sense or not.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only parts that I find confusing are (1) making such a good case, complete with sources, that Tutu is antisemitic, and then arguing that he should not be considered one; and (2) the idea that a category list can claim anything; it's just a list. And if it is permissible for articles to document bias, is it not logical to permit the assembly of a list of all articles documenting the particular bias in question? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your last point, DoctorJoeE, but mostly I'm with Solntsa90 up above about who should go in this category. Anyway, Obi-Wan, no one thinks any of that bad stuff about you. It's clear that you're just using the Nuremberg defense with consensus instead of orders and your own opinions on antisemitism don't come into it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's my problem with the argument (which is admittedly shared by many) that there are "real" antisemites, and then there are antisemites with a Nobel Prize, or some other sort of get-out-of-jail-free card. How does it make sense to say that Tutu (for example), who has minimized the suffering of Holocaust victims, invoked classic antisemitic stereotypes and tropes, and accused "the Jews" of causing many of the world's problems (applicable sources linked above), is not antisemitic? Does his Nobel Prize shield him from accountability for a long history of anti-Jewish bigotry? Should it also shield Yassir Arafat and Jose Saramago? I don't think so. I don't think that these people -- along with Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, Pat Buchanan, and Mel Gibson, to cite a few more examples -- are "less-important" antisemites. They may in fact be MORE important, because of their otherwise upstanding reputations. Persuadable people will often discount the ravings of the Hitlers, Pounds, and Mullins of the world, because they are clearly extremists; but those same people might believe Tutu, because of that Nobel medal and the big cross around his neck and all the anti-apartheid stuff. Including these people would not "open the floodgates", it would just include people who deserve to be included. Bigotry needs to be challenged, regardless of who is spouting it, because otherwise the bigots think it's okay. My two cents, sorry for the rant(s). DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine; I just don't know much about Tutu and don't want to think about it right now. I do know much about Mullins, Pound, and Kasper, and they obviously need to be on this list. The fact that for all their talk of consensus they won't take Hitler off speaks volumes to me. But we're all just talking past each other at this point and I don't see myself participating in CfD. It's their briar patch which is why they keep trying to get the argument thrown into it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately. As some jerk -- oh, wait, that would be me -- is fond of saying, Wikipedia says of itself that it is "not a democracy" and "not a bureaucracy". That is half correct. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

(edit conflict) Figuring out how to define who goes in is my main reason for being ambivalent about the category. (Also, as I explained, the consistency issue. If you decide to submit a proposal for allowing people and organizations back into the antisemitism category, will you propose it category-wide, for sexism, homophobia, etc.?) It's easy to say that politicians who made antisemitism a cornerstone of their careers should go in there. Pound and Wagner were both extremely antisemitic, and while it's not what they're notable for, it influenced their artistic work (=source of their notability) to a degree. Henry Ford was also extremely anti-Semitic, but he didn't make anti-Semitic automobiles. And currently the category gets used to house people who made one-off comments. Some are obvious candidates for inclusion and some are obvious candidates for non-inclusion, but where does the line get drawn? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I decide to submit a proposal I absolutely will *not* propose it category wide. I'm not interested in consistency and as far as I can see the constant requests for a single solution function, intentionally or not, as a means to halt conversation on this one issue. Ford didn't make antisemitic automobiles but he funded world antisemitism. He's another obvious case for inclusion. Where does the line get drawn? Who knows where? Let editors figure it out by ordinary editing. You might as well ask for a rule that determines once and for all who gets to be *called* an antisemite in an article. The criteria are the same and they do not need to be made algorithmic.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactamente. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"You might as well ask for a rule that determines once and for all who gets to be *called* an antisemite in an article." Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong! Alf, this has been explained a dozen times, and you're still refusing to listen to it. Categorization is not the same as prose - it is completely different than prose. It is binary, and you don't get to change the language - the category name is the same FOR ALL MEMBERS OF THE CATEGORY. You are in, or you are out. If you compare all of the so-called anti-semites, you will see that their articles treat that bias in completely different and nuanced ways - as well they should. A category of anti-semites homogenizes them _and_ it implies, in violation of wikipedia's own policy of NPOV, that wikipedia is making a decision to apply a label, without any nuance, which is defaming, and which would put Mel Gibson in the same category as Adolf. Any decision we make to do so would *have* to be based on subjective, and frankly arbitrary, criteria, and there will be endless debates and revert wars of putting someone in or taking them out because membership in this category will be seen as a black mark, and they will become filled up with people who, in all frankness, don't belong no matter what. I've cleaned out several already that had no business being there.

These anti-bias-people categories, EVERY TIME THEY'RE CREATED, are deleted by consensus. All sides of the issue can be dealt with in prose, whereas a category is a single, final answer. It's just not our place to make such a judgement.

Finally as to this: "they won't take Hitler off speaks volumes to me" - I've stated my view on this quite clearly, you're just now pretending to not hear it. If you want to take him out, go ahead, I will not stop you or revert you, but there's too much public scrutiny for me to risk a media attack. That's the ONLY reason I'm not going after those bios - sad, but true. Give me an anonymous login, and I'll do it within the hour, so plz stop parroting that.

Please have some sense of balance here. Categories are a navigational tool, intended to organize articles - they are supposed to be neutral in title and objective in definition, to the greatest extent possible. If you really want to expose the extent of anti-semitism in the Hollywood elite, WRITE AN ARTICLE. If you want to explore the role of anti-semitism in the inter-war years in the US, WRITE AN ARTICLE. You're making it seem like not having bios in this category is going to defang anti-semitism, but it won't have any impact at all - remember, we have previously DELETED at least 4, and now 2 MORE categories full of anti-semites, and yet, no-body was hurt therefore, no articles were written, life went on. The solution to the challenges of highlighting bias is to WRITE ... AN ... ARTICLE--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what categories are for according to WP:Categorization: "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." Your arguments, which I'm sympathetic to, about "endless debates and revert wars" apply to articles as well. Look at the history of Eustace Mullins to see that this is so. I do hear you, I just don't agree with you. If the category system is to meet its stated goal there are going to have to be some biographies in this category. The fact that that might make things harder for editors shouldn't be a consideration. Things are already hard for editors.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article edit wars can reach a consensus, a middle ground, a turn of phrase that satisfies everyone. You can't in a category - it's winner take all.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Wow, everyone here sure can chat it up. I can tell that nothing is going to be resolved between the parties who are discussing this so far, so why doesn't someone take this to the next level and start a formal discussion (CFD or RFC, whatever you prefer) where we can get viewpoints from outside this group of editors who has already participated? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough and wisely stated. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep people out This category should not include biographies. Next someone will want to put
  U. S. Grant in, but that is an oversimplistic view of his general order.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Slight preference toward Keep people out per arguments given by Roscelese and Obi-Wan. (Not sure if this is where the RfC will ultimately end up, so feel free to move my comment to the relevant location.) ~
  talk) 02:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• anti-judaism - note that we do have the following category: Category:Critics_of_Judaism, which could be workable in some cases. I realize it's not the same as anti-semitism, but it is more neutral, and less of a slur to call someone a critic of a religion, vs anti-a-whole-ethnicity.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's not a good idea. People who are actually critics of Judaism are generally not "anti-Judaism" as such (eg. critics of rabbinical tradition as compared to biblical tradition, of patriarchal practices in some communities), and I don't think most of the category members belong there at all - someone's trying to whitewash as intellectual "criticism" their complete opposition to Jews. Spinoza and da Costa, absolutely. Duke, Phelps, and most of the others, absolutely not. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 3

There has been a basic misunderstanding of these categories. The categories describe articles, not individuals. If an article discusses some aspect of "Antisemitism in the United States", then it should be in the relevant category, which is, after all, only a navigation aid for articles that cover related topics. Unfortunately, editors who have a particular liking for various individuals, whether its Eustace Mullins or David Duke or their favorite other activist/politician/blogger/polemicist, don't use the categories, but also don't like to see the word on that person's webpage. Compound this with the fact that everyone who supports a particular individual's views, no matter how odious and/or antisemitic they are, insists that the person in question is not really "antisemitic", but is, in fact, merely making valid "political commentary", which is, of course, immediately suppressed by the Jewish conspiracy via false labeling of being antisemitic, and well, here we are. So, we get into absurd situations where articles about people like Wilhelm Marr, who popularized the use of the term antisemitism, and who founded the League of Antisemites, can no longer have the category "Antisemitism" on the bottom of their page.[7] What a funny world we live in. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, as soon as you let any bios in, presence in the category (except for people who are fighting anti-semitism of course) starts to mean "anti-semite" - and then when people are removed or added, it becomes a debate as to whether or not they themselves are anti-semites. Check out some of the comments on the Mullins page - all of the editors were up in arms over his removal, because "ZOMG he's like the biggest anti-semite ever to walk to the earth!". So editors don't differentiate as you do Jayjg, and this is the reason all of the categories were deleted for bios, and the new Category:Anti-Jewish writers is trending towards a snowball delete for the same reason. The unfortunate result is, with no bio-categories, people start slotting bios of anti-semites into the generic article-category instead (which we can't get rid of, because it serves a useful purpose, just like Category:Racism or Category:Homophobia). However, as soon as you have one person in - whoever it is, then others start to be added too, and if someone says nyet, the person adding says "But so-and-so is an ANTI-SEMITE too!", and then you get into debates about *how* anti-semitic someone is, and does their article ever reference anti-semitism in the united states, and were they foundational to anti-semitism in the US or just a product of poor upbringing, and did they now have a change of heart and have been forgiven by the jews, and so on and so forth and it's ENDLESS. Even your friend Wilhelm Marr, at the end of his life, regretted what he had done and asked forgiveness. Does this absolve him, or does it change his relationship with anti-semitism? No. But continuing to label him as an anti-semite, which this category indirectly does, violates NPOV. Category systems are a horrible way to describe the set of players that influenced the development of antisemitism, and I really think more time spent in article space would bear much more useful fruits than continuing to argue against long-standing consensus here. FWIW, this has NOTHING to do, at least from my side, on not wanting that particular word on so-and-so's web page. I didn't even know who Mullins was before starting all this, and frankly (no offense intended) I really don't care, as far as I'm concerned the lede can say "Mullins is the biggest anti-semite to walk the earth" and I wont revert, I'm just calling on this group to accept the past consensus or try to change it through the proper forum, which is an RFC. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC) (Note: I invited the editors who debated this category on Marr's bio to this page to comment.) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obiwanekenobi, people are always going to say stupid stuff on article Talk: pages; that doesn't mean we subvert the category system and make it hard for editors to find relevant articles just to avoid that. The category in question is "Antisemitism in the United States". Not "Antisemites in the United States". It's about article topics, not about individuals. If people say "we must include this person because he's an antisemite", the response is "the category is articles that discuss antisemitism, not about who is or isn't an antisemite". If your concern is that people will abuse categories on biographies, then the answer is to get rid of all categories on biographies, because any one of them might be "problematic" in some way. The issue isn't whether Mullins, or Marr, or anyone else is an antisemite; it's not up to Wikipedia to decide that, and frankly, who cares anyway? No, the issue is whether or not we're going to subvert the category system because activists don't like seeing the word "Antisemitism" at the bottom of their hero's biography. And despite what has been claimed, there is no consensus whatsoever to remove proper categories, including "antisemitism", from any articles, whether or not they are biographies. If an article discusses antisemitism, then it should be in an antisemitism category. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Thanks for stating it so clearly.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, with all due respect,

WP:CONSENSUS does not mean "things I happen to agree with". Tim, the admin who closed the CFD in 2011, and Good Ol Factory, another admin, both of them with long experience dealing with categorization issues, have both, on this page, clearly stated where current consensus lies, which is NO BIOS. Feel free to scroll up and read their statements. The header of Category:Antisemitism

was updated back in 2011 to be explicit about the fact that bios were *not* to be added (unfortunately, the country ones weren't, and that was an error, but as Tim stated above, this consensus was intended to apply to the whole tree.)

Per "If your concern is that people will abuse categories on biographies, then the answer is to get rid of all categories on biographies" Yes, you are absolutely right, in a way - the CFD was purposefully proposed to get rid of use of all bias categories to categorize bios. So the community, back in 2011, decided that *all* such categories that are defaming should not be applied to bios, regardless of sources/etc.

Again, you guys obviously feel strongly about this, so please, put together an RFC, and see if consensus has shifted. Otherwise, there's really not much more to say here. What you are suggesting is to overturn the 2011 result, which was global in scope, so this talk page is not the appropriate venue. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strictly speaking, Wilhelm Marr should not be included in category "antisemitism" simply because this is not a category about people (a cat about people would be "antisemites", "ideologists of antisemitism" or something like that). Let's take another example. Albert Einstein was not included in Category:General relativity, even though he is known for developing it. My very best wishes (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be obvious that this category is being operated to smear, humiliate and silence any critic of Israel. Check for a man who has made a career around antisemitism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abe_Foxman - and he's missing! AlbertAndTheLion (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts on the category

Thank you User:Obiwankenobi for inviting me to join the discussion. I have occasionally made edits in this area. However, I think I am going to leave most of the discussion to you. I will express my view, and be gone. My view concerns more than politicians and writers.

I know that there was debate regarding the general category:antisemitism itself. Some editors wanted influential anti-Semitic people removed because they saw the category as more conceptual with those personalities emerging as one reads the entries the links to which were housed at the category site. Others wanted influential anti-Semitic people included because they were anti-Semitic people who had a baleful influence on others. I support the idea of keeping anti-Semitic people in the category list. For example, I would have Henry Ford, about whom I have done some reading, on the list. I would also include Charles Lindbergh and Father (Charles) Coughlin. These are individuals who had a destructive influence that compromised the safety of Jews in the U.S.Iss246 (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am back for one more comment. I also think it is a good idea to include key figures in U.S. history (e.g., Uriah P. Levy) who were victims of anti-Semitism in the U.S. The downside of including both victims of anti-Semitism and anti-Semites is that one cannot tell who is who from links themselves. But I think that is a small disadvantage. Including important figures adds density to the category, and makes it more of a resource for readers who are curious about the subject.Iss246 (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a good idea to create separate categories - one for victims of anti-semitism, and another for activists/writers against anti-semitism. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, within the category.Iss246 (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually such categories already exist: Category:Writers_on_antisemitism, Category:Scholars_of_antisemitism, and Category:Victims_of_antisemitic_violence. These haven't been divided into per-country categories yet, probably because they are aren't many articles in them for the moment. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People should be included in this and similar categories

Having just come across the discussion above, I have to say that the current 'consensus' position on this and similar categories is seriously misguided. It's strange that we're happy to include antisemitic organisations and historical instances of antisemitism in the category, but not antisemitic people. Strange, and wrong. For dead people, there shouldn't even be any argument, as BLP can't possibly apply. For living people, there's slightly more reason for concern; but only up to a point, as adding this category to a biographical article does not necessarily mean 'this person is an antisemite'. It only means 'this person's life is, in some important respect, connected with antisemitism'. In some cases, that is clearly appropriate: for example,

.

I do agree that Category:Antisemitic people as a specific subcategory is best avoided. But categories like this one simply don't raise the same issues. I have added it to biographies of people where antisemitism is relevant to their biographies, and will continue to do so. Robofish (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By doing so, you are acting against current community consensus. If you feel consensus has changed, I suggest you work on a neutrally-worded RFC, and get broad input from the community. Until then, such edits will be reverted. If someone is *convicted* of an anti-semitic crime, then a category could be created for such people, as there are categories for other crimes. But merely being accused of being anti-semitic should not land one in this category (that seems to be current consensus).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]