Talk:Animal stereotypes of Jews in Palestinian discourse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rats and mice revert[edit]

@Zero0000 You deleted the sentence "Rats and mice are also an antisemitic trope that was used by the Nazis." claiming it is "SYNTH which is also a severe NPOV violation". I'm note sure why. When I thought which sentences in the article are likely to raise serious objections, this sentence wasn't on the list. There is no doubt that this sentence is true and not SYNTH or POV. The Guardian source I brought says it quite explicitly: "Rats remained a useful symbol for those who wished to portray their targets as inhuman for most of the 20th century. Most familiar and alien of all, perhaps, is the range of animalistic imagery that came to stand for Jews in the build-up to the second world war. In Der Stürmer, Nazi Germany’s most influential propaganda sheet, a cover image depicted a Nazi gassing Jewish rats that huddle around the base of a mighty tree. “When the vermin are dead,” the caption reads, “the German oak will flourish once more.” Vegan416 (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is textbook SYNTH because the source does not mention Arabs or Palestinians except for an example where the rats were Arabs. Jews are only mentioned in the Nazi context. So there is no actual connection to the article topic. If you think it wasn't SYNTH that means you need to refresh your memory on what SYNTH is. This sort of SYNTH might lead people to think you are pushing the Palestinians=Nazis canard, especially when you also (incorrectly) link to the Nazi-associated word Untermensch. But I'm sure that wasn't your intention. Zerotalk 14:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. First of all, regarding the word "sub-human" and the link there, which you replaced with "non-human". Actually as vegan I should have changed it myself as we vegans don't think the animals are sub-human :-) But the reason that this word and link existed here at all was because I copied it from the preface to the article Animal stereotypes of Palestinians in Israeli discourse (as I said in the creation comment of my article). I believe it was probably put there by our friend @Nishidani. Anyway, if you think that this word is incorrectly linked to the Nazi-associated word Untermensch, then I suggest that in the name of intellectual honesty you should delete the link and replace it with "non-human" in Nishidani's article too.
  2. As regards the SYNTH accusation, it would have been correct if the sentence you deleted said anything about Arabs and Palestinians. But it isn't. It only speaks about the Nazis. And it serves as historical background only. I can make its being background only more explicit if you want, for example by adding "Historically speaking" in the beginning or something like that.
Vegan416 (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know Untermensch was linked from the other article and I removed it. You should strike the comment about Nishidani, since it was added by an anon. Regarding the other sentence, the fact that you consider it "background" shows that your intention was SYNTH, not just the effect. An implication that an Arab portrayal of Jews is in any way related to the Nazi portrayal of Jews, presented without a reliable source making that connection, is exactly the sort of thing that SYNTH is meant to prevent. Zerotalk 01:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the deletion and correction about Nishidani. Did you find the responsible editor by manual binary search or is there a tool for that? Anyway regarding the SYNTH accusation:
  1. I didn't make any causal claim that the Arabs copied this trope from the Nazis. But there is an obvious relation between the portrayals in the sense that both Nazis and some Arabs use the same trope of rats against Jews. This is kind of self-evident, and my sentence didn't claim anything beyond that.
  2. However since you raised the subject, I can make the explicit claim that the Arab portrayal of Jews was in fact affected to some degree by the Nazi portrayal of Jews. In fact there are several scholarly sources who make this claim and they already appear in the article in a different section (see refs 6-9). Ref 8 actually contains also explicit mention of rats in this context (see [1] 1). And I can add here yet more sources regarding rats in this context (2 3), though I still have to find who is signed on the last one and it might need to be attributed.
Vegan416 (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You missed one[edit]

When you copy pasted the other article to make this embarrassingly POINT-y piece of work, literally doing a find replace for "Israeli" to "Palestinians", you forgot to fix one of them. Unless this article is introducing us to a new concept with the Palestinians-Palestinian conflict? Not sure blatantly copying the text of another article is a great idea to begin with. Parabolist (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relatedly, "Despite that nowadays many Muslims use both "pigs" and "apes" to insult and describe traits of all Jews" might be one of the most stunningly offensive things I've seen said in Wikivoice (and poorly written. "nowadays"? Jesus). The citation afterwards doesn't even support this. Disgraceful article. Parabolist (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are talking about. Only the first 2 sentences were copied form the analogous article and even they were significantly rephrased by me. And as for the second point it is supported by the citation, and by the many examples that follow. And I could bring 10 times more examples from all over the Muslim world. It's just that this article concentrates on the Palestinian discourse. Vegan416 (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the relevant line from the cited source: "descendants of apes and pigs - one of the most common insults directed at Jews and Christians (as a quick search online will attest)". I can bring here more scholarly citations to support this if you still think it's necessary. Vegan416 (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical and cultural background[edit]

@Nishidani, regarding your last edits, I agree that this article should concentrate mainly on Palestinian examples, and you will note that indeed almost all of my examples come from Palestinian sources, despite the fact that it easy to find many other examples like this in general Arab and Muslim sources.

But some historical and cultural background is required nonetheless. And contrary to what you implied, your own parallel article does contain at least one background example that doesn't come from an Israeli, Zionist, or even a Jew: "At times, Orientalist writers on Palestine drew an analogy in which they likened the inhabitants of the country to animals. For example, Ermete Pierotti wrote that the idea that the domestic animals in Palestine are more intelligent than the people is not far from the truth."

In particular I think that it should be clarified that the expression "sons/brothers of ape and pigs" is not a Palestinian invention but stems from a long Muslim tradition. Also I think it should be noted that in Arab culture the term "dog" is much more derogatory than in Western culture, due to the different attitude to dogs in those cultures (as a generalization). But I am willing to hear your suggestions on how to phrase these background points. Vegan416 (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

(
)
  • Source: Nazzal, Nafez & Leila (1996). "The Politicization of Palestinian Children: an Analysis of Nursery Rhymes". Palestine-Israel Journal. 3 (1).
El-Masri, Yafa (2019). "I Will Never Sell My Father's Shop" (PDF). Jousour (2). Lebanese Palestinian Dialogue Committee: 16.
Langton, James (2007-05-12). "Life as an infidel". The Observer. ISSN 0029-7712. Retrieved 2024-04-24.</ref>
Created by Vegan416 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Vegan416 (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • This proposal is simply outrageous and Wikipedia should not stoop so low as to advertise this sort of thing. Regarding the requirement of "well-sourced and neutral", the article is under serious dispute over its neutrality. Zerotalk 13:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Not a serious dispute, and it will be resolved long before the reviewers will get to this DYK suggestion weeks from now.
2. Wikipedia "stooped so low" as to publish this in DYK on March 28:"... that Aaron Bushnell said that his action of setting himself on fire was less extreme than "what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers". What's the difference? Vegan416 (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. On the contrary, the dispute is deep and serious, making the article unstable. It definitely will not be allowed to remain in its present state. 2. While I would not have submitted the Bushnell proposal, the fact that Vegan can't see the difference between a political statement and hatred of an ethnic group is telling. Zerotalk 08:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. The dispute is only about how to present the background. There is no dispute about the truth of the core facts presented in the article. And unless people would try to destabilize the article nefariously to disrupt the DYK process, it would naturally stabilize long before it reaches the DYK reviewers a few weeks from now. And Zero still hasn't explained what is "outrageous" here. This is a true fact. Why should it be censored? Vegan416 (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is this relevant to this DYK suggestion? Vegan416 (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These hooks are on the wrong side of WP:DYKGRAT's prohibition against "excessively sensational or gratuitous hooks"; I would suggest proposing a new hook Vegan416. That simply may not be possible, which is fine. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why do you think so.Vegan416 (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even by the standards of the Israeli-Palestine topic area, this topic is controversial and sensational. I am using my editorial discretion, as someone who has promoted over a thousand hooks, to say that these two cross the line. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are these hooks more controversial and sensational than this hook that was published on DYK on March 28:"... that Aaron Bushnell said that his action of setting himself on fire was less extreme than "what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers"? Vegan416 (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how are these hooks more controversial and sensational than this hook that was published on DYK on November 21, 2023: ".. that the novel Minor Detail is based on a true story of a 1949 gang rape and murder of a young Arab Bedouin-Palestinian girl by Israeli soldiers?"
Or that from January 24 this year: ".. that Nakba denial is a form of historical negationism pertaining to the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight?" Vegan416 (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would say they're more sensational than any of those. See editorial discretion line above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen a reasoned explanation why this is not OK except for "editorial discretion" which might be just a fancy name for Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Anyway, putting that aside, I'll come up with new hooks later.Vegan416 (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


AfD?[edit]

When I read this a few days ago, I was tempted to suggest it be submitted to AfD because of the WP:SYNTH problems, and the inevitable incompetence of taking the earlier page on Israeli animal stereotypes of Palestinians as a template and, by mirroring it, try to fudge a serious article inverting it wholesale. I refrained for one simple reason, rather nasty. It is so bad it makes the other article look good, and, being linked to it, would draw more eyes to the original it has cannibalized, a sort of advertisment for the sister article. But, now with the leisure to examine it more closely, it is too much of a mess to fix. Take this:-

Some amount of antisemitism (prejudice against and hatred of Jews), including dehumanization of Jews, existed in the Muslim and Arab since the middle ages. There are different opinions about what was the magnitude of this antisemitism, but it is agreed that it was usually less severe than in the Christian world.

The first reference is to Bernard Lewis, notable for his view that, as one reviewer put it,

There was almost no religiously-based anti-Semitism of the type prevalent in medieval Christian Europe. Modern anti-Semitism was introduced to the Middle East by European missionaries and diplomats.

Everyone knows that BL considered antisemitism, as opposed to mere contemptuous sense of superiority over subordinate Abrahamic peoples who had not accepted Islam, essentially a retrojection into the different world of the past of a modern notion more at home in the West, which in turn influenced modern Arab nationalism. This, and other patches, crash disparate sources in a mishmash of interlinked themes without having one master text which joins these disiecta membra into one narrative in the context of animal stereotypes. The other text restricts its focus to sources which directly address the question of Israeli stereotypes and Palestinians as animals. In the difference lies the overriding WP:SYNTH problem here.

Whereas the original page attempts to hew closely to the topic, this page veers off to rope in a large set of resonances of 'antisemitism' and 'Nazism' ostensibly seeded into the Palestinians hatred of their occupiers. Many Jews swore, cursed, and expressed hatred against their Christian oppressors, but that is not to be treated as a mirror of Christian antipathy to Jews.In rabbinical thought, the very nature of man is often defined as twofold, Jews have two souls (neshamot), non-Jews - poor devils - only one, implying an essential distinction in their natures, the latter on a lower level in the animal order. I wouldn't ring this kind of thing into the background of the Israeli stereotype article, though it is a commonplace in West Bank yeshiva teachings inspired by the Kabbalah, and functionally serves to reinforce in students into believing that, as so many Israeli politicians assert, Palestinians are 'animals', meant literally.

There is a strained attempt at parity here that doesn't work encyclopedically. Comments? Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This clearly meets notability guidelines and is well sourced. I noticed you editing this article from this edit [2] where you give a false edit summary "A generalization re Islam with no Palestinian content" when the content clearly has a reference to Palestinians. Your IDONTLIKEIT editing needs to stop.  // Timothy :: talk  11:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are writing without apparently taking much notice of what is going on. In the parent article, I made an effort to show that abusive epithets were common between Jews, Christians and Muslims before going into the Israeli specifics. Vegan just isolates the Muslims, and their use of dog imagery (which is almost universal as a term of contemptous dismissal of others, i.e. Isaiah 56:9-12). You have not addressed any of the points I made. Nishidani (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Here is the quote from Bernard Lewis that is referenced in the first reference in this article (ref 1):
Jews of Islam p. 33:
"On the whole, in contrast to Christian anti-Semitism, the Muslim attitude toward non-Muslims is one not of hate or fear or envy but simply of contempt. This is expressed in various ways. There is no lack of polemic literature attacking the Christians and occasionally also the Jews. The negative attributes ascribed to the subject religions and their followers are usually expressed in religious and social terms, very rarely in ethnic or racial terms, though this does sometimes occur. The language of abuse is often quite strong. The conventional epithets are apes for Jews and pigs for Christians.35 Different formulae of greeting are used when addressing Jews and Christians than when addressing Muslims, whether in conversation or in correspondence. Christians and Jews were forbidden to give their children distinctively Muslim names and, by Ottoman times, even those names that were shared by the three religions, such as Joseph or David, were differently spelled for the three.36 Non-Muslims learned to live with a number of differences of this sort; like the sartorial laws, they were part of the symbolism of inferiority."
What's your problem with this reference? How does it contradict what I wrote in the sentence preceded by this reference: "There are different opinions about what was the magnitude of this antisemitism, but it is agreed that it was usually less severe than in the Christian world."? Vegan416 (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I suppose if add this link to the ref now it's not considered a new revert? Vegan416 (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand exactly what is going on in this discussion. Because this is a CTopic, if it continues a ANI may be needed.  // Timothy :: talk  12:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If what continues? Selfstudier (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani, The only correction in the article that may have some sense after rereading the quote from Lewis is to change the first sentence to "Some amount of antisemitism (prejudice against and contempt for Jews), including dehumanization of Jews, existed in the Muslim and Arab world since the middle ages. There are different opinions about what was the magnitude of this antisemitism, but it is agreed that it was usually less severe than in the Christian world". Doesn't see material for me, but does that satisfy you? Vegan416 (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nishidani, 1. It is clear that deleting this page without deleting the page Animal stereotypes of Palestinians in Israeli discourse would be an extreme violation of the WP:NPOV policy. 2. If you have specific issues with mentioning antisemitism in this article, you are welcome to suggest other ways of writing the background to this article and its sections and subsections. Suggesting to delete the entire article because of that might lead to the impression you are not acting in good faith. 3. Regarding your specific criticism, your language is a bit opaque, but in any case the article has many references to reliable sources that suggest that Palestinian attitudes towards Israelis are somewhat intermixed with antisemitism.

Vegan416 (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't waffle. Reply to what I specifically identified as incompetence and distortion.Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See full quote from Lewis above Vegan416 (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Garbage article. Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Very well reasoned criticism. Can you explain why? Vegan416 (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LOLling does not explain what you were asked to explain. I.e. why you sourced to Bernard Lewis, for one, a view many of his works specifically argue against, etc.etc.etc. You are shifting the goalposts to sidestep the criticisms Nishidani (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See full quote from Lewis above Vegan416 (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already examined it and there is no way that quote can be used as a source for the following:-

Some amount of antisemitism (prejudice against and hatred of Jews), including dehumanization of Jews, existed in the Muslim and Arab since the middle ages. There are different opinions about what was the magnitude of this antisemitism, but it is agreed that it was usually less severe than in the Christian world.[1=Lewis][2][3][4]

Lewis wrote:-

"On the whole, in contrast to Christian anti-Semitism, the Muslim attitude toward non-Muslims is one not of hate or fear or envy but simply of contempt. This is expressed in various ways. There is no lack of polemic literature attacking the Christians and occasionally also the Jews. The negative attributes ascribed to the subject religions and their followers are usually expressed in religious and social terms, very rarely in ethnic or racial terms, though this does sometimes occur. "

The proper way to paraphrase this would have been.

In contrast to Christian antisemitism's view of Jews, contempt, rather than hate, fear and envy, characterised Muslim attitudes to non-Muslims, and this contempt was both religious and social rather than ethnic or racial, though on very rare occasions that also is attested.

How you get from that a 'paraphrase' - Some amount of antisemitism (prejudice against and hatred of Jews), including dehumanization of Jews, existed in the Muslim and Arab since the middle ages - which suggests the exact contrary of the point Lewis made, is anyone's guess. It is a total distortion.
As is the marked distortion of citing Shelomo Dov Goitein's equally authoritative A Mediterranean Society p.293 to buttress the same mockery of Lewis's statement. He wrote:

It has often been said that it is incorrect to speak about "Anti-Semitism" in the Islamic world, since the Arabs, who profess Islam, were Semites themselves . . .Though the terms is perhaps inappropriate to a medieval Islamic setting,, it is used here to differentiate animosity against Jews from the discriminations practiced by Islam against non-Muslims in general. The Geniza material confirms the existence of a discernible form of anti-Judaism in the time and the place considered here, but that form of "anti-Semitism," if we may use that term, appears to have been local and sporadic, rather than general and endemic.'pp.292-293

These two examples show that your editing cannot be relied upon to report faithfully the sources you stack up. Lewis disowns the term 'antisemitism' as appropriate to early Muslim tradition, contrasting the difference between discrimination in Islam and anti-Semitism in Christianity. Goitein acknowledges Lewis's influential view, allows that antisemitism may be inappropriate to medieval Islamic attitudes. and specifies that in his usage, it refers to 'animosity' (somewhat like Lewis's 'contempt') . Lewis says Muslim statements of contempt 'very rarely' express ethnic or racial stereotypes only 'very rarely'; Goistein states that 'animosity' (as opposed to discrimination) was only 'local and sporadic'. The essence of anti-Semitism is racial hate, nota bene.
You spin this, wittingly or not, by trampling on their careful distinctions between Christian antisemitism and Muslim contempt/animosity, attributing to both scholars the idea that medieval Islam has 'some amount of antisemitism . .including dehumanization of Jews.' You say also it consisted of hate a word Lewis specifically challenges. Worse still, if you had troubled to read both, rather than apparently google snippets, you would have noted (as I do on the parallel page) that in citing Muslim attitudes to non-Muslims, that both Jews and Christians were the objects of such prejudice. Repressing that detail only consolidates the standard politicized/ethnicized reading of Jews as somehow unique in their suffering under common prejudice (On the other page, this common ethnocentric victimization meme is carefully avoided). Bref. Your editing and use of sources is not to be trusted here, and Timothy's complaint I removed RS unreasonably just means he didn't check the sources and closely compare them to how you distorted them.Nishidani (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again the above nonsense boils down to IDONTLIKEIT, not actual problems.  // Timothy :: talk  13:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That response is the nonsense. Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani Much ado about nothing. You are splitting hairs and making a lot of distinctions without a real difference (for the purpose of this article). But in truth It's not worth my time to argue about this. I don't mind removing this entire sentence about Medieval Islam, which seems to offend your sensibilities, because it is not really that important for the article. I included it for completeness, but we can do without it. I have no objection to having the first paragraph of the "Background" section like this (this is modelled after the beginning of the article Antisemitism in the Arab world):
"Antisemitism (prejudice against and hatred of Jews) has increased greatly in the Arab world (including in Palestine) since the beginning of the 20th century, for several reasons: the dissolution and breakdown of the Ottoman Empire and traditional Islamic society; European influence, brought about by Western imperialism and Arab Christians; Nazi propaganda and relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world; resentment over Jewish nationalism; the rise of Arab nationalism; the widespread proliferation of anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist conspiracy theories, especially those coming from the communist bloc during the cold war; and the rise of radical Islamism and Jihadism."
This is more closely related to the Palestinian portrayal of Jews etc... Will this satisfy you or do you have more objections? Vegan416 (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That 'answer' is probably why this article should be deleted since, given concrete evidence of the way you distort sources to make what they state unrecognizable in your creative POV rewriting and your refusal to take that carefully parsed explanation seriously ('much ado about nothing') means that no one can trust anything in the article as it stands, except perhaps for what your plagiarized from the sister article, where everything was double checked and all comments were exhaustively addressed. Incompetent editing has no place here.Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani You are so wrong both on the content level and on the procedural level.
On the content level:
  1. I have not distorted any sources. The word antisemitism was invented in Europe in the 19th century, so it can be argued that any use of it to describe discrimination and negative feeling against Jews before that and in different cultures, is anachronistic. Despite that it is quite common to do so (e.g. see Antisemitism and History of Antisemitism). Now in page 33 here that is referenced from Lewis (and the page before that) he says that the Muslims in the Middle ages had "unambiguously negative attitudes" towards Jews; that they felt "contempt" towards Jews; that they practically discriminated against Jews in various ways - the Jews had to dress differently, have different types of names and address modes, that were all meant as "symbolisms of inferiority"; and that they used against Jews "quite strong" "language of abuse". And most importantly for the purpose of this article: "The conventional epithets are apes for Jews". This is an expression of zoomorphical dehumanization. All of this would definitely be considered antisemitic in our (anachronistic) way of speaking.
  2. It's true that Lewis says that this is different than the antisemitism of the Christian world in the sense that it doesn't have the "deep-rooted emotional hostility" of Christian antisemitism. But this is precisely what I said in my words that it was "less severe than in the Christian world". I think this is a reasonable summary of Lewis' (and the other sources there) considering that I wanted to put it all in once sentence, because this is quite not the main issue of the article, just a short background.
  3. It's also true that the Muslims behaved the same way (more or less) towards Christians. This only means that they were anti-Christians as well as anti-Jewish. As the fact that the KKK are antisemites doesn't stop them from being racist also towards black people. Moreover the fact that the KKK are antisemites doesn't mean that in an article which specifically speaks about KKK's hatred of black people we must mention that they also hate Jews. Likewise here, in this article that speaks about anti-Jewish stereotypes, it is not obvious that we must mention anti-Christian stereotypes as well. Though in fact, in a part of the article which you deleted a few days ago I actually did mention that Muslims in the past called the Christians "pigs". But you didn't like that either...
On the procedural level:
4. have shown till now that the fact that you didn't like my summary of Lewis etc. doesn't mean that I was mistaken or that I am an incompetent editor. These are different valid interpretations of the source. But even if we assumed that my interpretation was definitely a mistake (which it isn't), one mistake doesn't invalidate a whole article. This would be completely against Wikipedia policy. See inWikipedia:Deletion policy: "improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page". Also, presumed "incompetence" of an editor, even if it can be proven (which you completely failed to do in my case) is not mentioned there among the possible reasons to delete a page.
You simply don't delete the page because of one (or two or even three mistakes). If a few mistakes are found they should be corrected. And no more than that. Only if a page contains so many mistakes that show that the entire topic is unsupported by reliable sources can it be deleted. This is clearly not the case here, since the main content of the article is very well supported by many reliable sources. For example, unlike your parallel article, I never rely on sources that are considered unreliable in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Vegan416 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All those reasons and not a single mention of the overwhelmingly most important reason for Palestinian animosity, that was quite impressive. Zerotalk 15:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it appears right there "resentment over Jewish nationalism". Vegan416 (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read 'resentment' at having a land, populated by 95% Muslim-Christian Arabs, expropriated by European Zionists. The 'Jewish right to self-determination' actually always meant 'the indigenous people of Palestine have no right to self-determination' and 'resentment' a complex word in modern theories from Nietzsche onward, has nothing to do with it, unless a householder surreptitiously robbed of his home 'resents' the thief, rather than feeling outrage.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, I have a lengthy reply to your other comment about Lewis etc. But I am on a cellphone now. But as for this point I can answer shortly. We cannot write this in the anti-Zionist way you did just now. That would be gross violation of NPOV. Can you suggest a more neutral version? Vegan416 (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000 Anyway as I said above you are welcome to suggest constructive corrections, and I'll probably accept them if they make sense and not materially harm the article. Vegan416 (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been professionally a reader trained to parse texts in various languages closely. I have shown that you lack even an elementary understanding of how this is done, and you just keep sidestepping the evidence in what strikes me as waffle. Go ahead and keep ignoring what I demonstrated. It means that your text is flawed, vitiated, by a studious refusal to face the evidence, and what we have is therefore a distortion of sources. No matter how many times you keep argufying, you are wrong in manufacturing text which does not exist in those sources. One cannot coedit and fix a text with someone who doesn't grasp these principles.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, I answered your points to a T. Did you read the lengthy response I just wrote above? Let me quote your words from elsewhere back at you: "You appear to have a bee in the bonnet about this article. I suggest you avoid wasting your time on trivial objections like this, which suggest inexperience or simply antipathy to the topic".
In any case the sentence to which you objected so much was already removed by me. As I already said it's not that important to the article and I don't want to waste more time on it. So you will have now to find another excuse to try and delete this page. I wanted to write something more poignant here now, but I'll leave it at that. Vegan416 (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I.e. you now remove precisely the distorted text I challenged and removed, an implicit acknowledgement that you accept my arguments, while disputing above that you completely misread those sources. I am not trying to delete the page. I raised the question as to whether this rather weak screed was acceptable for wikipedia, asking for input. As far as I am concerned, it can stay up, since it is so embarrassingly poor, even in its ungrammatical bits, compared to the article it aspires to mirror that readers will draw their own conclusions from the comparison.Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I don't accept your arguments explicitly or implicitly. It is just that when you argue with a professional nitpicker it is sometimes better to give up on unimportant issues than to engage in endless and pointless discussions that waste everyone's time.
In any case I'm still waiting for your suggestion about what to replace "resentment over Jewish nationalism" with. I'm sure that even you understand that we can't write in Wikipedia something like "outrage because the Jews surreptitiously robbed the Arabs home".... Vegan416 (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
='The friction between Zionist aspirations for a Jewish state and Palestinian opposition to the settlement of their territory by foreigners' Ian Black, Enemies and neighbours:Arabs and Jews in Palestine and Israel, 1\917-2017, Penguin Books 2017 ISBN 978-0-141-97914-4 p.xxi (2) 'The inherent conflict arising from the creation of a Jewish homeland in a land where 9/10ths of the population were Arabs' ibid. p.44 Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are too late as Zero had already deleted the entire passage, and I'm not going to fight him over this issue... Vegan416 (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That passage is irretrievable and needs a TNT. It is simply appalling that you think "resentment over Jewish nationalism" covers land theft, active suppression of self-determination, ethnic cleansing, blocked roads, endless humiliation, midnight raids, imprisonment without trial, raids by pseudo-civilians, yadda yadda. Never mind lots of dead bodies. But no, according to you it is resentment of an ideology combined with adoption of Nazi propaganda. If you can't do better than this type of twaddle you should let other people do the editing. Zerotalk 05:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually some of the examples in this article start at 1919 and in the British mandate period and predate all of these things you mention, which proves that there is more in this than you try to claim. However as I said to Nishidani I don't want to waste time on unimportant (from the point of view of the topic of the article) discussions, so I won't fight you on this. Vegan416 (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs in Muslim and Arab culture[edit]

@Zero0000 I see that you have some issues with the claim that "dogs have lower status in Arab, Muslims and Semite culture in general, compared to Western culture", claiming that the book I referenced is not talking specifically about the Palestinians. Well, in case you missed it, Palestinians are part of the Arab world, and most of them are Muslims. Also, the second source I brought is an article that speaks specifically about Palestinian society. The reason for this note is that without it a Western reader may perhaps not grasp the full meaning of a comparison to dogs in an Arab context. (BTW, this applies also to using the word dogs against Arabs). Vegan416 (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also added this source: "To dub an Arab a dog [..] is a major humiliation. The same words however convey neutral or even positive connotative associations in English". Vegan416 (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tired of trying to teach you about Wikipedia policy. "Translation and Religion" also does not connect the subject of dogs to relationships between Jews and Palestinians. You aren't allowed to add your own commentary to articles even if you do it by way of sources that do not relate the commentary to the article topic. This is you constructing a narrative out of bits and pieces, the very essence of SYNTH. You even admit above ("without it...context") that that is your intention. So that source will be deleted also. Zerotalk 11:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So how about this phrasing of the comment? This source is specifically talking about dogs as insult to Jewes in the context of Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
"References to animals is common in Arabic-Islamic culture, but it is pertinent to point out that there is a stratification in the animal kingdom. The dog is the lowest". Nazzal, Nafez & Leila (1996). "The Politicization of Palestinian Children: an Analysis of Nursery Rhymes". Palestine-Israel Journal. 3 (1). Vegan416 (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of many sections and subsections headers[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29 You have removed many sections and subsections headers without any justification. I want to draw your attention that this article is modelled after the parallel article Animal stereotypes of Palestinians in Israeli discourse in which the same layout is used. Please justify why these two article should be treated differently on this point or self-revert. Vegan416 (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan416, there is no reason to model this article after another not well-written article when there is a Manual of Style to follow. As I cited in my edit summary, MOS:OVERSECTION and WP:PARAGRAPH recommend against including "very short sections and subsections" which "clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose". Articles should be held to this general standard, not to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-type arguments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So I will correct the other article according to these standards. Vegan416 (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline cited also reads:'Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheadings.' That 'generally' of course means this is not a hard and sharp rule, but, as always in such cases, subject to the consensus of onpage editors. Here the listing of species by subsections does not break up prose, since by its nature a list doesn't lend itself to extensive prose. I think the revert here risks making a mess, just as it would on the other page where sections allow a quick functional access to the topics in the general classification.Nishidani (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A possible compromise would be to leave only subsections of the first level, and make sure that each subsection contains at least an agreed X number of lines, even if it requires uniting some close species into one subsection. Vegan416 (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A needless complication. We are just signaling the thematics by this device, which for readers, is indispensable unless one thinks undifferentiated walls of text, which make a mishmash and obstruct easy reading, are better.Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, these are supposed to be lists Nishidani? In that case, detailed sectioning is probably fine. Thanks for your input—I will change the assessment classification to avoid further confusion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 I didn't go out to write either a narrative article or a list article. I mustered the data available on this topic some 10 years ago, and wrote it up more or less on request recently. As a content specialist, or full article drafter, I have only trwo concerns: that the coverage be complete, and that the readers' access to a sometimes complex series of events or mass of material is facilitated. I'm often told that modern readers tire or get bored after a paragraph. So more or less the exigencies of clear exposition for the reader suggests the structure to be adopted. I am not a policy wizard - total ignorance there. I just work pragmatically, without preconceptions or some abstract model. Nishidani (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, these are not mere lists. Though I'm not entirely sure what is the actual practical meaning of this distinction. I would prefer to abide by MOS:OVERSECTION and WP:PARAGRAPH. I'll simply divide the text into larger subsections. What in your opinion is the minimum number of lines that justifies a subsection?
Nishidani can do whatever he wants in "his" article. I don't really mind. Vegan416 (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, high-quality articles, such as the ones I take to WP:FAC, should not have subsections containing fewer than three paragraphs (only three sentences or more count, for me, as a paragraph). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only featured article I cowrote, with those severe criteria in mind, was the Shakespeare Authorship Question. I generally strive to write something from top to bottom with some approximation to GA criteria, but I never think of FAC or GA as a goal, or even 'Did You Know' etc. I lose interest after the article is more or less completed. Secondly, an article with this kind of topic remains in constant development, and composition will remain fluid for some years. Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improper synthesis?[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29 Not sure what you mean by that. The sources say explicitly what I said in the article: "One of the participants in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel was recorded saying about the victims of the attack "Jewish dogs".

Here is what WaPo says: "Kinneret Stern’s cousin sold jewelry at the Nova rave, and was among the people kidnapped. As the family searched for her, they were shown a video of the woman, posted apparently by her captors, in a ditch and begging for her life. “This is one of the Jewish dogs,” a man says. “Any man here will see what we will do to her, and we are here in the field.”

And here is what Reuters say: "The shortened clip in the posts does not include a person saying “Jewish dogs." However, in a different version of the video online, a man can be heard using these words in Arabic".

Please explain or remove the tag. Vegan416 (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vegan416, you misunderstand. The use of the word "dog" to refer to people you strongly dislike is very common in language (see dictionary definitions such as [C] here), and should not be taken as directly zoomorphic. "Dogs" here is less a term of comparison, as the rest of the article discusses, and more a natural English synonym of "bastards" (which similarly should not be taken to purely mean illegitimate) or "scumbag" or other such words. I would suggest removing that paragraph. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except this was said in Arabic and not in English. And as one of the sources here (ref 4) explains, in Arab culture (unlike the English one) the dog is in much lower status than most animals and the meaning of this insult in Arabic is much more severe than in English. See the sources in the discussion in section Talk:Animal stereotypes of Jews in Palestinian discourse#Dogs in Muslim and Arab culture here. To which I can also add now these sources: Text and its footnote. And this one and this one.
Plus in the specific it was attached to the word "Jewish", which shows there is something more to it than just arbitrary strong dislike. Vegan416 (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More in general I suppose that some better explanation of what "zoomorphism" means in this context is required in the article. This is one of things that need to be added to the lead section or the background section. But this will have to wait for next week, as I don't have time now. Vegan416 (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antizionism ≠ antisemitism[edit]

Many of the examples used in this article refer to either Zionists or Israel as a whole, not Jews. Some sources explicitly mention "Zionist Jews", which is an important distinction, while others don't mention Jews at all. Antizionism is not synonymous with antisemitism, and labeling any criticism of Zionism and/or Israel (especially coming from their victims), no matter how harsh, as antisemitic would be disingenuous at the very least. It seems that you, and by extension this article, are unable to differentiate between legitimate political critique or resistance to colonization and genuine hate speech. For example, how is Hamas calling Israel a cancer antisemitic or dehumanizing toward Jews? This line of thought appears to echo the weaponization of antisemitism. - Ïvana (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a straw man. The article doesn't claim anywhere that Antizionism = antisemitism. And as for your specific question - again, show me the sentence where the article claims that Hamas calling Israel cancer is antisemitic or dehumanizing to Jews. Though in truth since Israel is the Jewish state that fulfills the Jewish nation's right of self-determination, and home to half of the Jews in the world today, and supported by most of the Jews in the world, then describing it as cancer can be considered dehumanizing Jews.
Also, please note also that this article is modelled after the parallel article Animal stereotypes of Palestinians in Israeli discourse, and you could make the same fake arguments against that article as well. For example the first example how is 'A recurrent metaphor, going back to a statement by former Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 1996 which pictured Israel, a "vanguard of culture against barbarism" as a flourishing "villa in the jungle"' dehumanizing to Palestinians? It doesn't even mention them. Vegan416 (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ïvana, I have now double checked the article, and, as I thought, the word "antisemitism" appears there only 4 times, and all of them only in reference to the European origins of some of these metaphors. And the word "dehumanization" appears only 3 times in the lead and background section, without reference to any specific example. So your accusations are wrong.
You are also wrong when you imply that I think that antizionism = antisemitism. My real opinion on this matter are expressed in this ven diagram I prepared a month ago.
Anyway to avoid further nitpicking I might add some qualifiers later today. Vegan416 (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it has anything much to do with this article, but that Venn diagram is unsourced rubbish. Selfstudier (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I presented it as my opinion and my creation it does not have to be sourced. Though of course I could bring lots of reliable sources that agree with me on that. But since we agree that this is NOFORUM I'll skip that. Vegan416 (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care how many times the words dehumanization or antisemitism appear, that is beside the point. You don't need to explicitly say "this is dehumanizing" because the purpose of the article is to display examples where dehumanization of Jews has taken place. So your argument of "but I didn't say that Hamas calling Israel a cancer is dehumanizing" clearly falls flat, since that example is included in the article. My point is that you're conflating criticism to Zionism/Israel with dehumanization of Jews. That effectively assumes that antizionism = antisemitism. Honestly, anything post occupation should be interpreted as a criticism towards invaders. But if you wanna nitpick, if the sources explicitly say Jews, then you could argue that it refers to all Jews in the world, completely disconnected to the ongoing occupation by an entity that claims to represent all Jews in the world, asserts that non-Zionist Jews are not truly Jewish, and plasters the Star of David on the ruins of destroyed Palestinian buildings. Your real opinion on this matter (which is irrelevant btw) was made clear when you created this article to establish a false equivalence. A Palestinian (or anyone) insulting Zionists or Israel is not insulting Jews as a group. Those examples do not belong in this article. - Ïvana (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinion on this doesn't matter either. I am going to write soon a paragraph in the lead section that will deal with your objections based on plenty of reliable sources. Vegan416 (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ïvana In the middle of writing the paragraph I intended, it occurred to me that instead of becoming confrontational on this issue, and start a long argument here, a simpler solution to your objections would be to change the name of the article to "Animal stereotypes of Jews and Israelis in Palestinian discourse". I wouldn't object to such a change at all. The sources I collected now would be useful to me anyway even if we change the name and avoid the argument. What do you think? Vegan416 (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since changing an article name is bureaucratic process that takes time, for the time being until it is agreed, I added some qualifiers in the lead section as promised at the beginning of the thread. See my latest edit. Vegan416 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We now have two whole articles devoted to the thesis that Palestinians (Arabs, perhaps) and Israelis (Jews, perhaps) call each other names. Fascinating. Selfstudier (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know that wikipedia has many articles about topics which interest far fewer people than these ones... Vegan416 (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Horses for courses, I guess. Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier If you mean specific race-horses than maybe. I was thinking more of something like this Barbados–Suriname relations. Vegan416 (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vegan416: I don't see the point in including criticism toward Zionists (and this includes Israelis). Dehumanizing language and imagery are common in many conflicts and are often used by oppressed groups against their oppressors. There have been instances where Jewish people dehumanized Nazis during and after World War II, where black South Africans dehumanized white South Africans during apartheid, where Koreans dehumanized Japanese people during the Japanese occupation, where Indians dehumanized British people during the British colonial rule in India, and so on. Singling this out might be interpreted as suggesting that these expressions are unique to this conflict, instead of a common feature of many conflicts involving human rights abuses and power imbalances. Also, your revised sentences imply that the issue primarily lies with Jews rather than with Israeli policies. By singling out Israeli-Jews the focus remains on the Jewish identity rather than on the policies and actions of the Israeli state. - Ïvana (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. See Nishidani's comment in the new section below as an explanation why I used Israeli-Jews.
  2. By the logic of your argument here, there wouldn't be any justification at all to the existence of the article Animal stereotypes of Palestinians in Israeli discourse since as you say this is a common phenomenon in many conflicts. I don't think Nishidani will like that...
Vegan416 (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you haven't read the other article recently. It has, prominently, the following paragraph based precisely on a source you yourself mentioned but never quite managed to paraphrase fully. I.e.

Blatant dehumanization in the asymmetric Israeli-Palestinian conflict is mutual, with both sides likening the other's brutality to animal behaviour. Israel is one of the highest income countries in the world, and an advanced military power.The Palestinian territories have no standing army and a GDP of only 3% of Israel's[24] One recent study conducted during the 2014 Gaza War found that such dehumanization is not exclusive to the Israelis, the dominant group with superior power, but that the disadvantaged Palestinian group, which bears a disproportionate burden of casualties, also dehumanizes Israelis to a similar degree, the research showing comparable results across the massive disparity between empowered Israelis and the disempowered Palestinians at opposite ends of the power gradient.[l]

Protesting that they are "human beings" while cursing Israeli soldiers and settlers as "animals" is, according to Penny Johnson, the commonest refrain heard from Palestinians held up at Israeli checkpoints.

I regard that article as methodological and analytically moronic, but it is an RS, and cannot not be used.Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what is your point here. How does that contradict what I said before? Vegan416 (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote my comment before Nishidani's long answer and before you created a separate section. Having fragmented discussions is annonying but I'll reply there. By the way "By the logic of your argument here, there wouldn't be any justification at all to the existence of the [other] article" doesn't apply at all because I'm talking about dehumanizing language used by oppressed groups against their oppressors. Israelis are not oppressed by Palestinians, unless you assume that resistance equates oppression. - Ïvana (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ïvana, What difference does it make from an encyclopedic point of view if we are talking about "dehumanizing language used by oppressed groups against their oppressors", or vice versa??? (even if I accept your assignment of appressed/oppressors in this specific case, which I don't). Vegan416 (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani please order the mess you have made here. You put a very long comment that should have its own section, as it's not related to this discussion. And you also inserted a comment within my comment, making the whole section confusing to read Vegan416 (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mess is the article you mucked up. An analysis of just element in it shows why. Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editing of this zealous article is too incompetent to be reliable, since any control of its sources will show WP:Synth/WP:OR or any number of other problems to be its main characteristic. There is no reflection of the discriminations made in those sources. For example, take in this article the assertion:

In the 1980s the phrase "sons\brothers of monkeys and pigs" started to appear as an epithet for Jews in messages published by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah organizations, such as in this quote from a Hamas leaflet from 1988: "O our children: the Jews - brothers of the apes, assassins of the prophets, bloodsuckers, [..] are murdering you, [..]. Only Islam can break the Jews and destroy their dream (‘some of Fatah’s strike forces’ adepte this from Hamas.

(i)This is a WP:OR construct, which in fact contradicts one of the main sources used for the statement. I.e.

It was not until 1991 or so, around the rise of the Qassam Battalions, however, that we began to notice the more sinister phrase ibna al-qird wa al-khanazir, or”sons of monkeys and pigs,” being used as an epithet for Jews. It soon became something of a convention for Islamist groups.' Anne Marie Oliver, Paul F. Steinberg, The Road to Martyrs' Square: A Journey into the World of the Suicide Bomber. OUP 2006 , 978-0-198-02756-0 p.101

(ii)So how did the editor retrodate to the generic '1980s' what became commonplace after 1991? The answer is in the second source used, which has the quote one January 1988 pamphlet.which contains the quote (which the other three sources do not): "O our children: the Jews - brothers of the apes, assassins of the prophets, bloodsuckers, [..] are murdering you, [..]. Only Islam can break the Jews and destroy their dream"’.’ from a single Hamas pamphlet dated to January 1988.(Shaul Mishal, Reuben Aharoni, Speaking Stones: Communiqués from the Intifada Underground, Syracuse University Press 1993 p.32

(iii)The third source merely ascribes the remark re Jews as 'the brothers of apes' to Hamas Hamas’s use of human pigs and brothers of the apes. This source is given as Matthew Hughes, Gaynor Johnson, Fanaticism and Conflict in the Modern Age, 2004 p. 161

(iv) The citation in (111) is incorrect since the ascribed authors are the book's editors. The actual chapter cited was written by Meir Litvak,’Religious and Nationalist fanaticism:The Case of Hamas’ p.156

(iv) The fourth source is by Matthias Küntzel, an incompetent compiler of stuff he reads elsewhere, with no area competence. In this case, citing his Jihad and Jew-hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11, 2007 p. as separate testimony is pointless since on the page in question, p.108, lifts the quote in from Mishal and Aharoni 1993 (see above (ii). (iv) Almost all of these sources point the finger for the widespread use of this meme overwhelmingly to Hamas and Islamic groups esp. in Gaza. Our text has it that it was common in 'messages published by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah organizations.

(v) The only basis for the last is the wording:Some of Fatah's strike forces, especially those in the Gaza Strip adopted the epithet as well', citing one press release by a Gaza Fatah group defending itself against Hamas by borrowing the latter's own abusive language re Jews (Anne Marie Oliver, Paul F. Steinberg,The Road to Martyrs' Square: A Journey into the World of the Suicide Bomber, op.cit. p.101) Since the editor's zeal is to target all Palestinians, such nuances, available in these texts, are consistently lost or erased from view. This last generalization as a Fatah view what turns out to be a Gazan Fatah branch's view, ignores the fact that the 'pigs/apes' image is monopolized by Palestinian Islamic groups who argue from the Qur'anic stereotypes, as opposed to Fatah, which is a secular political movement that derives its ideas from a different set of cultural referents generally.

The above is only one example of dozens of mess-ups here caused by the continual harvesting of poorly parsed sources dealing with broader Muslim/Islamic stereotypes, which occasionally instance the Palestinian case, and using what is written of the former automatically as valid for the latter. I've no time to fix the shambles, but any concerned editor who is interested in revising this incompetence merely has to slowly sift the sources, and do as I showed can be done, above. The article is valid as such - such stereotypes abound - but if the intent is to mirror the other main article, then its methods should be imitated as well, stringently, with just one or two minor exceptions, limiting the scope to what specific texts dedicating to, or mentioning, animal stereotypes in the I/P conflict say about this with regard to Palestinian views, by citing what specific individuals who are notable Palestinians or Palestinians of influence, have stated. Nishidani (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani I'll read your long comment carefully later, though it doesn't really belong in this section. Vegan416 (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani I'll remove the third and fourth sources just because I cannot be bothered with fixing the names of the third and I agree the fourth is not adding much beyond the first two (though I strongly disagree with your description of Matthias Küntzel. As for the rest of your argument here I'll reply at length tomorrow. Vegan416 (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about replying at length, because I already find the article itself, which will prove briefer than the threads, unreadable. I had to force myself to read it once, and noting the constant misuse of sources. I haven't the time to waste on it.Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani,
  1. Please stop this condescending attitude. There is no "constant misuse of sources" in the article. Nor is there incompetence on my side. What there is are legitimate differences between us about the question of what nuances in the sources are important and what aren't.
  2. It is obvious that the only way to preserve 100% of the nuances that exist in any source is to copy all of it verbatim. But we cannot do that because that would make any article the length of a book, plus land us with a ton of copyright violations. So we have to summarize and paraphrase, and that summary process by definition must force us to give up some of the nuances in the sources. The decision which nuances to ignore and which to preserve (if any) is a matter of editorial discretion, and naturally different editors may have different views on this. This doesn't make any of them incompetent.
  3. Now let's look at the specific issue your long tirade deals with. I wrote "In the 1980s the phrase "sons\brothers of monkeys and pigs" started to appear as an epithet for Jews in messages published by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah organizations". The sources support this. In particularly regarding the Fatah this source quotes a communique Fatah people published in 1992 saying: "Fatah knows well that it is negotiating with the Jews and knows who the Jews are—the descendants of monkeys and pigs".
  4. You think that I should have emphasized that this was published specifically by some of Fatah strike forces in Gaza. I don't see why it matters so much. It is legitimate to mention that detail, but it is also legitimate no to mention it. As I said before this is a matter of editorial discretion.
  5. As for your further claim that this pigs/apes image is "monopolized" by the Hamas and Islamic Jihad. This is simply not true. Beyond this example that I just showed, the article itself contains several examples of this phrase being used by officials of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, and in the official Palestinian Authority TV, after 2007 (since when it was in the control of Fatah people). And I can show here some more examples directly related to Fatah, that I chose not to include in the article at least for the time being (see here 1 2). But maybe because of this discussion I will include some of them now...
Vegan416 (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first principle in editing wiki articles is that editors acquire the ability to accurately paraphrase the sources used. So far, you have failed consistently to do this, as shown. In replying that:'It is obvious that the only way to preserve 100% of the nuances that exist in any source is to copy all of it verbatim,' you underline this inability. A detail is not a nuance, and making generalizations by writing roughshod over multiple sources that supplement, or make distinctions, to give the impression that they all support the text you invented (1980s for 1991 in the source etc) is WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, two core guidelines consistently ignored here precisely for that reason.Nishidani (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the name of the article to "Animal stereotypes of Jews and Israelis in Palestinian discourse"[edit]

In my view the current title ("Animal stereotypes of Jews in Palestinian discourse") does not mean at all that all the examples in this article necessarily refer to all the Jews in the world (though many clearly do), and it seem that all the editors who looked at it till now didn't think so either. But since one newcomer to this article thinks otherwise, and to avoid further irrelevant nitpicking about antizionism ≠ antisemitism, I suggest to change the name of the article to "Animal stereotypes of Jews and Israelis in Palestinian discourse" (or "Animal stereotypes of Jews or Israelis in Palestinian discourse"). Vegan416 (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly 20% of Israelis are Palestinians, so your new title would suggest they be included as objects of Islamic or Palestinian theriomorphic scorn. Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could have "Animal stereotypes of Jews or Israeli-Jews in Palestinian discourse", but that sound cumbersome. Still I won't object to that either. In any case as I said before, in my view the current title ("Animal stereotypes of Jews in Palestinian discourse") does not mean at all that all the examples in this article necessarily refer to all the Jews in the world, and likewise my first suggested title doesn't imply that all the examples in this article necessarily refer to all Israelis... Vegan416 (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Palestinians have a diaspora as well, you know. Enforced, mostly. Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vegan416: Again, like I said in the section above, using the term "Israeli-Jews" focuses on Jewish identity and implies that the main issue lies with Jews rather than the ongoing occupation, which is a core belief of Zionists. The article conflates criticism of Zionists or Israelis with criticism of Jews. You yourself have said that since Israel is "home to half of the Jews in the world" and "supported by most of the Jews in the world" (citation needed) criticizing Israel or its policies "can be considered dehumanizing Jews". That is your personal interpretation. Have there been instances of genuine antisemitic discourse from Palestinians? Yes, probably. However, criticism of Israel or Zionism is not inherently antisemitic or dehumanizing to Jews and thus does not belong in this article. - Ïvana (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Nishidani's response says the problem with using "Israelis" instead of "Israeli-Jews" is that it might look as if these terms are intended also against the Palestinian citizens of Israel, which is of course not true (especially as some of the examples come from Palestinian citizens of Israel...). However I don't mind changing it to "Israelis". It seem however that you think that we shouldn't mention dehumanization of Israelis at all, even under the title "Animal stereotypes of Jews and Israelis in Palestinian discourse". What is the encyclopedic justification for your opinion? Vegan416 (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier I know that Palestinians have a diaspora as well. How is this related to this discussion? What's your point? Vegan416 (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to ping me. Well we are discussing the use of the word Jew and and that Jews are in all the world as well as Israel and I merely said that the same applies to Palestinians, who are in Israel and all the world as well. What's confusing about that? What's your point? Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how this information is contributing to the discussion about the title of this article. Do you have some suggestion to make in view of this info? Vegan416 (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Palestinian discourse" includes Palestinians in Israel? I think what you mean is "Animal stereotypes of Israeli Jews in Palestinian discourse" Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Palestinian discourse" includes all Palestinians in the world and in all times that such a national group existed. If you read the article you'll see that while most of the examples are from Gaza and the Palestinian authority, there are also examples from Israeli Palestinian citizens and Palestinians from the diaspora (and historical examples from the British mandate period, and even one from the Ottoman period). Vegan416 (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just so y'all know, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Animal_stereotypes_of_Palestinians_in_Israeli_discourse/Animal_stereotypes_of_Jews_in_Palestinian_discourse Selfstudier (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vegan416: I think that most of the "dehumanization" of Israelis by Palestinians is based on the Israelis' Zionist beliefs, not their Jewish identity. Palestinians, and even Hamas, have stated that their problem is with the occupiers/Zionists, regardless of whether they are Jewish or not. And a lot of the sources that are being used here support that, since they are only referring to Zionists or Israel as an occupying entity. Again, dehumanizing language from oppressed people towards their oppressors is not uncommon, and I don't see the encyclopedic value in basing an article around that. If you want to address antisemitism, then focus on examples that are purely antisemitic, referring to Jews with no ties to Zionism. As of right now, this article is using Zionist, Israeli, and Jew interchangeably. That is my main objection. - Ïvana (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemites often conflate the concepts, deliberately or not. If reliable sources describe something as pertaining to Jews, then we should follow them, not try to discern the true target and affected party of rhetoric in question. Zanahary (talk) 04:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a source doesn't explicitly mention Jews and only says Zionists, Israel, or Israelis, how can that be an acceptable example of dehumanization towards Jews, understanding that Jews refers to the Jewish identity regardless of their political beliefs or nationality? Criticism of Zionism or Israel is not inherently antisemitic. - Ïvana (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ïvana, You are making some factual errors and one significant procedural error.
On the factual side: First, contrary to your claim it seems that most of the examples in the article are explicitly using the word Jews/Jewish/Jewry and not the words Israelis and Zionists. For example, almost all of the examples in the dogs section. Also, in the monkey and pigs section the word Jews is not always used explicitly, but the underlying metaphor comes from an old religious tradition that was aimed against Jews (and sometimes Christians too) hundreds of years before Zionism was born. Caricatures usually don't have words, so they can be interpreted either way (though the octopus image from 1936 does speak about "World Jewry").
Second, your claim that Hamas doesn't have a problem with Jews as Jews is patently false. Even some of the sources in this article show you to be wrong on this, but beyond that you can look at the Hamas founding charter from the 80s. It is a manifestly antisemitic document. And you can also find explicitly antisemitic claims by more "moderate" Palestinians, even in this article, such as the General Union of Palestinian Students using the fake antisemitic Franklin Prophecy.
But all these are side issues. Your main error is on the procedural side. Suppose, for the sake of argument only, that all of the Palestinian "animalistic stereotyping" was aimed only against Israelis and Zionists, and never at Jews. Why even in this hypothetical situation would it be wrong to write an article about this kind of "animalistic stereotyping" of Israelis by Palestinians? Especially since there is already an article about the "animalistic stereotyping" of Palestinian by Israelis. If you allow an article about "animalistic stereotyping" of Palestinians by Israelis, then you should allow an article about "animalistic stereotyping" of Israelis by Palestinians. There is no encyclopedic justification for making a distinction between those two articles. Furthermore making such a distinction would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV. Vegan416 (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If you allow an article about "animalistic stereotyping" of Palestinians by Israelis, then you should allow an article about "animalistic stereotyping" of Israelis by Palestinians" WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. If you have a problem with the other article, which you clearly do, you can discuss improvements on its talk page or take it to the administrators. Our personal opinions are irrelevant. My problem is with the scope of this article. Like I've said again and again, you're assuming that Zionist, Israeli and Jew are all the same thing. Can these overlap? Sure, but it is not a given. If a source doesn't mention Jews and is only criticising Israel or Zionism that is not a valid example of dehumanization toward Jews. (Btw we already have a couple of articles describing antisemitism within the palestinian community: Antisemitism in the Arab world and Racism_in_the_State_of_Palestine#Antisemitism_in_Palestinian_territories). You need to decide what this article is going to cover and then stick to it. As of right now it has plenty of WP:SYNTH issues, which other people more capable than me have pointed out in detail. - Ïvana (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I already explained what the scope of the article is, and even suggested to change the name of the article to clarify this. The article cover both "animalistic stereotyping" of Jews by Palestinians and "animalistic stereotyping" of Israelis by Palestinians. This way we don't have to get into arguments about the relation between antisemitism and antizionism etc.
  2. And the justification for this scope is like the justification for the scope of any other article, as Zanahary explained, we follow the reliable secondary sources on which this article is based. And those sources describe and analyze the "animalistic stereotyping" of Jews and Israelis by Palestinians together without making the distinction that you suggest between Jews and Israelis.
  3. Also of course it is completely untrue that I assume Zionist, Israeli and Jew are the same. I never said or even hinted anything of this sort. Also there are no SYNTH issues in the article.
Vegan416 (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to assume that Zionist, Israeli and Jew are the same thing because the article conflates criticism towards any of those as dehumanization towards Jews as a group and tries to frame it as antisemitism. Plenty of examples here only refer to Zionists. Are all Zionists Jews? Are all Jews Zionists? We can all agree that that's not the case. - Ïvana (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do the cited sources treat them as relating to Jews, or to Zionists? If the sources study what seems like references to Zionists as references to Jews, it's not our place to exclude them because we don't agree, just as it's not our place to decide that sources relating to Zionists should fall under the umbrella of Jews.
But in any case I think that this article's scope can reasonably cover animal stereotypes relating to Jews, Israelis, and Zionists in Palestinian discourse. Zanahary (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ïvana It is as if you don't hear what I am saying, and just keep on bludgeoning. Let me say again, with concrete example this time, so maybe you'll finally grasp it.
A lot of the secondary sources on which the article is based, especially those who make overview statements about the subject, use "Jews", "Israelis", "Zionists" and even "Israel" interchangeably. Therefore the scope of the article that is based on them Should be "animal stereotypes" of both Jews and Israelis. And this what I am going to change its title to (next week), as the title of this thread suggests, unless some serious argument will be made against it (so far none had been made).
Here are some examples of these sources (the emphasis in them is mine):
Oliver, Anne Marie; Steinberg, Paul F. (2006). The Road to Martyrs' Square: A Journey into the World of the Suicide Bomber. Oxford University Press. pp. 101–102. During the Intifada, Israelis and Jews were commonly described in the media of nationalists and Islamists alike as animals—octopuses, dragons, monkeys, and so forth.
Gordon, Gregory (2018). "Freedom of Expression, Hate Speech, and Incitement to Terrorism and Genocide: Resonances and Tensions". In Bayefsky, A. F.; Blank, L.R. (eds.). Incitement to Terrorism. Brill. p. 20. The Palestinian Authority's outlets – and even children's shows and school curricula – have long called Jews snakes, monkeys, and pigs and called for the annihilation of Israel.
Black, Ian (2008-12-19). "Cartoon symbols of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". The Guardian. repulsive, hook-nosed Jews are portrayed as snakes or vampires;
Solomon, Dana L. (2018). Ideological Battlegrounds: Entertainment to Disarm Divisive Propaganda. Lexington Books. p. 108. The rhetoric of the polemical voice articulating some of the extreme arguments of the Arab-Israeli conflict is rife with dehumanizing language. Israelis, Jews, Zionists, Palestinians, and Islam itself are all portrayed as a "cancer." [..] Similarly, the Hamas Prime Minister likened the State of Israel to "a cancer that is threatening to spread to other parts of the body."[.. ] The examples of dehumanization of Jews, Israel, and Zionists cited above—as well as numerous others—come from the respective leaders of Iran, Gaza, and Egypt. They are part of the dominant, even state-sanctioned rhetoric of those respective countries.
Dan, Peter (2009). "How Vampires Became Jewish". Studia Hebraica (9–10): 417–429. The dynamic of this new connection is similar to the previous vampire – Jew one: the negative feelings associated with Nazism are projected onto Israel and by extension, the Jews. Vegan416 (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot as you do confuse Muslim/Arabs generally with Palestinians by using article space to describe Muslim/Arab stereotypes as evidence for Palestinian smears, unless the sources make that link. Where in each of those sources do the authors speak specifically of Palestinian caricatures? Take Ian Black's article: it is about Arab cartoons, not Palestinian cartoons/caricatures. The same is true of Peter Dan's "How Vampires Became Jewish". No mention of Palestinians. These are therefore salient examples of WP:OR. Nishidani (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

others might be borrowed from European culture (as in the case of vampires[2][16][17][18]).

All those sources, with their page directs and notes, do not cite the Palestinian-vampire connection. So the sourcing is a complete WP:OR fudge.Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that Palestinians are not part of the Arab world? Because that's obviously false. Or are you saying that Palestinians, in contrast to other Arabs, never used the vampire metaphor and caricatures? Because that's false either. There are several examples of this in the article.Vegan416 (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also look at the title of Ian black's article. Vegan416 (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani. Also you have a habit of making a mess in this talk page by inserting your comments in unrelated discussions. If you have a comment about the question of the origin of the vampire metaphor than open a new discussion on the subject. Don't push yourself into an unrelated discussion about changing the name of the article. Vegan416 (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also the quote from Kotek (ref 16) is actually a preface to a section of his book that includes a cartoon of Shaul Mofaz as vampire that was published in the Palestinian Authority official paper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida. (see ref 140) Vegan416 (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is that one cites sources that directly address the topic of an article. You haven't, throughout. As instanced, those sources, save for Kotek's preface, do not speak of Palestinians and vampires, but of that imagery in Arab sources. It is an open confession that you are engaging in WP:OR when you ask:'Are you saying that Palestinians are not part of the Arab world.' As any experienced wikipedian will tell you, you cannot write an article about X using sources that do not speak of X. If you adopt the silly premise that X is a subset of Y, and write the article inferring from Y that therefore the generalizations apply to X, even if that connection is not made, you are indulging in original research, and making inferences from sources you are not permitted to draw. This is extremely elementary, and the technique you use is forbidden.Nishidani (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you allow an article about "animalistic stereotyping" of Palestinians by Israelis, then you should allow an article about "animalistic stereotyping" of Israelis by Palestinians.

I haven’t examined the sources, so I have no comment on the actual status quo of the article, but you should know that this is not an argument for an article’s existence. A topic has to be notable and present in reliable secondary sources; just mad-libbing the scopes of existing articles (which might themselves be controversial in terms of whether they should exist) with other terms is not how we assess a topic for inclusion.
Again, no comment on this article, as I’ve done no literature review. Zanahary (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, which is why we should follow reliable sources on the topic, not evaluate the phenomena they describe ourselves and arbitrate about whether we as editors agree with the source’s characterizations. Zanahary (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Animal_stereotypes_of_Jews_in_Palestinian_discourse&oldid=1225283679"