This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Islam: Islam and Controversy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force. Israel This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Wikipedia. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Wikipedia requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Israel Palestine Collaboration This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list, see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss this project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration Jewish history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Post-Cold War task force Palestine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This article seems to conflate antizionism and antisemitism on a number of occasions. I understand that groups like the ADL consider antizionism to be innately antisemetic, but that is a clearly disputed position.

I don't think this list is useful, and think it should be merged with Anti-Palestianism during the 2023 Israel-Hamas war and [1], but if it continues to exist I think it needs to be cut down to ensure these events actually involve the explicit targeting of Jewish people, and not just the presence of Jewish people.

The first one that stood out to me was this: [2], which itself cites CBS here: [3] in which it's made clear that that the protest in question was aimed at the university president and that other students were present in the library as normal. Considering the quality of this source, I suspect the full list needs a review. MVHVTMV (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this. I particularly noticed the example of the Norwegian student listed in the "Poland" paragraph: while a sign showing only the star of David in a waste bin would doubtless be antisemitic, an Israeli flag in a waste bin is different. The protester in question was also interviewed (see this interview here around 2:40 and also this interview on Norwegian TV2), and has clarified that it was not directed against Jewish people in general, but against the Israeli state.

Moreover, as stated in the TV2 article linked above, this news spin seems to originate from the Visegrád 24 Twitter account. Visegrád 24 seems like a source to use with caution, see here and here. Fogelstrom (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article significantly overlaps the scope of the Hate crimes related to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war article. To avoid duplicated effort, should they be merged? - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good question about scope overlap Cameron. The surge in antisemitism has been broadly documented in a wide array of sources, so objectively it merits a stand-alone page. Loksmythe (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case this suggestion arise again -

Any attempt to remove Antisemitism during the 2023 Israel-Hamas War as a standalone article without making similar suggestion against the strikes me as partisan and non-neutral. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Antisemitic, Islamophobic offenses soar in London after Israel attacks, Reuters, 20 October 2023

GnocchiFan (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/bkszpgpqa Pro-Palestinian protestor suspected of killing Jewish man in LA Loksmythe (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incendiary thrown at a synagogue in Montreal, Canada: https://globalnews.ca/news/10075973/montreal-synagogue-firebombing/

Israeli flag burned outside a synagogue in Malmo, Sweden: https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/israel-flag-burned-outside-malmo-sweden-synagogue-video/ar-AA1jqCEg https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/hate-crime-accusations-fly-after-malm%C3%B6-synagogue-incident/ar-AA1jyn9y Hawar jesser (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Man assaulted and "severely bashed" in Australia: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/major-antisemitic-attack-jewish-man-severely-bashed-in-sydney/video/3c7ca4bab3a239051f0eeae75d544fe8 Hawar jesser (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/11/20/rising-antisemitism-campus-federal-investigation/71579893007/ Anti-Semitism on American college campuses. Hawar jesser (talk) 06:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad house in Kalamazoo spray painted with swastikas https://wwmt.com/amp/news/local/anti-semitic-vandals-spray-paint-swastikas-local-synagogue-hate-jewish-crime-clean-up-community-kalamazoo-michigan-violence Hawar jesser (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Woman in Indianapolis intentionally crashed car into building she thought was Jewish facility (actually is home to an antisemitic group, ironically). https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-woman-drives-car-into-antisemitic-groups-building-mistaking-it-for-jewish-school/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCmcMCmcMCmc (talk • contribs) 18:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit to the Coopers Union event in the North America section, based on the two sources already used. I then added a source from the 2023 Israel–Hamas war protests page to better match the information presented in both the sources and that page. It appears @Loksmythe has reverted/changed the edit to remove factual information and make it different to how the sources and other page portrays the event.

I'm not discrediting how the students may have felt but as indicated in the third article, the NYPD has cast doubt on the accounts provided by the students in the library. Leaky.Solar (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UK

• Manhunt in Britain: Protesters with Hamas bands and woman shouting 'death to all Jews'

\\ Loksmythe // (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/global-antisemitic-incidents-wake-hamas-war-israel

Pretty well sourced and comprehensive list, some examples could be added. Hawar jesser (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ADL is not an objective or unbiased source. 216.212.99.220 (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The drawing was of merely a star of david in the trash. Not a flag of Israel. 2A02:14F:1F4:3A74:EC0B:1359:470:2EF3 (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is worse, from a logical POV. 74.71.4.108 (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Denmark / Netherlands https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67715120
• Germany https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/germany-arrests-teen-for-planning-terror-attack-synagogue-said-to-be-among-possible-targets/

\\ Loksmythe // (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to insert references to two articles published by the Socialist Workers Party (UK). In these articles the Socialist Workers Party is clearly celebrating anti Semitism. Leading with the headline; "Rejoice Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).</ref>as Palestinian resistance humiliates racist Israel". https://socialistworker.co.uk/international/rejoice-as-palestinian-resistance-humiliates-racist-israel/

https://socialistworker.co.uk/international/were-rewriting-history-our-fighters-took-the-initiative-palestine-speaks-out/ "All of us are proud. Today was a rewriting of history—our history. I can hear the bombing now. In Tel Aviv, Gaza and everywhere is all under fire. We are watching what we thought would never, in our lifetime, happen". NNCohen (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template.  Spintendo  04:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Israeli minister’s comment in the lead is surely not noteworthy enough to be in the lead. But the current structure doesn’t include any section that could logically be moved to. Thoughts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An alleged incident is reported here where in October at a Sydney pro-Palestine rally, it was said that some attendees had chanted "gas the jews". This article shares a revised report that they were actually chanting "where's the jews". However this is also false, as more recent investigation has concluded that all evidence of the incident came from footage shared to social media in which the real audio was replaced with the edited sound of chanting. In other words, this incident was fabricated.

Some news articles reporting this:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/feb/02/sydney-opera-house-palestine-protest-nsw-police-antisemitic-chant-no-evidence

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/police-review-finds-no-evidence-antisemitic-phrase-chanted-at-sydney-opera-house-protest-20240202-p5f1v7.html

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/police-find-no-evidence-of-antisemitic-gas-chant-at-pro-palestinian-sydney-protest/79te3i0sp

In a later paragraph, a more recent incident is described when 600 people were "doxxed". However, this is misleading because the framing suggests that that 600 were targeted as individuals in an act motivated by antisemitism. It is relevent to note that the 600 people were participating in a group chat which was actively seeking out, "doxxing" Palestinians and pro-palestine supporters and seeking to get them fired or otherwise silence their political expression. So, this was not a random campaign motivated by targeting Jewish people but an act of retaliation against an organised group who were themselves involved in a racist doxxing campaign.

Here's some excerpts from the leaked chat being discussed: https://everythingisfine.beehiiv.com/p/highlights-from-the-leaked-zionist-groupchat Pretty much from the first excerpt it's clear that anti-Palestinian prejudice was rife in the chat, such as describing the kuffiyeh (a traditional scarf) as "aggressive". If it would be racist to describe Jewish items of clothing as "aggressive" to wear in public, and antisemitic to try to stop people from wearing Jewish symbols in public, then it follows that it must also be racist to censor people for wearing Palestinian symbols and clothing in public.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with doxxing, this incident does not constitute an antisemitic hate crime because it is not motivated by antisemitism and in fact many "victims" of the incident were actively committing racist doxxing themselves.

Ironically, the full names shared in this article aa perpetrators belong to people who were themselves targeted by doxxing and harrassment from people within the leaked chat. One of the people named, Elsa Tuet-Rosenberg, is Jewish, and another person (publicly dead-named -arguably a transphobic hate crime-) is her partner. Essentially, the edit which added their names to the page is itself a kind of doxxing. Perhaps this should be mentioned in an article about hate crimes against pro-Palestine activists? Can't Catch The Cat (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve actually cleaned up the Australia section of this article. The Australian Jewish News isn’t a balanced source of information - hence I replaced those references with more balanced sources and reporting and removed the stuff that can’t be independently verified.

As for the doxxing part - I removed that completely on the basis that it was poorly written and blatant propaganda at best, smear at worst. Will have a look at rewriting that at some stage, within the next day or two, in a way that’s more balanced. Geelongite (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The framing of the section talking about the doxxing is still quite problematic IMO. It still gives the impression that they were random "Jewish Creative" that were doxxed, and not part of a specific Whats App Group that had been directly linked to advocating against Palestinian activists in Australia - specifically linked to the firing of Antoinette Lattouf.

IMO it appears intentionally malicious considering the section doesn't link to the main Article on the incident 2024 J.E.W.I.S.H creatives and academics doxxing incident which provides a lot more context about the occurrence.

I would not be confident enough to edit the article and make the suggested changes considering it is such a contentious topic. Shcmilly (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it further, I think the doxxing itself being framed as "anti-semetic" is problematic, misleading and contentious, but the section should remain to mention the anti-Semitic threats that followed the doxxing. Shcmilly (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact come to think of it, apart from the alleged ‘gas the Jews’ incident which was debunked, the whole Australia section amounts to Nazis being racist dropkicks and the connection between that and what’s going on in Gaza is tenuous at best. It’s obviously antisemetic however this article is in relation to antisemitism as it relates to Israel-Gaza since October 7. Geelongite (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the names of Elsa Tuet Rosenberg and Zaineb Mazloum from this article. This accusation is false and they should not be named. This accusation and naming of them is both antisemitic towards Elsa and racist towards both but specifically anti-Arab towards Zaineb Mazloum.218.214.189.104 (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, I’ve removed that whole section as the way it was written amounts to propaganda at best and smear at worst. Geelongite (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it qualifies for the article, but was some incident days ago in Spain, https://www.europapress.es/madrid/noticia-detenida-mujer-proferir-insultos-antisemitas-agredir-otra-ser-judia-20240426104254.html 31.221.175.115 (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y Added Chomik1129 (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some more sources (in Spanish, sorry) that (perhaps) could be interesting to add to the Spain section: https://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/2023-10-19/la-comunidad-judia-en-espana-denuncia-ataques-a-sus-comercios-sinagogas-y-domicilios_3757531/ and maybe https://www.eldebate.com/espana/madrid/20240426/detienen-activista-pro-palestina-agredir-judia-centro-madrid_192508.html (for the last cited event). Thanks. 31.221.175.115 (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times Man Charged After Attempted Attack Outside Jewish School in New York 2 days ago

CBC Montreal Jewish school targeted by gunfire, police say 2 days ago

Al Arabiya English

Fire at synagogue: Canada sees third antisemitic attack in days

Vancouver police searched Friday for an arsonist who set fire to the entrance of a synagogue, while stepping up security at other Jewish...

NYC: [4]https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-assaulted-punched-people-new-york-city-indicted-hate-crime-charges-rcna154453 74.71.4.108 (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thank you! Chomik! (talk?) 15:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure 74.71.4.108 (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/05/06/pro-palestinian-protesters-heckle-holocaust-memorial-march YeetMachete (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Chomik! (talk?) 22:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A man was stabbed outside a Chabad house in NYC on Aug 11, 2024. Links:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/11/nyregion/brooklyn-stabbing-hate-crime.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/crown-heights-brooklyn-hate-crime-stabbing/

https://abc7ny.com/post/brooklyn-stabbing-jewish-man-stabbed-abdomen-crown-heights/15175058/ Gaymarsrovers (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Gaymarsrovers (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thank you! Chomik! (talk?) 00:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to change wording in section titled "South Africa" from

On 19 October 2023, the walls of the promenade in Sea Point in Cape Town were daubed with antisemitic graffiti. The City of Cape Town swiftly removed the graffiti.

to

On 19 October 2023, the walls of the promenade in Sea Point in Cape Town were marked with graffiti referencing the nascent conflict. Of the two documented instances, one displays the phrase "I STAND WITH GENOCIDE" superimposed on an Israeli flag, while the other simply says "HOLOCAUST, OCT'23." Both were condemned as antisemitic and hostile to the local Jewish community and swiftly removed by the City of Cape Town. Harlowp (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If an incident of antisemitism is attested only by sources that do not even mention the ongoing war, it seems to me that it's WP:SYNTH to include it in this page. But I have found several incidents listed here of which that is true. I would like to obtain consensus on whether these should be included. ByVarying | talk 06:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ByVarying. It says "during". I think it's valid to take that literally. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, we collect the information, the reader can decide their own interpretation. The appropriate level of context would be how unusual each event is, e.g. "the first time anything like this has happened since WWII" or "in a scenario similar to the event in 2022 (with a linked page)". Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 06:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Metal Brain, the problem with that is that "antisemitism during the Israel–Hamas war" is a notable topic touched on by many RS. They make the judgment that certain antisemitic acts, or an increase in the prevalence of such acts, are in some way brought on by or have a nexus to the war and its coverage. That is what this article is about. So when RS do not make that judgment for an occurrence of (putative) antisemitism, it is synthesis for us to insinuate such a nexus by listing that occurrence here. Put differently, "during the Israel–Hamas war" is not just a demarcation of time (and if it were, the topic would fail notability).

See WP:NOREX#Implied conclusion, where it is synthesis to juxtapose facts in such a way as to imply something when no source makes the correlation. ByVarying | talk 16:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ByVarying That is why I suggest it's important to point out whether the recent event is unusual, or a normal (bad, but not unusual) event that's getting more publicity due to the war. e.g. I think the ISIS attack in South West Russia belongs on the incidents page, and it belongs there next to a thing saying ISIS hate Hamas, and that ISIS also attacked Iran. I don't think ignoring the assertion that this is increasing fixes the distortion or exaggeration, the media suggesting a link for each incident aren't usually doing it based on much (or any) evidence. We should be comprehensive, but give context. There is a small real increase, but it's a complicated feedback loop, buried in spin and assertions that anyone criticizing Israel is doing antisemitism. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Metal Brain, I definitely think in virtually all these cases it would be original research for WP editors to write in the article whether an event is getting more coverage because of the war. The Russia thing should be covered here because RS make the correlation with the Gaza war. I'm not sure why you thought I suggested "ignoring the assertion that this is increasing." I am saying we shouldn't make implications that RS don't make. ByVarying | talk 03:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant you seem to be worried about a lot of unrelated events creating an illusion of a massive increase that exagerates what is said in reliable sources. But I was possibly missing your point, or making too many assumptions about your motives. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Metal Brain, my motive here is to make the article encyclopedic, which it currently is not. To some of the issues raised in your other messages: whether some incident is notable enough to warrant inclusion is another judgment, which has yet to be applied, and which will probably go a long way in cleaning up the article. Indeed I think what we mainly disagree about is your statements like The way to avoid both synth and unproductive arguments is to include everything, which plainly goes against WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I'm afraid the "long unproductive disputes" you mention are in fact necessary if inclusion or exclusion of an event is disagreed about by editors with policy-based arguments. ByVarying | talk 15:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem Post^[1] claims, and we repeat, that a report by a French organization called SPCJ shows that there was an increase in the amount of antisemitic happenings in France "immediately after" Oct. 7 attacks, before Israel did anything in retaliation, contrary to claims that antisemitism was a result of the Israeli response to the October 7 attack. Now the report is of high importance to this article generally, but it looks like JPost are basing that particular conclusion solely on the fact that the increase in antisemitism occurred the week after Oct. 7: A total of 33 antisemitic acts were recorded on the week of October 2, while 207 were recorded on the week of October 9.

But Israel had already bombed 426 targets by Oct. 9 and announced the "total blockade" that very day.

It just doesn't seem like sufficient reason to make that claim and I couldn't find independent sources making that analysis. I think that sentence should be removed from the article. To be honest, if I'm not missing anything, I'm surprised to see this reaching from JPost. ByVarying | talk 04:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the incidents listed involve what is clearly anti-Zionism, but are said to be antisemitic on the statements of local Jewish organizations that consider all anti-Zionism to be antisemitism. This is implicitly stating as fact that anti-Zionism is always antisemitic, which is not established and is not taken as true on other parts of Wikipedia, so the article should be updated to either clarify how antisemitism is defined, or the list should be cut down based on a more objective standard. ElasticSnake (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the IHRA definition of antisemitism. The 3D's of antisemitism are: demonizing Israel, delegitimizing Israel (denying its right to exist and defend itself), and applying double standards to Israel beyond what is expected from any other country. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the 3 Ds nor the IHRA definition are objectively agreed-upon sources, on Wikipedia or anywhere. Regardless, if you think the article should use the IHRA definition, then that needs to be stated in the lede with a note on the controversies over it. Otherwise it's just being used to sneak a viewpoint onto the article. ElasticSnake (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ElasticSnake, I raised this at the requested move above, and in more detail above at Talk:Antisemitism during the Gaza war#Potential for Synthesis. (NB, it appears the editor who engaged me there is a now-banned sock.) Regardless, those (3 people) at the move discussion thought the best way to remedy the page was to discuss only the most notable specific incidents and go into more detail in coverage of the broad trend that RS talk about of an increase in antisemitic incidents.

As I said in those two sections I agree that it's problematic to include a particular incident when RS do not explicitly link it to a trend in antisemitism during the Gaza war. In my opinion, @Allthemilescombined1's suggested approach where editors use the IHRA criteria to determine whether to include something in this page would be WP:original research. ByVarying | talk 01:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we cannot rely on anything but reliable sources, and attempts to generate a consistent standard for inclusion in this article also fall afoul of WP:OR. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanahary: as I explained in my edit summary, an incident cannot be antisemitic if only some of the targets were Jewish (more info in this article). Please seek consensus for its inclusion if you disagree. M.Bitton (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not for you to decide; such designations come from reliable sources. This article includes an assessment of the incident as antisemitic. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton, I would appreciate a response. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already responded. M.Bitton (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I missed that. What is your response to my above comment, that determinations of antisemitic nature come from reliable sources and cannot be overruled by editors' original analyses? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read what I wrote. Wikipedia is not a collection of speculations, much less baseless ones. M.Bitton (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please quote for me the relevant comment? Is it the opening comment of this discussion? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the comment. M.Bitton (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so I am asking you to respond to my counterpoint that a reliable source discusses notable people and institutions treating this as an incident of antisemitism, and on Wikipedia we follow reliable sources and not editors’ original research, which would be the test you used to remove it (that no incident that targeted any non-Jews may be antisemitic, regardless of what reliable sources say).

Some more reliable sources either describing the incident as antisemitic or discussing its characterization as such are NPR, NBC, ABC, CNN, USA Today, and The Hill.

I’m not arguing that we should state in wikivoice that the incident was antisemitic, or neglect to attribute the characterization of it as such (as most sources do), but we can’t just refuse to cover a story because we disagree with its framing in reliable sources. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not arguing that we should state in wikivoice that the incident was antisemitic if it's not an antisemitic incident (it can't be since only only some of the targets were Jewish), then it doesn't belong in an article that lists antisemitic incidents (something that is made clear in the lead).

This makes ElasticSnake's comment above (about the scope of the article) all the more relevant. I suggest rebooting that discussion since there is a problem with the article that needs to be addressed. M.Bitton (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the matter of this specific incident is secondary—maybe it’s undue. But it needs to be clear that you cannot judge for yourself, against reliable sources, which incidents count as antisemitic and which ones don’t, according to a common-sense test of yours. That is clearly original research. Wikipedia will treat this topic as reliable secondary sources do, which means we do not devise standards for inclusion that go beyond relevance to the article topic, due weight, and verifiable presence in reliable secondary sources. Do you contest this? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These sources report that the incident was described as antisemitic; that doesn't make it antisemitic. The Oscars were widely described as antisemitic for awarding an Oscar to a documentary that was negative toward Israel; description cannot be the standard unless the page is rewritten to reflect that some incidents are antisemitic under the standard of "made a Jewish person feel uncomfortable". ElasticSnake (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The claim (that's all it is) by people who have no authority on the subject is neither reliable, nor encyclopedic. What I said is not original research, it's based on the source (that I cited in my first comment) that gives a broader view (including conflicting claims) of what the incident was about. M.Bitton (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was no demonstration outside Fiddler on the roof, as the amended source makes clear. The University of Leeds chaplain had recently served in the IDF as stated in the source; this is surely relevant. Jontel (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Qualiesin,

Why did you restore this content that I removed? The cited source does not claim it was an anti-semitic incident.

A hotel in Kyoto, Japan, targeted Israeli tourists by making them fill out a form detailing "what they did during the Gaza war".[5]

Rainsage (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you need something to literally spell it out for you how this is antisemitic, you don't know what antisemitism is. Qualiesin (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if you can't provide a reliable source saying it was antisemitic, then it should be deleted. Rainsage (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Description of suggested change:

Diff:

2A02:AA14:C482:2580:7DAA:AF30:F9D8:C82D (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the fact this shit exist says evrvything. i guess this "article" is only edit by IDF memebers.

 Not done: Dahawk04 (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to include this anti-Semitic incident in BC, Canada in the North America Section https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/victoria-police-investigate-antisemitic-graffiti-at-oldest-synagogue-in-western-canada-1.7602955 Cherry567 (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my idea on what should be added:

‘On 6 August 2025, the Victorian synagogue Congregation Emanu-El was vandalised with anti-Semitic graffiti’ Cherry567 (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rainsage (talk) 06:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An inline template questioning the relevance of mentioning a complementary rise in Islamophobia in Australia was added by Qualiesin in July. I changed the wording and removed the template, arguing that the source for that sentence presents the two in parallel (as do many sources on this topic as it pertains to Australia, peculiarly enough), so that it would amount to cherry-picking from the source to only mention the rise in antisemitism. (Not removing "both" and "and Islamophobic" near the start of the sentence, which I now have, was an oversight by me.) Qualiesin added the template back today, so let's discuss it. I would note that any RS refuting the idea of a rise in Islamophobia complementing the rise in antisemitism in Australia should be reflected in this article. ByVarying | talk 03:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it peculiar and suspicious that nearly any time a (non-Jewish) source or organization mentions a rise in antisemitism, they feel the need to also mention Islamophobia. I have not followed mentions of Islamophobia as closely, but I doubt the inverse is true. Why does antisemitism need to get the "all lives matter" treatment? There is already a page for Islamophobia during the Gaza war, which is mentioned in the "see also". Qualiesin (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per NPOV, this article should address the extensive use by Israel and the US and their allies of the accusation of antisemitism to disparage their critics and to justify cracking down on the various forms protests against the war and genocide. The introduction should link to Israeli public diplomacy in the Gaza war and Weaponization of antisemitism and probably also pages such as Anti-Defamation League, IHRA definition of antisemitism, Canary Mission, Detention of Mahmoud Khalil, etc. إيان (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that reporting on and analysis of the idea that accusations of antisemitism are used in bad faith (to paraphrase what you're talking about) would be relevant to the article, but so far the only extensive coverage I've seen that fits that bill has been from sources closer to the fringes in terms of their bias. What sources do you have in mind? ByVarying | talk 19:39, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing on this is quite robust, in both academic and journalistic sources. Which sources are you considering closer to the fringes in terms of their bias for this? إيان (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

E.g., I had Drop Site News in mind. ByVarying | talk 03:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a helpful addition if someone could find specific academic sources that describe the issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few top results from a cursory search:

• Segal, Raz. "How Weaponizing Antisemitism Puts Jews at Risk". TIME. Archived from the original on 2025-06-18. Retrieved 2025-09-04.
• Montag, Warren. "Genocide and the weaponization of anti-Semitism". Verso. Retrieved 2025-09-04.
• Mann, Itamar; Yona, Lihi (2025-03-23). "The new definition of antisemitism is transforming America – and serving a Christian nationalist plan". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2025-09-04.
• Mann, Itamar; Yona, Lihi (2024). "Defending Jews From The Definition of Antisemitism". UCLA Law Review. Retrieved 2025-09-04.</ref>
• Greenspan, Judy (2024-05-03). "Is the Definition of Antisemitism Being Weaponized?". Exploring Hate. PBS. Retrieved 2025-09-04.
• Brownlee, Jason (Fall 2024). "Efforts to Weaponize Title VI against Pro-Palestine Speech on University Campuses" (PDF). Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights.

إيان (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, because if you do an arson attack against a synagogue or graffiti a Jewish cemetery, that's actually anti-Zionist somehow and we should definitely mention the supposed weaponization of antisemitism in an article about attacks on Jews /s Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An item about an arson attack which occurred last year and which the Australian government recently revealed may have been orchestrated in part by Iran was added a few days ago. I reverted on the grounds that the source and other more recent articles I read about this didn't make any link between that incident and the Gaza war, so that including it here is synthesis (i.e., in that case, the inference that such an event had a connection to the war or was part of associated increases in antisemitism is based solely on editors' opinions). Then it was added back, without explanation. Qualiesin, what is your argument for why that is wrong and it really should be included?

Relatedly, I think that if this article is not to be run as a de-facto list of all antisemitic incidents that have been reported on since Oct 2023, even if sources do link them to the war, (which it should not per WP:BALASP, and prior consensus about not moving the article,) then we also need to be careful to include only those events that have the broadest coverage. That is part of the existing consensus on this talk page. ByVarying | talk 20:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source mentions the Gaza war in the last section.

Do you have a suggestion of how to determine which events "have the broadest coverage"? Rainsage (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not beyond what is required by WP:BALASP. I think the present article is afoul of BALASP, and try to remove to work in the right direction, but additions of seemingly whatever can be found that fits the description "antisemitic, after Oct. 2023" continue. Those additions are what I think clearly violate BALASP. Now, this item about the Iran-linked arson might clear the bar, but the reason I thought it should not be here is that when I went looking for a source on Australian intelligence connecting it to Iran, those I found didn't mention the war at all.

There has been really quite a lot of reporting on certain protests and also on some incidents like the arson attack on Josh Shapiro (to name a few from the US). I would contrast that with news stories of graffiti or isolated violence—the sort of antisemitic incidents that were commonplace before Oct 7—only reported on by local outlets or outlets that are traditionally pro-Israel biased, and only mentioning the war or the associated increase in antisemitism for context (if at all). ByVarying | talk 15:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

anti-Semitism always increases during intensification of the AI conflict; it’s hard to know which specific cases of random violence/graffiti are because of the war. But I suppose we could mention the increase and some stats about the random attacks instead of listing every case. Rainsage (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article structured as a list of examples? If that's how it's going to be written, this should be moved to something like List of antisemitic incidents during the Gaza war. Otherwise, most of these should be removed per WP:BALASP and replaced with summaries of academic coverage that describes the consequences of what it explicitly describes as antisemitism. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:43, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Also see above at the previous requested move and discussions since about exclusion per synth and balasp on this page. ByVarying | talk 18:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qualiesin, in this revert you claimed Not relevant Why not?

Also, why is this irrelevant content? إيان (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Vylan's attempt to deflect valid criticism is not relevant to the fact that they have incited ethnic hatred against Jews. Do you seriously believe anyone chanting with them checks that the Jew they're about to attack is actually an Israeli, let alone in the IDF? Of course they'd simply claim that since Israel has universal conscription, any Israeli is a "fair target". Changing the word doesn't make it not antisemitism. That's how dogwhistles work. Qualiesin (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

your POV is already represented in the article. the alternative POV should also be represented in the article, per wikipedia policy about NPOV. Rainsage (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These assertions appear to be your personal opinions and impressions, which are immaterial per WP:Verifiability and WP:OR. إيان (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) Maxwell Friedman assaulting Israeli student - While still terrible & a crime, I don't see anything in the source explicitly referring to this as antisemitic/motivated by the victim being Jewish + the hate crime charge was dismissed. Do we have any more in-depth coverage of this incident to better support/solidify its inclusion?

2) March of the Living protest - Neither source describes the protests as antisemitic in their own words & the president of an association of Palestinians in Poland, Omar Faris, was quoted in the article saying "Through this protest we want to say that we bow down to the victims of the Holocaust too," and "At the same time, we demand an end to war, an end to genocide." At best, I think we should attribute this to the people quoted in the Telegraph.

3) Alleged WhatsApp assassination plot - Besides the issue that the reported plot would've targeted Israelis, not specifically Jews, this article is pure hearsay coming from a single person without evidence. There's no way to verify these allegations & neither the police nor the festival organizers contacted seemed to find these serious allegations actionable.

4) Israel Katz's description of Greta Thunberg - I don't think spurious remarks from politicians like this carry due weight. Unless we have some sort of follow up/secondary coverage, I don't see how this incident stands out as any more significant then other accusations from politicians. If this is to remain though, I'm not sure it should be categorized under Sweden. I get that Greta is Swedish, but she wasn't even in Sweden at the time. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) Agree.

2) Agree. We should also mention what the protesters say about their own motives for NPOV

3) Agree. Also, Jerusalem Post is not the best source for AI conflict stuff per WP:JERUSALEMPOST

4) I'm not sure. There are plenty of incidents in this article that are included because public figures stated it was anti-semitic even if the alleged perpetrator did not explicitly indicate that they had anti-Jewish motives. E.g. Bobby Vylan chanting "Death to the IDF" or the 2025 Capital Jewish Museum shooting Rainsage (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both Bob Vylan & the museum shooting have received a wide range of coverage in relation to antisemitism relating to the Gaza War that I think they're worth inclusion here - opposing interpretations &/or refutations can then be included as necessary.

The remark towards Greta Thunberg however doesn't have as much coverage & is similar in substance to several dozen other remarks made by Israeli politicians over the past ~2 years. That's why I was wondering why this one specifically was due for inclusion. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious accusations of antisemitism have been a major element of discourses on antisemitism during the Gaza war, with institutions and governments formally expanding the meaning of antisemitism to include criticism of Israel with their adoption of the IHRA defition or similar, and therefore must be included in this page.

Israel Katz, Israeli minister of defense, accusing the activist Greta Thunberg of antisemitism for attempting to break Israel's blockade is well documented and notable, and if it is similar to many other remarks by Israeli politicians during the Gaza war, legitimate or not, then it represents a trend that should not be omitted from this article. إيان (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I'm not advocating for the removal of spurious accusations as a whole from this page, rather my questioning on this matter was more in regards to why this one, specifically, would be independently significant.

To better convey my point, we could theoretically compile these types of incidents in one section to reflect their collective notability, with this as a given example, rather then potentially adding/arguing over every individual such accusation.

It would also satisfy my other issue, which is that the incident didn't occur in Sweden, but is listed as such because Greta is Swedish. Public statements towards an individual like this aren't strictly connected to a location, neither would incidents online.

I acknowledge this is a rather crude proposal & I don't think it should be directly implemented as I've written it. However, I wanted to gauge if this was something others saw as a potential issue or if it's simply something that bugs me personally & no one else minds. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Put the other ones in too, if you’re aware of them and have sources. Spurious accusations are widespread, and some sources describe them as illegitimate while others don’t, so isolating them in a section wouldn’t be a straightforward task. What we need is a comprehensive introduction that orients the reader with regard to this and other matters. إيان (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed moving New antisemitism → Anti-Zionism as antisemitism. Please feel free to join the discussion and share your thoughts. إيان (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this source useful?

• Ozer, Simon; Obaidi, Milan; Bergh, Robin (2025). "The impact of globalized conflicts: Examining attitudes toward Jews among Britons in the political context of the war in Gaza". International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 107. Elsevier BV: 102184. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2025.102184. ISSN 0147-1767.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)

BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bobfrombrockley, regarding your recent edits, I’m not sure what you’ve done, but you appear to have removed the information necessary for WP:NPOV from view. Please fix it. إيان (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not removed any information. I moved it from the lead to the body for the reason I gave in my edit summary: it is not in the body and therefore should not be in the lead, and it refers specifically to the US. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, by the way, it would not be NPOV to give equal weight in the lead to denial of antisemitism mentioned in a few sources when such an overwhelming number of sources talk about its reality, just as it would not be NPOV to give equal weight in the lead of an article about Black lives matter to All lives matter critics, or to give equal weight in an article about the Gaza genocide to the minority to say it is not a genocide. Due weight is dependent on the weight given by preponderance of reliable sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In which section/subsection of the body are you under the impression you placed it? I don’t see it. إيان (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

USA (last paragraph of Overview). BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you put it all the way down there? Were you under the impression that it is limited to the US? It's global and quite well documented—it should not be swept under the rug. Per reliable sources, debates about the definition of antisemitism and the exploitation of the accusation of antisemitism by Israel and its supporters to silence criticism of Israel and quell solidarity with Palestine have been dominant features of the matter of antisemitism during the Gaza war. It belongs in the introduction. إيان (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I missed this response and took my eyes of this article. I see that subsequently this material was all re-added to the lead, although I don't see the consensus established to justify that. When I made the edit, 100% of the content that I moved related to the US: of the 11 footnotes in the paragraph starting "The distinction between", 10 are completely US-specific. In the version of this paragraph now in the lead, which now substantially replicates a paragraph in the US section but in the lead doesn't limit its claim to the US, only three of footnotes 17-30 are not wholly US-specific.

We now have a lead that has one short paragraph summarising the body, followed by one longer paragraph saying the contents of the body are problematic, and which is extremely US-centric. That's very far from NPOV. I really don't see how anyone can think that mention of Canary Mission is due in the lead of this article, for example. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, there's one paragraph (pre-dating my October edit, so long-standing) in the US section, the one starting "Accusations that Israel is committing genocide" that is not US-specific and so doesn't belong in this section. But I don't see where in the current article structure it might belong - perhaps the contested stuff in the lead and that should be combined to create a new section on "debates" near the end? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see consensus against it. BRD was followed and no other user has expressed objection. Longstanding content is generally considered to have consensus by virtue of not having been removed. I think there's a policy for this but I don't know the link.

The US is home to 6-7 million Jews—over 40% of world Jewry—and people from around the world that study or work at its universities. Canary Mission is affects Canada. The material is of magnitude and influence and thoroughly due for the introduction. إيان (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure BRD wasn't followed. As far as I can see, إيان, you Boldly added a load of content to the lead (with no edit summary). I quickly partially Reverted, moving the new content out of the lead to the body. You initiated a Discussion: this thread. So far, so BRD. However, you did not secure consensus: you did not persuade me and no other editor commented. Therefore, your new content should not have gone back in the lead. But you unilaterally restored the content to the lead, with an edit summary misleadingly saying "Per talk", so now the content was in the article twice, both in the lead and in the body. So: please remove it from the lead while we discuss and see if you can secure consensus, unless my account is wrong. (You're right longstanding content is assumed to have consensus by default, but this is not longstanding unopposed content.)

Yes, 40% of world Jewry live in the US; 60% don't. Per WP:WORLDVIEW, we have a duty to provide a global encyclopedic account of our topic, not a US-centric one. We now have two mentions of the ADL in the lead, plus mentions of trivial North American advocacy organisations Heritage Foundation and Canary Mission, which I really cannot believe you think are actually central to understanding antisemitism in the post-2023 period.

I'm looking again at the current lead, and it's worse than I even noticed. I've removed some refs which are used to make claims about the 2023+ period that were published long before, and now I notice that there are claims about the IHRA which aren't supported by the refs. I'm going to trim some of this now. It simply isn't NPOV to use the lead to deny the importance of the topic. The lead of Anti-Palestinian racism during the Gaza war (rightly) doesn't include a paragraph saying what Zionist activists think of the concept of anti-Palestinian racism, and the same neutral style should be used here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, any comments on the para that starts with genocide and ends with blood libel, currently in the US section, are welcome. I propose to move that out of the US section, but not sure where it ought to go. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD: when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion, but be sure to avoid engaging in any kind of edit warring.

Compare the two diffs you provided. You will find they are substantially different, per your talk page complaint that the content was too US-centric for an article with a global scope, though nearly a half of all Jews worldwide live in the US and are directly affected, and those who don't are surely indirectly affected. After which, there was no further contest.

The lead of Anti-Palestinian racism during the Gaza war (rightly) doesn't include a paragraph saying what Zionist activists think of the concept of anti-Palestinian racism, and the same neutral style should be used here. If the Palestinians were conducting genocide with the aid of their allies,[6] and if the Palestinians and their allies were employing accusations of anti-Palestinian racism as part of their strategy to shield themselves from criticism,[7][8] and if allies of the Palestinians were promulgating a definition of anti-Palestinian racism that conflated it with criticisms of Palestinian state/policy/the genocide it were conducting,[9], and if all of this had robust coverage in WP:RS, then it should certainly appear prominently in the introduction of that article. إيان (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On your first point, I don’t see a difference of substance between the two edits, apart from that second one leaves the material in the USA section as well as adding it to the link. There are a couple of additional references to non-US examples, including two with publication dates before 2023 so not supporting the content. The new final section of the lead wasn’t supported by the footnotes. You didn’t mention it on the talk page and explain that it responded to the concerns raised. As I’ve already said, it’s just silly to include the Heritage Foundation and Canary Mission in the lead of an article about global antisemitism in this period.

On your second point, Israel committing genocide is not due in the lead here, any more than Hamas’ genocidal rhetoric is due in the lead of the anti-Palestinian racism article. The opinions of Pappe about “lobbying” are no more due in this lead than the parallel opinions of Zionist and right-wing scholars and activists[10][11][12][13][14][15] are due in that article. My strong belief is the lead should be framed from a neutral point of view and not be formulated so as to deny the form of racism the article is about.

Obviously it would be good to hear other edotis' editors' views too BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that the mention of Canary Mission hinges entirely on a passing mention in the Intelligencer: According to court documents unsealed in early July, intelligence analysts at the Department of Homeland Security assembled dossiers on more than 75 pro-Palestinian students and scholars based on identifications made by Canary Mission, the ultraright pro-Israel website. I don't think this even supports the claim we currently make, but definitely makes the content undue for the lead. As a compromise solution, I am going to remove that sentence from the lead, ensuring all the links and content are fully present in the US section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not sure which paragraph you're referring to with the para that starts with genocide and ends with blood libel. If you could copy paste it here, we can discuss it. إيان (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The non-US para in the US section is this one: Accusations that Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza strip as part of the ongoing war have increased since it began, with human rights organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both accusing Israel of genocide in late 2024.[288][289] Some commentators have said that such accusations can be antisemitic. The novelist and historian of antisemitism Dara Horn said that there has been a proliferation of "fact-resistant slogans that demonize Jews" since October 7 across America, offering the example of "Genocide supporters!". Horn called these accusations "recycled from medieval blood libels and KGB talking points".[290] Genocide accusations have been criticized in strong terms as a kind of "blood libel".[291][292][293] BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this out into a new "International" section. I don't think that's controversial. I put that before "Africa" but it could equally go at the end. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Description of suggested change: Removal of Egyptian incident, or the clarification about the circumstances of the Egyptian incident and the adding of the Oct. 8th incident which does seem anti-semitic (or at least, xenophobic) No sources, except for the ToI (which itself has a history of muddying anti-Semitism) have described the incident as racist, the murder may be more incidental or generally motivated (general xenophobia, foreign ownership, wealth), and there have been cases of Jihadist or hate groups claiming incidents that are not their own as being motivated by their rhetoric.

Diff:

MagiTagi (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Since the removal of the killing of Kipper is potentially controversial, a consensus will be required first. I note that the paragraph is sourced to BBC News and Reuters in addition to The Times of Israel. You have not provided any sources for the October 8 incident. Day Creature (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Oct 8th incident is within the same ToI source, here is another

Also like I said fairly clearly, the attack did happen and is cited, but it's anti-semitism is made by only one of the three sources, by a source that has muddied antisemitism before, I support a consensus vote if necessary. MagiTagi (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying and providing the additional source. Since the labeling of either or both of these incidents as antisemitic is potentially contentious, I'm not comfortable adding or removing anything without a consensus first. Day Creature (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not familiar, can you redirect me to sources on how to start a consensus vote if possible? MagiTagi (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is reached through discussion (not voting), but regrettably as a non-extended confirmed editor you are unable to start or participate in discussions concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict. See WP:PIA for more information. Day Creature (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I forgot, tbf this is a pretty minor incident that isn't worth fretting over. MagiTagi (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]