Talk:Jews and Israelis as animals in Palestinian discourse

Rats and mice revert

@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)

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. Zero^talk 14:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. Zero^talk 01:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

You missed one

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)

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)

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)

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)

Historical and cultural background

@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)

Did you know nomination

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

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that several variants of a Palestinian children's song contain the phrase "the Jews are our dogs"?

• 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>

• • ALT1: ... that when Hamas took responsibility for the 1995 Beit Lid suicide bombing it said that it had killed and injured 20 pigs and 60 monkeys? Source: Oliver, Anne Marie; Steinberg, Paul F. (2006-04-27). The Road to Martyrs' Square: A Journey into the World of the Suicide Bomber. Oxford University Press. pp. 101–102. ISBN 978-0-19-802756-0.
  • Reviewed:

Created by Vegan416 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

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

• 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. Zero^talk 13:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. Zero^talk 08:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

• Did you know about this Israeli song? Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

How is this relevant to this DYK suggestion? Vegan416 (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

Please explain why do you think so.Vegan416 (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• @AirshipJungleman29: Without bringing up the article content concerns, would rejecting ALT0 and only allowing ALT1 solve the issue? There do seem to be strong objections from multiple editors against ALT0. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • No, that's probably worse. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Unless a new hook is proposed that can get editorial consensus, there does not seem to be a path forward for this nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

The reasoning—that they fall on the wrong side of "excessively controversial and sensational"—has been given, and backed up by WP:CONSENSUS from multiple editors. Yes, that is partly subjective—that is an essential premise of DYK reviewing, as outlined at the top of WP:DYKCRIT. It has been more than a week, and as no new hooks have been proposed, I am marking this nomination as rejected. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

AfD?

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)

• 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)

Garbage article. Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

LOL. Very well reasoned criticism. Can you explain why? Vegan416 (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)