Talk:Three Ds of antisemitism/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Three Ds of antisemitism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Essay tag and off topic content
190.19.191.116 I placed an 'essay tag' on the article, which you removed. I don't doubt that much/most/all of the content is sourced, what I doubted is that it is about the '3D test'. Whole paragraphs are about the distinction between anti-Israelism and antisemitism, with sources that do not mention the test at all, these are not presented as 'background, but rather part of the subject. To that extent the article, as written, is about ways of making that distinction, inc 3D. Possibly such an article should exist, I have no view, however it should not masquerade as being about the test. This is what is called WP:Coatrack. It is also fairly bad manners to remove a tag without discussion on talk, for that reason I intend to restore the tag until other editors have offered their opinion as to whether it is legitimate.Pincrete (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
A specific example is Professor Irwin Cotler, a leading scholar of human rights, has said that "we’ve got to set up certain boundaries of where it [criticism of Israel] does cross the line, because I’m one of those who believes strongly, not only in free speech, but also in rigorous debate, and discussion, and dialectic, and the like. If you say too easily that everything is anti-Semitic, then nothing is anti-Semitic, and we no longer can make distinctions. Engage – the anti-racist campaign against antisemitism. This source does not mention the test at all. Also, the full interview is available as a source, rather than its re-posting.
It may be that the 'essay' tag is not the most appropriate, I was unsure, however chose that as the closest. Pincrete (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Turkish settlers
I removed their mention from the article because:
- The is a fundamental difference with Northern Cyprus in the existence of the long-established Turkish Cypriot population and the split of the island. The Turkish military is never in contact with the overwhelming majority of Greek Cypriots, unlike in Morocco and Israel.
- The number of Turkish settlers is, in fact, debated. The source listed doesn't say how many Turkish settlers there are, nor if they outnumber the "native population". Assessments of the number of settlers is completely speculative, but never alleged to be equal or bigger than Greek Cypriots in the South.
- It is unclear wether this text is referring to turkish cypriots or greek Cypriots as the "native population". Clarifying this aspect to it would make its argument fall apart.
- The source listed doesn't talk about the three Ds of antisemitism, calling into question if lack of criticism of Turkey is really part of the test. Mottezen (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- The source explicitly, and repeatedly, refers to both Morocco and Turkey. So your first three points are not relevant. If your fourth point has any validity, you should have removed the reference entirely. Instead, you chose to retain it insofar as it referred to the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara. but simply removed the reference to the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus. So it is hard to view this as a good faith argument. Please stop edit-warring to remove any implied criticism of Turkey, and instead try to convince editors that this reference should be removed. RolandR (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- @RolandR: Don't assume I play defense for Turkey, I don't. Please strike out your sentence where you fail to WP:AGF, and then consider the validity of point 2 and 3. A better source is needed for this whole section indeed Mottezen (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- The source explicitly, and repeatedly, refers to both Morocco and Turkey. So your first three points are not relevant. If your fourth point has any validity, you should have removed the reference entirely. Instead, you chose to retain it insofar as it referred to the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara. but simply removed the reference to the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus. So it is hard to view this as a good faith argument. Please stop edit-warring to remove any implied criticism of Turkey, and instead try to convince editors that this reference should be removed. RolandR (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I removed the whole discussion on settlers from the "Main concepts" section as the sources on the 3D test don't talk about this settlers question and the sources on this controversy doesn't talk about the 3D test, let alone antisemitism. Mottezen (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
worth a page ?
This is interesting but not sure it has any encyclopedic value. In addition is there a connection between the delegitimation and double standards criteria ie several states or who-be states have their right to exist questionned eg the Basque state, Catalonia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and of course Palestine. Is there an -ism involved in each of those cases or does Israel get a different standard ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.163.59 (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)