Talk:2023 United States Congress hearing on antisemitism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2023 United States Congress hearing on antisemitism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Stop: You may only use this page to create an edit request

This page is related to a topic subject to the extended-confirmed restriction. You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.)

Administrators may disregard the above message.
You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If administrator}}. You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page: .ECR-edit-request-warning { display: none; }

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a contentious topic.

The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:

All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours (except in limited circumstances)
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)

Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Jewish history Low‑importance

	Judaism portal 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.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: District of Columbia / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress 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.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) events(s).

Wikipedia:Notability Important Congressional hearing.

Widely reported in WP:RS sources such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, ABC News, NBC, POLITICO etc, of which over 20 WP:RS are cited here. RogerYg (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the most widely reported hearings in the National & International media, with Google having over 1000 news articles on this topic, and it is the most viewed Congressional Hearing in Human History with over 1 billion views. With over 20 High quality WP:RS Sources in this article, Notability notice is not appropraite. RogerYg (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing section - Discuss before major edits

Important well-cited details should not be deleted without any strong reason, and TALK page discussion. The Content is from High quality WP:RS sources. The quoted exact question is an essential detail of this hearing, and there is no strong reason to delete it. RogerYg (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the quote from Kornbluth in context that introduced that line of questioning, and a more prominent link to the full transcript. A specific quote could go elsewhere in the section. – SJ + 23:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yes the specific quote can go in the next paragraph. RogerYg (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality notice is no longer required in my opinion

While there is still a non-insignificant degree of bias against the people claiming that antisemitism is as pervasive as it is in my opinion, the notice on neutrality is no longer appropriate in my opinion. FortunateSons (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the neutrality notice should be removed, as no editor has provided sufficient grounds to prove a bias in this article. This article is quite neutral, factual and balanced. RogerYg (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly antisemitism because the left was attacking Jews... not Zionists, not Israelis, but simply Jews for being Jewish. Like it or not Jews born and raised in the United States are Americans, they have both positive and negative views on Israel like all Americans are entitled to have. The left targeting them because of something happening in a totally different country is targeting them based on religion is antiSemitism. And the response of the colleges, by allowing attacks and threats on a minority group while punishing nonviolent speech on behalf of another also plays to antisemitism. 2601:246:5A83:D090:31E3:59DD:F0D2:45E7 (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC) restriction relevant to I/P apply, so this kind of editing is not permitted for those who are not extended confirmed FortunateSons (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting minor bias in the article

Some statements are qualified beyond the required degree, such as claims regarding antisemitism. Additionally, the aftermath section requires some extension in my opinion. Is there a reason to disagree? FortunateSons (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree that you are "in good faith" trying to provide a more cautious & neutral language for the claims. I am okay with it. Generally Wikipedia should reflect the sourced content even on such claims, though we should have multiple sources to have a balanced article. RogerYg (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing some past edits

Some of the past edits do not appear impartial, such as the removal of some sections regarding the publicity and the removal from “incitement to genocide”. Could those edits please be explained or reversed? FortunateSons (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you mention some more details on the edits, so we can have better discussion.RogerYg (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-some of the context removed by SJ on 12.19

-Special:Contributions/31.167.245.26 on 12.18 FortunateSons (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly, the removal from „incitement to genocide“ is very questionable FortunateSons (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 January 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This line not neutral

This became a conservative talking point, described by some commentators as adding to more general right-wing attacks on higher education.

The sources it cites are of a specific, biased, opinion

A more neutral statement would be:

This was highlighted by some conservative commentators and framed by others as part of broader critiques of higher education

StorG (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addition information on my edit request

Thank you for reviewing my request. I'd like to clarify why the proposed revision aligns better with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy and request reconsideration based on these points:

Current Language Lacks Neutrality

The phrase, "This became a conservative talking point, described by some commentators as adding to more general right-wing attacks on higher education," uses subjective language that could be interpreted as a judgment. Specifically:

The term "talking point" can carry a dismissive connotation, suggesting coordination or lack of authenticity in the argument.
The phrase "adding to more general right-wing attacks on higher education" frames the criticism in an implicitly negative light and as part of a larger ideological campaign. While this perspective might be valid for some commentators, it risks editorializing unless clearly attributed.

Proposed Revision is More Neutral

My suggested phrasing—"This was highlighted by some conservative commentators and framed by others as part of broader critiques of higher education"—avoids judgmental language and adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines for attributing opinions clearly without editorial bias. This revision ensures:

Opinions are attributed specifically to the commentators making them.
Neutral framing that does not implicitly endorse or dismiss the criticism.

Sources Provided are Not Fully Balanced

The cited sources primarily reflect specific editorial perspectives that emphasize the criticism as part of "right-wing attacks." To maintain a balanced presentation per NPOV, the text should clearly indicate that these views represent the interpretations of the commentators cited, rather than asserting them as fact.

Policy Alignment

Wikipedia's NPOV policy emphasizes:

"Articles must not take sides but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias."
"Assertions about opinions should specify whose opinions they are."

The current language does not sufficiently meet these criteria but can be improved with the proposed revision.

Request: I kindly ask for a reevaluation of this edit in light of the above. If additional sources are necessary to support this change, I am happy to collaborate to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's sourcing policies.

Thank you for your consideration. --StorG (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WTF

WTF does the infobox have a pic of the head of the hearing? Are her shills trying to give her exposure for political gain? 2604:3D08:5E7A:6A00:5537:3424:A460:80A0 (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]