Searching for "antisemitism" on this meta site finds 30+ mentions of it. If it were a tag, it would be more numerous than the tag. Although the search for shows 49 results and a numbers of questions about possible bugs which are not tagged as . There are 15 questions tagged . And 20 questions tagged .
Not really sure what to make of all of this:

Keyword Search Results Search Results by # of Q's (is:q) Tags
antisemitism 30 14 0
racism 50 21 0
discrimination 33 12 0
267 77 15

While I understand wanting to use neutral language, we should probably agree that a lot of the times when people come to read the meta site, it's because they see something wrong and want to either gripe about it or read what others have to say about it.

And if they are motivated by accusations or by an indignation, then the less evocative tag, like , simply isn't what they have in mind for the content that they want to engage with.

  • 1
    Tags are only used on questions. Use is:q in the search to get the number of questions about ... The numbers provided are overstated. The numbers are: antisemitism 14, racism 21, discrimination 12, and bias 77.
    – Rick Smith
    Commented Mar 12 at 13:32
  • @RickSmith interesting. I'll add it as a separate column.
    – wrod
    Commented Mar 12 at 13:57
  • 4
    Maybe it's just because I'm feeling under the weather, but I really don't understand what the point you're trying to make here is. The bias tag "seems like a failure" because... why exactly? What are these numbers intended to demonstrate?
    – F1Krazy
    Commented Mar 12 at 14:10
  • @F1Krazy because it's was meant to encompass the other 3, but it doesn't seem to be applied to questions which ask about the other 3. It's not even applied to questions about bias itself. It doesn't seem like people think of "bias" as the concept that's under the discussion when it is the concept under the discussion. Which makes it a poor choice for an all-encompassing tag.
    – wrod
    Commented Mar 12 at 14:14
  • 1
    What exactly do you think needs to be done here?
    – Joe W
    Commented Mar 12 at 15:19
  • @JoeW I don't know. I would like to see "antisemitism" and "racism" be their own tags, but I can see why people maybe reluctant to have them. If someone is asking why something is deemed to be one of those, while thinking that they are not, they maybe reluctant to use those tags because their presence would suggest the opposite of the point they try to make. But the solution, of having a neutral "bias" tag, is clearly not working.
    – wrod
    Commented Mar 12 at 15:27
  • 1
    Is there anything to suggest that is the purpose of the bias tag?
    – Joe W
    Commented Mar 12 at 15:36
  • @JoeW well, this discussion seemed to suggest rolling "racism" and "antisemitism" under discrimination. Given that the meta site doesn't have "racism", "antisemitism", "discrimination", "bigotry" tags, it seems to me (after looking at the list of tags which are present) that "bias" is the only related tag which the site currently uses to make these questions classified under a somewhat relevant category.
    – wrod
    Commented Mar 12 at 15:44
  • That question seems to be referring to the main site and not the meta site but regardless if you are using that as a point of reference it should be in your question
    – Joe W
    Commented Mar 12 at 16:23
  • I removed the antisemitism and racism tags from this question as they are being discussed and not relevant on the question.
    – Joe W
    Commented Mar 12 at 16:28
  • "is the only related tag". There's also a 'neutrality' tag FWTW. politics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/neutrality Commented Mar 13 at 11:29

1 Answer 1


I would like to see "antisemitism" and "racism" be their own tags

So, apparently I've successfully created those tags. Now which questions should be so [re-]tagged is up to you.

  • I don't know if that is the goal of the question as they have the ability to create tags if they want to as it just requires 150 reputation to do it. I think they are looking to get an idea on what others think instead of just creating the tags on their own judgement. And we shouldn't be creating tags unless there is a question to use it on.
    – Joe W
    Commented Mar 12 at 16:25
  • @JoeW: FWTW I've tagged a couple of obvious Qs from the past few days. Commented Mar 12 at 16:27
  • 1
    I second that. antisemitism isn't, really, treated like other forms of abuse per CoD. Nor should it be. Additionally, I for one think the term is being weaponised, by a minority, to shut down and harass those disagreeing with Israeli government policies on this site, even when there is no racial or religious animus expressed in those disagreements. For both those reasons - it being extra abusive (and, deservedly, resulting in harsher penalties), and it being abused, I think it is well worth tagging on its own. Commented Mar 12 at 16:43
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica, why should antisemitism result in harsher penalties than other forms of abuse based on religion or race?
    – Ben Cohen
    Commented Mar 12 at 23:16
  • I seriously hope that that is not what is currently happening.
    – Ben Cohen
    Commented Mar 12 at 23:16
  • @BenCohen I think we, at least Western countries, have very good historical reason to be extremely vigilant towards antisemitism. All racism is bad, but in our societies antisemitism has been a long time cancer. I just don't like it being abused to harass people without any guardrails. And many organizations will have guidelines towards racism and antisemitism, which means they don't just subsume the second into the first. Commented Mar 12 at 23:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .