Talk:New antisemitism

Archive 1

Archive 2

Flannery section

See Talk:New antisemitism/Flannery Section

Mediation

See Talk:New antisemitism/MediationFebruary2007

Defamatory Caricatures

File:Ariel Sharon by Latuff.jpg

From the Carlos Latuff - Ariel Sharon (Israeli PM) series.

i'm interested in adding to the size of the defamatory caricatures (perhaps create a subsection for it) and introduce this one when the article is open for editing:

Jaakobou 10:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

These cartoons appear to be vicious and nasty attacks on Ariel Sharon. Their connection to antisemitism is not clear. I have seen many cartoons which depict political figures as monsters, regardless of their religion or ethnicity. Andrew Levine 01:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Do you have a reliable source that says that those cartoons are an example of "new asntisemitism"? // Liftarn

Donald Rumsfeld compared Hugo Chávez to Hitler and nobody talked about "anti-Venezuelanism". The US imposes a selective boycott on Cuba, but not on Saudi Arabia, whose human rights violations are far worse, and no one talks about "anti-Cubanism." Count me among those who are unclear that the Sharon cartoons are intrinsically antisemitic.--Abenyosef 02:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

GA nom

I'm tempted to fail this nomination as this article is being rocked by edit warring (I'm really surprised to see such an active discussion); it looks nowhere the stability required in WP:WIAGA (criteria 5). However, I don't like to pass/fail articles, so I'll let someone else judge. It may die down by the time that someone gets around to look over it. Hbdragon88 05:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I assumed the undated GA nominee template was left over from the previous nomination. —Ashley Y 06:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't going off the GAC list - I just got here and saw that a {{GAnominee}} template. Did someone fail it and forget to replace it with {{FailedGA}}? Hbdragon88 06:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a FailedGA as well as the GAnominee. —Ashley Y 06:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah. It was nominated on 21 February 2007 [1] and has not yet been acted on. Hbdragon88 06:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ashley, please answer this question ...

... because this is the third time I've asked it. I've looked at the David Aaronovitch article [2] you offered as a source for the term "new antisemitism" being used purely as a pejorative political term, but I can't see where he says that. Can you give us the quote, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I can hardly take you seriously after you misrepesented me on this topic. In any case, since Category:Pejorative political terms has been deleted, this discussion is moot. All that's left is questions about bad-faith behaviour, which are better discussed on user talk pages than here. —Ashley Y 19:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Category

So given that Category:Pejorative political terms is moot, should we put this article in Category:Political terms? —Ashley Y 21:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In what sense is it a political term, Ashley? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. In what sense is it not a political term? Particularly since it describes something that is "coming from three political directions: the political left, far-right, and Islamism"? Dino 21:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to establish whether it was just "pejorative" (and not "political term") that was being objected to earlier, but kept getting disrupted. But will we need reliable sources that claim that it is a political term, or is it as you suggest obvious? —Ashley Y 21:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In light of all the accusations that have been made lately, I want to make it clear that I have nothing but the greatest respect for everyone on this Talk page and their political and religious beliefs. But really, why must every square inch of this article become a battlefield? Let's all put away our rhetorical daggers, have a nice cup of coffee (or tea, or glass of wine) and decompress. Smoke 'em if you get 'em. Dino 22:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "political term," Ashley? Is "racism" a political term, for example? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Something with a particular meaning not ordinarily implied by the words. In this case, does "new antisemitism" refer to any new antisemitism, or is it a term that refers to a particular "wave"? A simple test: can it be replaced with "recent antisemitism", or would that be a different term? —Ashley Y 22:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As has been explained before, old-style (traditional theological or pseudo-"biological") antisemitism isn't generally relevant to this article, no matter how recently it has occurred -- unless, of course, there's an apparent meeting of ideological opposites or a paradoxical convergence of long-term political enemies based on a commonality of Jew-hating (in which case old-school anti-semitism may then become relevant to new style antisemitism). AnonMoos 22:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I find it fascinating that the viciously racist (thankfully tiny) organizations of the far right, such as Stormfront.org, have started buying headscarves that are marketed by left-wingers in the colors of the Palestinian flag, showing their solidarity with anti-Zionism. "A paradoxical convergence of long-term political enemies, based on a commonality of Jew-hating"? Could it be possible? Dino 23:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Does "new antisemitism" refer particularly to this phenomenon, implying characteristics not shared with earlier expressions of antisemitism, or is it synonymous with, say, "recent antisemitism"? —Ashley Y 23:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not synonymous with "recent antisemitism". As has been explained before, old-style (traditional theological or pseudo-"biological") antisemitism isn't generally relevant to this article, no matter how recently it has occurred -- unless, of course, there's an apparent meeting of ideological opposites or a paradoxical convergence of long-term political enemies based on a commonality of Jew-hating (in which case old-school anti-semitism may then become relevant to new style antisemitism). AnonMoos 00:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that would depend on who's using the term. Intent and state of mind ... Dino 23:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, as used in the article? —Ashley Y 23:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, there appears to be more than one school of thought, illustrated by the burgeoning number of thoughtful-looking scholars whose portraits now adorn the article. Dino 23:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'd like to say that this is a splendid article. Lovely layout with the quotations and photos, very nicely researched and sourced, with good neutral encyclopedic language throughout. A fine candidate for GA review. It would be a shame if we blew it by infighting, and losing on the "stable content" technicality, wouldn't it? Dino 23:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

So some scholars are using a political term with a specific meaning, and other simply mean "recent antisemitism", then? Is that correct? Are the scholars talking about two different things, albeit related? —Ashley Y 23:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Yes" to the first and second questions; "No" to the third. (Just my opinion of course.) I believe that in many cases the "old antisemitism" mutated into something more virulent. It isn't "old antisemitism" making a more recent appearance; it's something different, and more cunning. It camouflages itself as a "progressive" sympathy with the "noble struggles" of the Palestinian people against their "imperialist oppressors," who just happen to be Jews. What a coincidence.

And it is so very stylish, in certain academic circles, to substitute the word "Zionist" or perhaps "Likudnik" for "Jew" and say whatever bigoted thing one has always wanted to say. Dino 04:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only in academic circles, but on Wikipedia too. An editor who has posted a lot of criticism of "Zionists" recently e-mailed me to say "It will be great pleasure to kill you, hope to See you soon you mother fucker dirty filthy Jew," and "You are a little worm! That is why people hate the Jews, you are a bunch of dirty worms and hopefully we get rid of all of you soon." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely arbitrary & capricious section break #1

So do you think that this article should cover specifically this "something more virulent", or should it widen to any recent antisemitism (which may not have the cunning differences and the camouflage and so on)? —Ashley Y 04:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a complex issue. For some people who express antisemitic beliefs, or vandalize Jewish cemeteries, "old antisemitism" may be the most accurate term. For others, who express anti-Zionism as a thinly disguised expression of hatred for Jews, "new antisemitism" might be a better fit. I'm not enough of a student of social and political trends to be comfortable with any generalizations.

On another note, the use of more than four colons to indent one's post can make the page difficult to read for someone with impaired vision. They tend to use a "large type" setting on their Windows control panels and, as a result, a post that was indented with seven or eight colons becomes a column of words strung up along the right-hand side of the screen. I've tried to remove such colons where possible, while leaving enough to clearly distinguish between people's posts with the "stairstepping" effect. I hope no one objects. I'm just trying to make the page more readable for those with impaired vision. If any of you is willing to help by limiting your use of these annoying colons, I'd appreciate it. Dino 18:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to make another point, if I may. Suppose the "anti-Zionists" get what they want. In fact, suppose they get everything they could possibly wish for. Suppose all foreign aid from the United States to Israel is cut off and the UN revokes Israel's right to exist, declaring that their very presence on the land they now occupy is a violation of international law, enforceable under the authority of Article VII of the UN Charter (the article which authorizes the use of military force).

Does anyone believe for a moment that every Jew in Israel would quietly get on a plane for Palm Beach? Does anyone believe for a moment that they would even be allowed to do so if they were inclined? They would be immediately attacked; and they would defend their land to the last bullet.

Once that last bullet is expended, the uninterrupted history of Palestinian attacks that deliberately targeted Israeli women and children should be able to predict for you what would happen next. So don't let anyone claim that "anti-Zionism" has nothing to do with "antisemitism." If they got their way the result would rival the Holocaust. Dino 18:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OK! But, um, to get back to the "political term" issue, you seem to be saying that "old antisemitism" and "new antisemitism" are indeed political terms. Is that correct? If this article were titled "recent antisemtism" instead of "new antisemitism", would that be just as good? (Not that I'm suggesting moving it.)

People have mucked about with my comments so much I'm not sure what to think. But I'm happy to stop at four colons. Also I can outdent back to the same level as an earlier comment of mine rather than indent to your indent, if you prefer. —Ashley Y 21:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the rant there. Like stray Rottweiler puppies, people often adopt ideas that seem warm and fuzzy, without considering what those ideas will be like when they grow up. Think these things through to their logical conclusion.

But, um, to get back to the "political term" issue, you seem to be saying that "old antisemitism" and "new antisemitism" are indeed political terms. Is that correct?

Well yes, of course. The lead of the article acknowledges that "new antisemitism" has been "coming from three political directions: the political left, far-right, and Islamism." And although my edit to the article indicates that the origins of what we now call "old antisemitism" go back thousands of years, before we developed the political concepts of "right" and "left," it was often associated with the political right in the past couple of centuries.

Stairstepping the comments back and forth seems to work. It clearly distinguishes between one post and the next without using too many indents. Thanks for your concern on that count. Dino 22:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely arbitrary & capricious section break #2

We can debate all we like whether "new antisemitism" is a political term. I concur with Ashley that the answer is obviously yes. The discursive context for virtually every invocation of "new antisemitism" is political debate about Israel/Palestine. Those who use the term or advocate for it all come from one "side" of the public debate about the I/P conflict; those who mistrust, critique, or dismiss the term all come from the other. Tell me your thoughts on "new antisemitism" and I'll tell you your politics on I/P. This is enough to settle the matter in my eyes.\

That black-and-white thinking shows how little you know about the subject. In fact, people on various sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict debate hold a range of nuanced views about NAS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Try to avoid the personal barbs, Slim, especially if you're still contemplating blanking my responses to them. I am well aware of the range of views and such nuance as exists within them. Indeed the range of verbs I used in my one-sentence overview – use, advocate, mistrust, critique, dismiss – were chosen precisely in order to convey that range and nuance (they succeed admirably at this, if I do say so myself). And in the paragraph below I give further examples of the subtle differences in opinion. In short, if you're seeing black-and-white you're not reading very carefully, or are color-blind. The point remains that all of these nuanced attitudes toward the term "new antisemitism" sort into two large categories – loosely speaking, approval and disapproval – which appear to be largely if not wholly determined by political orientation.--G-Dett 17:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no point in debating with you, because all you do is repeat yourself. I wonder whether you ever admit even the possibility that you're wrong about something. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

When you're editing this page, and being inundated by comments from a few of the "one-topic" editors that haunt it, it's always best to keep the template at the top of the page in mind. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The one about trolling? Indeed. Any chance either of you will consider the substantive point of the post you're interrupting?--G-Dett 18:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I simply have to say these attacks are completely ridiculous. Jay, I'm pretty sure what you and Slim are thinking about is the requirements for becoming a sysop on WP, not for whether someone's edits should be treated in good faith. Now, to be taken seriously, you're saying a person has to spend several hours a day here to show they're editing on many different subjects all at the same time? What is this, the last effort to dissuade absolutely anybody with expert knowledge from sharing it on WP?

Regarding the category, I'm simply indifferent, because I tend to dislike all of the extended categorization. I also think people overestimate the impact of a category at the bottom of the page. I'd probably put it somewhere like Category:Political_science_terms if anywhere. "Political theories" if there were a category might be suitable. These broadest of categories "Political terms" just tend to concern me across the board. Mackan79 15:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[comment interrupted; resuming from "This is enough to settle the matter in my eyes"] But if others dispute this, then we can't rely on common sense to settle the question, so we turn to WP:ATT. For the purposes of this article, it's a political term simply because many of our reliable sources describe it as such. For some, like Brian Klug, the phenomenon itself is a political one, for which "New Antisemitism" is a misnomer. For others like Finkelstein, the existence of the named thing is debatable, but the use of the term "New Antisemitism" in itself is a political phenomenon.

Slim asked if "racism" should similarly be listed in the category of political terms. The answer is no. Of course there can be and are plenty of politically-motivated accusations of racism, but the term itself has almost universal legitimacy, codified by extensive use over a long period of time, in a huge variety of discourses, and – crucially – with no particular overriding political context.

On the other hand, more specific terms such as "institutional racism," "environmental racism," "reverse racism," etc. could certainly be called political terms. They are indeed much more closely analogous to "new antisemitism," because each to some extent has a political view embedded within it; and in each of these cases, those who are opposed to that political view tend to dispute the validity of the term itself.

The fallacy to avoid here is thinking that a term isn't political simply because we share the political view embedded within it. I have deep reservations about the semantic legitimacy of "new antisemitism" as it's currently used, mild reservations about "reverse discrimination," none whatsover about "institutional racism." The reservations of others will distribute differently. But these are all political terms. Pretending that our own politics transcend politics is just, well, politics.--G-Dett 23:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As there appear to be no objections to the above, I've added the relevant category.--G-Dett 19:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The entire Talk: page above didn't disappear just because people weren't responding to your re-iterations of old arguments. Please find reliable sources which clearly indicate that "New antisemitism" is solely a "political term", keeping in mind that Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Jay, I challenge you to point me to anywhere on this page where my argument[3] was previously made and answered. I think you're bluffing. It would be easier to assume your good faith if it weren't for your unbelievable (in every sense) accusation of trolling. I posted a detailed case for NAS as a political term.[4] It was absolutely, entirely, unequivocally free of any trace of personal rancor or provocation. I even responded thoughtfully and in detail therein to a question Slim had asked and no one had yet answered. You dismissed this post as "trolling," and backed up Slim when she cut into it with a purely personal attack. Bear in mind that phony accusations of trolling are themselves a form of trolling, Jay. In any event, an editor of your experience should know better than to violate WP:PA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF in so gross a fashion. Please consider either engaging serious arguments in a serious way, on this page, or better yet, self-reverting your latest revert to the article itself.

Completely arbitrary & capricious section break #3

The one substantive point you've made to me in this exchange is your claim that for something to be listed as a political term it must be "solely" a political term. That's obviously false, Jay. Even a cursory look at the list ("Bottom feeder," "Ukrainian holocaust," "Lustration," "Lobbying," "Stalking Horse," "Heartland," "Ideology," "Talking Point") will tell you that.--G-Dett 19:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of arguing, please start attributing. And keep in mind, Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review the reliable sources we use in this article, Jay, and then review the second paragraph of the innocuous post that precipitated your personal attack and phony accusation of "trolling." That represents the tip of the iceberg; there is, as you well know, a wealth of reliable source material describing "new antisemitism" as a political term.--G-Dett 20:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure there are some people that claim it is. Not that you've actually quoted any of them. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're "sure" that there are indeed reliable sources describing the term "new antisemitism" as a political term, then what is it you're asking me for? What is the hold-up here? You want me to go fetch all those shiny colored easter eggs in plain view?--G-Dett 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely arbitrary & capricious section break #4

Did I say that? Don't you ever get tired to begging the question? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you that I should attribute, implying that I hadn't? Yes. Did you say that you were "sure" that the RS-material I said was there, was indeed there waiting to be attributed? Yes. Did you say anything about easter eggs? No. That was a metaphor.--G-Dett 21:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You haven't attributed, and I haven't said I was "sure" that there was RS material there. Some people does not mean reliable sources; two of the main people making that claim are you and Ashley Y. Read me carefully, quote me correctly, and stop making the fallacy of many questions. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I wrote that "there is, as you well know, a wealth of reliable source material describing "new antisemitism" as a political term," to which you responded, "Well, I'm sure there are some people that claim it is. Not that you've actually quoted any of them." Now you're saying the "them" in that last sentence means me and Ashley. That you were faulting me for not quoting myself and Ashley. You're not making any sense, Jay, and your high-horse has a lame leg.--G-Dett 22:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't you get bored? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes.--G-Dett 21:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Careful there, G-Dett. I've seen the same sort of subtle needling tempt a truly good writer into self-destruction. (Of course, it didn't help matters that he had a short fuse.) Step back from the brink, have a nice cup of tea, take a deep breath. Dino 21:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett still has only 162 edits to the encyclopedia in 10 months, yet thinks it's okay to spend his time abusing editors on talk pages. It's time to start creating and writing articles, instead of baiting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm flattered by your attentions, Slim, though I wish they took the form of substantive engagement rather than running edit-tallies and other surveillance. You're wrong, of course, that trying patiently to get clearance on talk pages for what should be minor common-sense improvements to articles constitutes "baiting." (It represents, rather, my unwavering respect for WP:Consensus even when I'm forced to deal with ideological edit-warriors with admin powers). You're right, though, that it's time to start creating and writing some articles. You'll be pleased to know I'm writing a batch of articles on H.R. 3077 (cum 509) and so-called "Title VI" reform. Thanks for the implicit vote of confidence.--G-Dett 22:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, one should have at least 50,000 edits to the encyclopedia and be an admin before one can spend her time abusing editors on talk pages... :-) —Ashley Y 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's rather strange of you to try to compare an editor who does little else but abuse editors on a tiny set of Talk: pages to one who has created 4 featured articles, numerous policies, has tens of thousands of good edits on thousands of articles, etc. And it doesn't really have to do with experience on Wikipedia. For example, one could have been editing since (to pick a random date) November 2003, and still apparently be unaware of basic policy like WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course. One should have 50,000 edits to the encyclopedia, be an admin, create four featured articles and numerous policies. Then one can spend her time abusing editors on talk pages. —Ashley Y 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, so is it self-evident and uncontroversial that "new antisemitism" is a political term? —Ashley Y 21:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have to say "yes." It is a political term, among other things. Cheers. Dino 21:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also say yes. What do other people think? —Ashley Y 21:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There have been objections so you'll need to find a reliable source per WP:A. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You would say "yes", Ashley? That's a shock. In any event, I don't agree, others don't as well. So, it's controversial. In any event we're not going through this again, Ashley. First attribute your claim. If you can do that, then we'll discuss whether it is clear and self-evident, or controversial. Not another word until proper attribution of your claim. And none of the bad faith bogus attributions your tried to do before, as with Aaronovitch etc. Start quoting reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial, it should not be put into the category. I'm wondering if there's consensus that it's self-evident and uncontroversial. At this point there isn't, of course, but perhaps other editors might care to comment? —Ashley Y 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Going by the evidence, what is "self-evident and uncontroversial" is that there does in fact exist a form of antisemitism which uses Anti-Zionism as a fig leaf. I don't see where anybody seriously disputes that. Klug certainly doesn't, even if he disputes the terminology and would "draw the line" much more narrowly, and neither does Finkelstein, even if he believes it's "self-inflicted". I think categorizing it as a merely some sort of political term is therefore a way of undermining it in much the same way as creationists attempt to portray evolution as "just a theory". In any case, it still needs RS attribution. <<-armon->> 01:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It certainly needs RS attribution if it's not self-evident and uncontroversial. But does "political term" delegitimise the concept at all? —Ashley Y 01:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Roots

By the way, I've restored Slim's revert of my modifications to the second paragraph. Slim, let's talk. "Old antisemitism" was "largely," but not entirely associated with the political right for the past 200-odd years; but its roots do indeed go far, far back into the mists of time, thousands of years in fact, before there were such concepts as a political "right" or "left." Is there any part of this statement that you find inaccurate? If so, please point it out. Thanks. Dino 21:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't change the lead without getting agreement on talk first. The sentence is a little odd. You'll need a source showing that classical antisemitim "has roots going back thousands of years," and the addition of "before the development of such concepts as a political 'left' and 'right'" is a clear example of OR, and kind of odd-sounding. Also, it doesn't really have anything to do with NAS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I included a link to several sources in my recent comment, and I don't know why that link didn't survive your edit. Here it is again. [5] The earliest appears to be an ancient Greek reference to ancient Egyptian antisemitism (3rd century BC to be precise). The notion of a "left" and "right" in politics is only around 200 years old, and any student of political science would find it obvious that the concept of antisemitism predates "left and "right" (and politics) by a factor of about ten. The policy on WP:OR permits obvious inferences to be stated. Dino 21:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Those references to ancient antisemitism are attributed in the text, and would have to be here too, and that's not appropriate for a lead about NAS. Also, WP:NOR doesn't permit inferences of the kind you want to make; you would definitely need a source. However, regardless of that, it's not about NAS so it's not appropriate for the lead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If not in the lead, where should it go? And does anyone else have an opinion about this? Dino 21:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead should probably be about what is unique about New antisemitism. For example, the Racial antisemitism lead doesn't mention that antisemitism of some sort (primarily religious antisemitism) dates back thousands of years. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Political neologisms

It would seem it also belongs here.--G-Dett 22:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT, WP:CAT. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it (rather obviously) belongs there as well. If we can get consensus that it's self-evident and uncontroversial, then WP:ATT will be satisfied. —Ashley Y 22:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the assertion that it is a political neologism is absurd and offensive on its face. --Leifern 23:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. How do you feel about merely "political term", is that self-evident and uncontroversial? —Ashley Y 23:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that new antisemitism isn't political at all - it refers to a form of bigotry that shrouds itself in political rhetoric. To describe New Antisemitism as political is to hijack the premise (again) for the article. --Leifern 02:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it. It's only "political" in the sense that it describes a form of antisemitism which uses ideological or "political" justifications. By this logic, religious antisemitism is some kind of a "religious" term and/or epithet. <<-armon->> 03:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think hostility towards a race or nation is in general a political topic? —Ashley Y 03:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In general I think it's sociological, and there's points where it overlaps, but I don't think we should be giving primacy to a POV which throws everything in the "political" basket, because it is a POV, even if it seems self-evident. Try this question: Do you think that racism only exists if it manifests itself politically? Test your answer against the notion that the personal is the political. <<-armon->> 05:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it a sociological term, then? We could put potentially put it in Category:Sociological terms, but looking at the two categories, the "political terms" one would seem to be a better fit. I think racism that manifests non-politically is still a political topic. But you disagree? —Ashley Y 05:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This going off track because my opinions are irrelevant. I'm simply pointing out to you that the notion that "the personal is the political" is a POV. <<-armon->> 22:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Leifern, are you offended that "Islamophobia" is included there?--G-Dett 23:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know what the term means, so I can't really discuss it. But I certainly don't think that charges of bigotry directed at Moslems, Arabs, or any other group can or should be dismissed as anything political. --Leifern 02:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please. Let's be nice. Jayjg, you didn't answer my question. You just repeated Slim's claim that it shouldn't be in the lead. If not in the lead, where should it go? Don't say "nowhere." Any article about a complex, advanced subject needs a little background for the sixth grade students who will be reading it. Dino 00:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that comparing Islamophobia to new anti-Semitism is like comparing apples and oranges. All one has to do is look at the "Further Reading" headings in both articles to see how little has been written about Islamophobia in comparison to New anti-Semitism. Although both the concepts are similar (discrimination against a religion), the application of those concepts are not. This brings up the question of how do we separate a political neologism from a word used to describe new/recent observable phenomena? Is Holocaust denial a political neologism? How about global warming? It can be argued that Darwinism has become a political neologism. So much has been writen and observed with all of the above subjects that I would argue that they all have become more than just political neologisms and are now technical, scholarly terms for observable behavior. Islamophobia has the potential to become a technical, scholarly term, just as many other political neologisms do, but I don't think it has proven itself yet. Reasonable people can disagree on this subject. --GHcool 00:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that "new antisemitism" is at least a political term? And if so, is that self-evident and uncontroversial? —Ashley Y 00:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm a little baffled by your post, GHCool. "New antisemitism" can't be compared to "Islamophobia," but it can be compared to Darwinism? I don't think this is a "reasonable-people-can-disagree" kind of thing; I think what you just wrote doesn't make sense. NAS and Islamophobia are controversial coinages for just about exactly the same reasons. Those who oppose the phrase "Islamophobia" (say, Oliver Kamm) do so because they think it's a way of silencing criticism of Islamism, fundamentalism, etc. The parallel is very strong indeed. But Darwinism? Holocaust denial? Global warming? These are scientific and historical (not for the most part political) issues about which scholarship is all but unanimous. If you're saying "New Antisemitism" enjoys a consensus of legitimacy comparable to any of these theories, that's just demonstrably false. And if you're saying proponents of these theories describe them as political phenomena the way proponents of NAS do, that's also false.--G-Dett 01:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, G-Dett, or, perhaps more likely, I was not clear enough. The comparison to Darwinism, etc. was not to say that they share equal status. I was saying that it can be argued that Darwinism, etc. are political terms since it is a politically hot topic. I would disagree with that classification of Darwinism, Holocaust denial, and global warming because they are all pretty much established facts that describe observable behavior independently of their "political label." New anti-Semitism is not on the same level as Darwinism or even Holocaust denial in terms of its internationally recongized validity, however, I would argue that on the continuum of political term (such as axis of evil) to established fact (such as Darwinism), new anti-Semitism would be much, much closer to established fact than Islamophobia. Reasonable people can disagree to where exactly new anti-Semitism lies on that continuum. --GHcool 06:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, "political neologisms" doesn't mean dubious theoretical propositions, polemically hot topics or faddish bits of slang. (Given that several here seem to think it does, I can understand their opposition to using it for NAS). Political neologism just means a relatively recent coinage for a relatively recently observed or theorized political phenomenon. Such as the discursive convergence of contemporary leftist anti-globalization and anti-Zionism with traditional right-wing xenophobia and conspiracy theories – a political convergence identified by a spate of recent books and articles as "new antisemitism."

There's no "continuum" between political neologisms and scientific facts. Some political neologisms are journalistic in nature or refer to ephemeral demographic data and so seem to have a built-in shelf-life ("soccer mom"), while others like "plausible deniability" or "institutional racism" represent conceptual breakthroughs and appear to have become a part of our permanent lexicon.

In short, "political" isn't a synonym for "controversial" or debatable. Global warming and Darwinism are scientific terms around which political controversies have arisen; but that doesn't make them "political" terms in their own right.--G-Dett 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely arbitrary & capricious section break #5

I do not think that "institutional racism" is a political neologism (at least not anymore). New anti-Semitisim may have been a political neologism at one point, but it has now entered mainstream academic thought in the same way that "institutional racism" has. Therefore, NAS is not a political neologism even if it once was one. It was a political neologism that grew and developed into a fully formed sociological phenomenon similarly to how a fetus grows and develops into a fully formed human being. --GHcool 21:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Institutional racism" was coined by the Black Panthers. You're probably right that it's graduated by now from its "neologism" stage. "This category is for terms that have entered political jargon since approximately 1980; their first use may be earlier, but their widespread use should not be," is what the category heading for "political neologisms" says. Was "new antisemitism" in widespread use before 1980? Should we do a Lexis-Nexis search?--G-Dett 21:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that definition of political neologism. 1980 was 27 years ago. I think we can all agree that a neologism must certainly have been coined less than 27 years ago. I suggest 4-6 years would be more appropriate for making distinctions between political "neologisms" and political "terms." --GHcool 23:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You want to change the definition of political neologism on Category:Political neologisms? From terms that came into common use 27 years to terms that came into use 4-6 years ago. According to our article, "the term [NAS] has entered common usage to refer to what some writers describe as a wave of antisemitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks." So with "political neologisms" redefined, would NAS no longer fit?--G-Dett 00:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to change the definition of political neologism to 4-6 years. Reasonable people can disagree about whether NAS is a political neologism or not. I happen to believe it is not a neologism. It has been 7 years since Arafat's rejection of the Camp David 2000 Summit and the beginning of the second Intifada. --GHcool 00:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT, WP:CAT. The claim that is it a "political neologism" must be attributed to reliable sources, and it must be self-evident that it belongs in that category. Neither condition is satisfied. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Both are in fact satisfied. If GHcool wants to rewrite the category definition itself, in order to prevent NAS from taking its natural place there, that's a different matter. If you're determined to keep it out, Jay, I'd follow his lead.--G-Dett 18:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I just rewrote the category definition to say 2001 instead of 1980. I did not do this "in order to prevent NAS from taking its natural place there" (NAS was coined roughly around that time). I did it because it makes sense. A 27 year old term cannot be a neologism. --GHcool 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Easter Eggs

You can gather these from virtually anywhere. Like I said, they're in plain view. Allan Brownfield describes the term as a "form of political blackmail." Cotler describes the phenomenon as "political antisemitism," which Taguieff in turn calls a "new political-intellectual conformism." Bernard Lewis writes, "This is where the third phase of anti-Semitism arises, which for want of a better term we might call political-cum-ideological Judeophobia." Zipperstein thinks it's better described as "anti-Israelism," which he says is informed by "a much distorted, simplistic, but this-worldly political analysis devoid of anti-Jewish bias." Peter Beaumont of the Guardian says of those who use the term that "what they are talking about is the criticism in the media and political classes of Europe of the policies of Sharon." Conrad Black's wife, for her part, traces the phenomenon to "London's political salon scene."

Shall I go on?

Can someone – Jay, Liefern, anyone – explain to me the strong objection to linking this article to any category of terms that includes the word "political" in it? It's hard for me to understand this resistance, given how consistently the RS's describe NAS as a political phenomenon (sometimes they link it to the failure of Oslo, sometimes to ideological by-products of globalization and anti-colonialism, sometimes to political opposition to American foreign policy, etc.). Is it that you feel strongly that even though this issue takes such consistently political form, it still somehow "transcends" politics? Are you worried that identifying the subject as political makes it somehow debatable, when you think it shouldn't be?--G-Dett 01:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a political term. I'm not so sure that it's a "neologism," which (in my opinion) would dismiss it as the equivalent of pop culture slang. But it's a political term. Whatever else it may also be, and I am certainly not doubting its legitimacy, it is still a political term. On another note, I get the sense that critics of the term, such as Klug and Berlet, have received an awful lot of space in the article. What do you think? Dino 01:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

GHCool and Armon, welcome to the discussion. Your posts above (Armon's concern that NAS not be seen as "merely a political term" and GHCool's likening of NAS to scientific theories such as biological evolution and global warming) suggest that you would answer yes to my last two questions – is that right?--G-Dett 01:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem calling NAS a political term, even though I think the term goes far beyond merely the political. However, I would object to calling it a political neologism. --GHcool 06:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So I think we have a consensus. It's a political term, among other things, but it's not a neologism. Objections? Anyone? Dino 16:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As used, it is pretty clearly a neologism. How could it be anything else? The word neologism doesn't imply that something is "pop culture slang." It's just, as American Heritage says, "a new word, expression, or usage." john k 16:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That definition is probably too narrow because that definition could also include pop culture slang like "soccer mom." --GHcool 17:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say at this point that we have consensus on "political term," but we need further discussion on "neologism." Any objections? Dino 18:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So who are you going to quote as saying "New antisemitism" is a "political term"? Please name the individuals, and quote them, per WP:ATT. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Pasting in from above:

Allan Brownfield describes the term as a "form of political blackmail." Cotler describes the phenomenon as "political antisemitism," which Taguieff in turn calls a "new political-intellectual conformism." Bernard Lewis writes, "This is where the third phase of anti-Semitism arises, which for want of a better term we might call political-cum-ideological Judeophobia." Zipperstein thinks it's better described as "anti-Israelism," which he says is informed by "a much distorted, simplistic, but this-worldly political analysis devoid of anti-Jewish bias." Peter Beaumont of the Guardian says of those who use the term that "what they are talking about is the criticism in the media and political classes of Europe of the policies of Sharon." Conrad Black's wife, for her part, traces the phenomenon to "London's political salon scene"...shall I go on?

If you need page numbers or whatever, let me know.--G-Dett 20:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I need to see someone describing "New antisemitism" as a "political term"; not all your original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you include a citation in a category anyway? Also, why would we side with the POV which would categorize it as such? <<-armon->> 22:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You think Brownfield, Lewis, Zipperstein, Taguieff, et al share a POV? Who of our RS's doesn't think NAS is a political phenomenon?

I take it your first question is directed to Jay.--G-Dett 22:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's a straightforward logical deduction from the references, per WP:ATT. But I'm not sure if we yet have consensus on this point. —Ashley Y 03:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no OR, just unequivocal direct quotes from our main reliable sources.--G-Dett 17:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

None of which refer to NAS as a "political term". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't invent criteria, Jay. It is absurd and capricious to demand that a source exactly reproduce a most casual locution, and one with any number of obvious synonyms. There are whole paragraphs in this article devoted to the EUMC document and (self-published) articles by Chip Berlet – none of which even so much as mention "new antisemitism." That raises no OR issues for you. In fact you once warned darkly that it "isn't OK" to even question your conclusion that when the EUMC document referred to "antisemitism" they really meant the "new antisemitism." Stop disguising ideology as an implementation of WP:NOR; it's an abuse of both the letter and spirit of that important policy.--G-Dett 18:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

From "the right"

An anonymous editor keeps wanting to delete "far right" as one of the sources of new antisemitism. I don't think this is accurate - the article includes David Duke, and NAS has also been put at the feet of Pat Buchanan et al. I don't want to get into a revert war, so let me get a sense of the senate - any objections to include "right" or "far right" in the scope of NAS? --Leifern 21:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly with you on this one. What I find fascinating is the new alliance between the mortal enemies of the far left and far right, that is represented by NAS. Dino 21:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence has SEVEN cites supporting it. The anon would need some extraordinary evidence to alter it. <<-armon->> 22:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the first sentence (appropriately) describes the concept according to its proponents. If they say the right is "new" as opposed to "old" antisemitism, I'm happy with that. However, someone added "the center" as well, as a separate force. I don't think any of the refs support that? —Ashley Y 22:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the lead, in my view, is that it artificially whitewashes what the theory primarily is: a theory alleging a new relationship between antisemitism and bashing Israel. The first sentence has 7 sources, but if you look at them, they don't actually support what the first sentence says. One of the sources says that the New Antisemitism comes from these directions, but none /define/ NAS by that trait. That, indeed, appears to be our unique spin. Meanwhile, nearly every writer, including the aforementioned 7, discusses NAS as primarily relating to anti-Zionism and excessive criticism of Israel.

This was one issue in the mediation at the top of the page, though that mediation unfortunately seems to have stalled. I'm not sure if we'll be hearing back about that, but I think that's one thing regarding the first paragraph that really needs to be improved. Mackan79 23:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Mackan, how would you know what "nearly every writer" on NAS says, given that you appear not to have read many of them? That's not a dig, by the way, but a serious question, which I've asked you before, but I didn't get an answer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Slim, your question has been answered,[6] and it is not any more civil or topical now than the last umpteen times you've raised it.[7].

In any case, if you disagree with my assessment, I'm still awaiting your response. As I have said, my support consists first of all of the authors cited in this article, and second of 9 others not cited here.[8] Can you please look at what I said there and explain if you disagree? Mackan79 15:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely arbitrary & capricious section break #6

OK, if that is true, how about this (changed text in italics):

"New antisemitism is the concept of an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of antisemitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse, relating to anti-Zionism." (plus refs)

—Ashley Y 00:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, because that's not what the sources say it is about. It's not all about anti-Zionism, it's about a resurgence of anti-Semitism, unusual alliances between the far left, the far right, and Islamists, and various other things. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It bears mentioning that this is not the sole definition of "NAS" favoured by opponents or proponents of the term. CJCurrie 01:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, can you tell us which sources say this? I've looked through each of them and haven't found that material. What it appears to come from is the piece by Jonathan Sacks, sourced first, in which he says "The new anti-Semitism is coming simultaneously from three different directions...." Entirely missing from his piece, though, is any statement that this is the definition. And in fact, what he later says is precisely that "What we are witnessing today is the second great mutation of anti-Semitism in modern times, from racial anti-Semitism to religious anti-Zionism (with the added premise that all Jews are Zionists)." So can I ask which source states that the directions from where it comes is solely what defines "New Antisemitism" as used by all notable authors? Mackan79 04:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"Entirely missing from [Sacks's] piece, though, is any statement that this is the definition." So what? Where does our lead use the word "definition"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It states NAS is "the concept of...". This presents it as a definition. Also, though, see WP:Lead. "The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic unless that definition is implied by the title (such as 'History of …' and similar titles)." This is my problem: couldn't we give a better concept of what NAS is up front? My feeling is you don't really know until the third paragraph, and even then, the whole thing is muddled. Mackan79 15:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely arbitrary & capricious section break #7

I don't know how this can be reduced to "theory." There is a resurgence in antisemitic attacks; most if not all of these attacks are tied in with anti-Israeli rhetoric. It's unknowable whether those who perpetrate these attacks are influenced by the anti-Israeli rhetoric to go develop hatred toward Jews; or whether they find a pretext for antisemitism in going against Israel. The controversy over the term is whether the attacks represent a new type of antisemitism, distinct from all the other forms. But there's nothing about it that ties it to a particular political ideology. It's just notable that the kind of virulent anti-Israelism that crosses the line into antisemitism comes from all extreme ideologies. Which really isn't that surprising, but that's my view. --Leifern 03:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So you would say the sources all connect NAS with anti-Zionism? Would "anti-Israelism" be better? —Ashley Y 03:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

For reference, here are the old version of the lead I could find. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

I think it is true that the NAS connects with anti-Zionism. The difference between old and new is stated above. The old anti-semitism is based on prejudice against race, ethnicity and religious identity. The NAS is based on opposition to national identity. I think it is easier to conceptualize Zionism as national identity (nationalism is probably the correct word but may be construed incorrectly). This is why the NAS is basically leftist. Most leftist ideologies oppose national identities. Anti-nationalism spills over to anti-zionism which spills over to anti-semitism as the identities of all three of these get blurred in the case of Israel. Lumping in nationalists as being part of the New Antisemitism eliminates the distinction between the Old anti-Semitism. So in summary, anti-nationalism (and by extension anti-zionism) is the basis. Expanding it to all forms of anti-semitism detracts from it's distinction as "new". The "new" part is distinctly leftist. --Tbeatty 06:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can say the left is anti-nationalist, because they support Palestinian nationalism. It's specifically Jewish nationalism they oppose, at least in this part of the world. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

actually I think the left supports "right of return". I don't think it's fair to characterize that as supporting Palestinian nationalism. The problem is that the Palestinian state that the left would want, isn't the one the Palestinians would implement. In general, I think the leftist goal is a secular integrated democracy that includes both palestinians and israelites. The left's position is that Jewish nationalsits oppose a secular, integrated, identity-less state. This is where the anti-semitism comes from. palestinians and nationalist arab states support Palestinian nationalism (as long as the land comes from israel). I would characterize nationalist Arab anti-semitism as of the Old variety. --Tbeatty 07:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely arbitrary & capricious section break #8

How would this be for an opening paragraph? I think it manages to encapsulate all of the key components:

The concept of new antisemitism posits that the international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, the allegedly increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse, and strong criticism of Israel coming from the political left, far-right, and Islamism, together constitute various expressions of a single phenomenon.

--G-Dett 18:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a very good improvement. I was actually in the process of coming up with something myself; as an alternative, I'll incorporate yours with what I had (and minor suggestions) for further comment. The first sentence is taken from Antisemitism.

New antisemitism is the concept of a new form of 21st century antisemitism coming simultaneously from the left, the far right, and radical Islam, which tends to focus on opposition to Zionism and a Jewish homeland in the State of Israel. The term has entered common usage to refer to what some writers describe as a wave of antisemitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks. [2][3]

The concept generally posits that an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, and strong criticism of Israel, together constitute various expressions of a single phenomenon, and an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs.

Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland may be coupled with antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism. [2][3] Critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that it is used to silence debate. [6][7]

Thoughts? Mackan79 19:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks great. I'm curious to hear what others have to say.--G-Dett 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely comfortable with incorporating the Left-far Right-radical Islam trio into the definition. Carter is being called a new antisemite, and so are Mearsheimer and Walt, without belonging to any of the three danger groups. Also, NAS is being used not only in connection with harsh criticism of Israel, but also in relation to suggestions that Jews exert excessive power, either in the US or internationally. The definition should take this into account. --Abenyosef 23:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, of course, that the discourse of NAS in action is directed at many people (Carter and Mearsheimer, yes, but also Tony Judt, Richard Cohen, Tony Kushner, etc.) who don't fit any of these target political categories. But the opening, and to some extent the article itself, are devoted to describing the theory of NAS in its own terms. --G-Dett 23:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

True. OTOH, I had actually been considering a sentence regarding the subtlety aspect to New Antisemitism, which I think may also be important. I believe my sentences was something like "The term is also used to invoke a less direct form of antisemitism, and more political, in its focus on the State of Israel as the Jewish homeland [or other concepts such as a Jewish lobby]." Would something of that nature be helpful? Mackan79 23:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's nice to see that all the people who deny the existence of New antisemitism are able to come to such a quick agreement on how to re-define it. In any event, any intro which attempts to claim that New antisemitism revolves around "strong criticism of Israel" can hardly be taken seriously. If any of you want to truly try to suggest improvements to the intro, I think you'd need to first commmit yourselves to WP:NPOV; even better would be committing yourselves to Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Unfortunately, it's kind of a hard thing to say perfectly, since most phrasings are loaded one way or another. Do you have a better suggestion? This is what I was hoping for. "Excessive" you probably wouldn't like either. "Disproportionate" would be one option, supported by several sources. Would you be happier with that?

I think you're mistaken that we're writing for the enemy though. We're writing a neutral intro. This shouldn't endorse or undermine the concept. I also object to your characterization of my political views, which are incorrect, but also off topic. In any case, would you suggest something better? I'd throw out "disproportionate opposition" as a substitute for "strong criticism." Mackan79 02:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all contemplating fighting over "strong." I'm not much concerned what adjective we put there, as these terms will be understood to be relative by anyone reading this. The main thing is to make clear the centrality of criticism of Israel to the purview of this concept.

These suggestions are put here in manifestly good faith and constitute a self-evidently constructive effort. Perhaps other editors could rise to the occasion and reciprocate.--G-Dett 02:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think unless there are reliable sources that discuss NAS without connecting it to opposition to Israel, we should put it in. —Ashley Y 04:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

'Demonization'

Mackan79, the term you are looking for is demonization, and quite a number of the people discussing New antisemitism have used it. I'm not sure why people would be reluctant to fairly represent the views of those who are proponents of the concept. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Demonization" would be the NPOV word of choice? Will we put it in bold like that, for extra NPOV?

I wouldn't oppose using their words, but if we're quoting them we'll use quotation marks. An encyclopedic introduction does not just quietly assimilate the disputed vocabulary of a controversial theory it's presenting. Doing so would not be an adherence to WP:NPOV, but rather a gross violation of it. The intro to "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" (not a good model to go by, but mine is a narrow point) speaks of "Israel's treatment of Arabs living in the West Bank and Israel." Your suggestion that it should instead say something about "Bantustan conditions in the occupied territories and second-class citizenship in Israel proper" strikes me as peculiar, and wrong-headed.--G-Dett 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference being that no-one objects to criticism of Israel, even strong criticism, neither the proponents of New antisemitism nor the opponents. The claim that people object to strong criticism of Israel is, of course, the usual straw man argument. Once you present your opponents' arguments as straw men, you've lost any semblance of NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the argument of critics of the idea of "new antisemitism" that, while its proponents of course claim that they do not object to criticism of Israel as such, that the limits of acceptable criticism of Israel are so narrow that it effectively amounts to the same thing? "Demonization" seems to me to be rather understating the claim? Beyond that, the whole argument seems to be begging the question, in that it essentially makes "demonization" mean "any criticism of Israel that we don't think is acceptable." john k 20:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Those who describe the demonization are pretty specific about what it means; it's not just any criticism. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You may find them sufficiently specific but their RS-critics do not. In any event, to use the word "demonization" in the intro, without quotation marks or attribution, would be a flagrant violation of WP:NPOV.--G-Dett 00:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with "demonization," which I think understates the position (as expressed by many). This isn't to create a straw man; I agree that "strong criticism" overstates the general position, but we shouldn't understate it either. If you look at the Antisemitism section on New Antisemitism, first, there seems to have developed concensus for this statement (which also appears on Anti-Zionism with two sources):

Some commentators believe that criticisms of Israel and Zionism are often disproportionate in degree and unique in kind, and attribute this to antisemitism.

Is this not a fair assessment of the position? Brian Klug, then, says it thusly:

But isn't excessive criticism of Israel or Zionism evidence of an anti-semitic bias? In his book, The Case for Israel, Alan Dershowitz argues that when criticism of Israel "crosses the line from fair to foul" it goes "from acceptable to anti-semitic".

People who take this view say the line is crossed when critics single Israel out unfairly; when they apply a double standard and judge Israel by harsher criteria than they use for other states; when they misrepresent the facts so as to put Israel in a bad light; when they vilify the Jewish state; and so on. All of which undoubtedly is foul. But is it necessarily anti-semitic?

No, it's not, he argues. I find the Dershowitz quote, then, here ("When Does Anti-Israel Rhetoric Become Anti-Semitism?", by Richard Juran).

"So long as criticism is comparative, contextual, and fair, it should be encouraged, not disparaged. But when the Jewish nation is the only one criticized for faults that are far worse among other nations, such criticism crosses the line from fair to foul, from acceptable to anti-Semitic."

Larry Summers in the same Juran article: "What is the equivalent of anti-Semitism is the singling out of the Jewish nation for divestment, boycott, U. N. condemnation or other sanctions, in face of, and despite its far better record on human rights than any other nation in the Middle East and most other nations in the world."

Thomas Friedman: "But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction - out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest."

So isn't there a more appropriate word, then, than "demonization"? To me, "disproportionate opposition" is pretty good, because it gets at the point that it's not just criticism, but opposition (boycotts, divestment, etc.). Nevertheless, some, such as Dershowitz, seem to go even further. Is there anything else that would work for you? Mackan79 18:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• The first "D" is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel's actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz - this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.
• demonizing and dehumanizing of Israel has become common practice
• Continued demonization of Israel and Zionism provided the arena and sanction for the promotion of antisemitism, notably from the left and from Islamist sources.
• The new antisemitism used by NGOs is reflected in frequent accusations of “war crimes”, violations of international law, "indiscriminate killings", apartheid, racism, etc. in which the context of terror is erased, and Israeli is singled out for obsessive condemnation. The powerful global NGOs, including HRW and Amnesty International, continue to actively promote the Durban strategy of demonization and singling out of Israel.
• But the new antisemitism to which Irwin Cotler refers has found renewed vigor in demonizing the Israeli State – a form of Jew hatred which is finding increasing acceptance in the universities, in governments, media and in populations around the world.
• Since then, as the fourth such global gathering meets this week, efforts to incorporate the "three-D" distinction between legitimate criticism of Israel and the new antisemitism - demonization, double standards and delegitimization - have become part of international documents and discourse.

I saw the term "vilification" used in your quotes as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, I think there are several problems with these.

1. Would you mind not mucking up the page with linked text? As a means to make a point, this strikes me as inappropriate.
2. The fact that many consider demonization antisemitic is certainly true. What it doesn't mean is that this is the ultimate standard for all notables who use the term. The problem, as the quotes I provided were intended to show, is that the standard that many use does not stop at "demonization," but includes a number of things which are not called, and could not neutrally be called, "demonization." Do you disagree with this point? If not, it seems we would be talking about adding "demonization," rather than substituting it.
3. Regarding the word "demonization," please see WP:TE. The problem isn't original research. There simply has to be another way for us to say this than picking about the third most loaded word in the Enlglish language.

Is there any other way you would like to approach this? I have a hard time seeing that you would not understand the problem with the word "demonization" in an encyclopedia. The question, again, is not whether demonization is considered antisemitic, but whether that is truly the furthest extent that the concept goes. I think the various quotes establish that for many it isn't.

That said, I am totally open to expressing that most people in talking about NAS are talking about something extreme that goes beyond the realm of normal criticism. Is there some other way we could convey this? Mackan79 21:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Another arbitrary & capricious section break

"Demonization" is the word proponents use most often. We can't start making up words, or telling them what they ought to be saying. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Not so. The most-common term used is "singling out Israel." We should try and formulate a definition that includes this concept.

Furthermore, there's a big problem with the word demonization. Its proponents use it in a sense not universally accepted, i.e. that anyone who criticizes Israel without simultaneously writing a treatise on all other human rights violations in the world is demonizing Israel. In other words, it's not that NAS-proponents ban criticism of Israel, God forbid; it's just that they allow such criticism under conditions impossible to meet, with the result that all critics end up being demonizers. This is not the generally accepted meaning of the concept of demonization.

The definition can't adopt the language of the proponents, when this language is at odds with general perceptions of the meanings of the words it uses. "Singling out Israel," or, even less loadedly, "criticizing Israel without simultaneously criticizing other countries alleged to violate human rights," is the right concept to describe the NAS proponents version of what new antisemitism amounts to. --Abenyosef 00:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't make straw man arguments for proponents of New antisemitism. They mean demonization, and they give very specific examples. They will be allowed to make their own arguments, regardless of your disagreement with (or strawmanning of) them. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Strawman" is a wonderful word with a precise meaning; for heaven's sake stop stop making such a catachrestic hash of it.--G-Dett 01:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about the lead, for G-d's sake. It's not "making up words" to use neutral language in the introduction to a controversial topic. We can quote people referring to "demonization," but we're not going to just assimilate and naturalize that vocabulary in a supposedly neutral lead. I can't quite believe I'm having to explain this to editors with years of experience and tens of thousands of edits. We don't speak of "Bantustan conditions in the occupied territories and second-class citizenship in Israel proper" in the lead of "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" just because that's the language of the theory's advocates; we speak of "Israeli's treatment of Arabs in the West Bank and Israel," and rightly so.

I suggest "arguably disproportionate criticism." The very thing at stake in the debate about NAS is what is disproportionate and what is not, what is justifiably strong criticism and what is demonization. A lead that forecloses that debate instead of presenting it is, by definition, not an NPOV lead; it's that simple.--G-Dett 00:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. "Demonization" and "singling out" are the two major components of new anti-Semitic criticism of Israel. This is readily available from reliable sources. NOR and NPOV rules would not be violated by including these two key concepts. --GHcool 00:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't use loaded phrases in an intro, period. Wikipedia 101, guys. We hastened to demonstrate we weren't wedded to "strong criticism" when Jay objected to it. Something of that graciousness might be reciprocated.--G-Dett 01:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

See, for instance, one of the sources cited by Jayjg, the Canadian Jewish Congress:

Now of course Israel must be held accountable for any actions in violation of international law or norms. But that is the point. Equality before and under the law should be the maxim, not the discriminatory treatment Israel receives. There is a fundamental difference between criticism and demonization.

It's crystal-clear that "demonization" is being used as a synonym of "singling out Israel." According to this concept, Cuba is also being demonized as the only dictatorship blockaded by the US, and Chávez is being demonized as the only dictator compared to Hitler by a US Secretary of Defense.

To paraphrase Brian Klug, when demonization is everywhere, it's nowhere. The word has no place in an article lead, and can be safely replaced with "criticizing Israel without simultaneously criticizing other countries alleged to violate human rights," which is what NAS proponents like the CJC mean by it. --Abenyosef 02:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We could compare it with the criticism of France when they tested nuclear weapons, byt China also did it at about the same time and they weren't criticised as much. Is this eveidence of anti-French racism? Obviously not. It's simply because France is a westen democracy and China is a dictatorship. Dictatorships and democracies are judged differently. The whole "You cant't criticise me unless you also criticise him" attitude is in itself a version of a strawman. The same goes for criticism of journalistic freedom in say USA. Then somebody say "Hey, it's not as bad as in Russia" and in Russia they say "Hey, it's not as bad as in Belarus" and in Belarus nobody dare say anything abou the lack of journalistic freedom. // Liftarn

In case of anti-Israel sentiment, the term demonization is well sourced and reflects facts. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it reflects opinions. // Liftarn

"At the 47-nation [Human Rights] Council, inaugurated in June to replace the discredited Commission on Human Rights, there have been only 10 resolutions addressing specific countries: eight harsh condemnations of Israel, and two soft, non-condemnatory resolutions on Sudan." [19] This is far, far beyond any sort of "judging dictatorships on different grounds that democracies". It turns out that 80% of the serious Human Rights violations in the world are occurring in tiny little Israel, 20% of the less serious kind in Sudan, and none anywhere else. Who'd a thunk? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this? This would seem clearly to be an instance of disproportionate criticism of Israel as compared to criticism of other human rights violators. But what does it have to do with anti-semitism, or the new anti-semitism? What does it have to do with "demonization"? john k 22:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It was a response to Liftarn's feeble comparisons regarding France, China, etc., pointing out that the analogy was false and plainly silly. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just some soapboxing I think. I wonder how the UK would be seen if they had used the same methods against the Irish as Israel is using against the Palestinians. // Liftarn

Progress on the Lead

Does everyone agree the basic template of Mackan79's lead is acceptable?

If editors feel very strongly that "demonization" is an appropriate word and should be included, then we'd need to take care to avoid the NPOV problems that come with it. In particular, we'd need to phrase things to make very clear what is settled fact for all parties to the NAS debate (a worldwide resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols) and what is seriously disputed (the line between legitimate criticism of Israel and "demonization," for example). So rephrasing Mackan's lead accordingly (with other minor modifications for the sake of concision, none of which I'm wedded to:

New antisemitism is the concept of a new form of 21st-century antisemitism emanating simultaneously from the left, the far right, and radical Islam, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism. The term has entered common usage to refer to what some writers describe as a wave of antisemitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks. [2][3]

The concept generally posits that the international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols since 2000 has been coupled with increased acceptance of antisemitism in public discourse, as well as political criticism of Israel so strong as to constitute demonization; and that together these constitute various expressions of a single phenomenon, and an evolution in the appearance but not the underlying content of antisemitic beliefs.

Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism. [2][3] Critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that it is used to silence debate.

The other problem I see now is that mention of criticism is exceedingly brief. I don't think we should add any sentences, but the opening sentence should indicate that this is a controversial concept.--G-Dett 14:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. A few issues:

1. I would mention Israel in the first sentence, not just Zionism. Most of the sources (including Jay's particularly) seem to talk about disproportionately attacking Israel for alleged abuses, etc., so I don't think it's just Zionism. The previous wording seemed redundant, but perhaps we can add that in a better way. "Zionism and the State of Israel" may be the simplest option.
2. I'd still say "thean international resurgence" in par 2, simply because it's the first time we're introducing this fact.
3. "...but not the underlying content" is actually perhaps not necessarily true. Proponents as well as critics acknowledge, I think, that there's some ambiguity about whether NAS is always intentionally antisemitic, or also includes functional antisemitism which may not be intentional.
4. Re demonization (and your caveat at the bottom), I think this is a fairer idea, but still lacks some important precision with the use of the word "demonization." The "Three D's" argument presented by Sharansky and others indeed says demonization is one type of NAS, and that's an idea we need to incorporate, but it's clearly not the only concept. Double standards, specifically, is presented separately. [20]

All that said, I think it's a good attempt at compromise, but I still have to wonder if the "disporortionate" idea wouldn't be a better and fairer representation for everybody. If I may present this in context (with minor alteration):

The concept generally posits that an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, and disproportionate condemnation of Israel by various individuals and world bodies, together constitute a single phenomenon, and an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs.

Is there anything to this? For one thing, I think the "demonization" concept is actually somewhat covered in the first two examples, about Jewish symbols and public discourse. Disproportionate condemnation, then, strikes me as another fair way of describing the "double standards" idea. Other thoughts? Mackan79 15:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I still have a problem with this template, because it doesn't make it sufficiently clear that in the NAS proponents' lexicon the word demonization has other meanings in addition to the generally accepted ones. Consider the following two paragraphs:

(a) Israeli soldiers take pleasure in shooting little children between the eyes, because of their sheer contempt of all lives other than Jewish lives.

(b) Israel uses the flechette, a shell loaded with thousands of small darts which disperse in a conical arch three hundred meters long and about ninety meters wide. The use of this indiscriminate weapon has resulted in the killing of innocent civilians; for instance, on 30 December 2001, three minors were killed by flechettes that where fired near Beit Lahiya: Muhammad Ahmad Lubad, age 17; Muhammad 'Abd a-Rahman al-Madhun, age 15; and Ahmad Muhammad Banat, age 15. Also, Israel uses Palestinian civilians, including children, as human shields. For instance, on April 22, 2004, Muhammed Badwan, 13, was tied by Israeli soldiers to the front of their jeep as a human shield against Palestinian rock throwers.

While everyone agrees that paragraph (a) amounts to demonization, NAS proponents --and only NAS proponents-- claim that paragraph (b) also constitutes demonization, because it fails to mention that genocide is under way in Darfour.

It is, thus, necessary to point out that NAS proponents give two meanings to the word demonization, namely (i) "the characterization of individuals, groups, or political bodies as evil or subhuman" (the generally accepted meaning), and (ii) "the act of criticizing Israel without making comparable criticism of other countries and factions."

Only if this is perfectly clarified can there be room for the word demonization in the intro.--Abenyosef 15:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Mackan's made a compelling case for "disproportionate condemnation" instead of "demonization." And Abenyosef makes an important point about idiosyncratic applications of the latter word. We can quote those who use it in the body of the article, but we can't use it ourselves in the lead.

Mackan, all of your numbered points above are well taken. My only quibble is with #2. The phrasing I suggested, including the use of the definite article instead of the indefinite, was supposed to draw a firm line between the consensus fact (the increase in antisemitic acts since 2000) and all the subsequent theoretical or impressional speculations (regarding greater public tolerance for antisemitism, excessive or disproportionate political criticism of Israel, and so on). If the syntactic skeleton of the sentence makes this distinction clear, then I'm a lot less concerned about what words we use to describe the sort of criticism of Israel in question. That said, I think it's clear that "demonization" is inappropriate for the lead. It's an intensely partisan, breathlessly emotive word with no agreed-upon analytical meaning.--G-Dett 17:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The 'Three Ds'

Sharansky talks of 3 Ds, demonization, double-standards, and deligitimization. They are 3 separate concepts:

The first "D" is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel's actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz - this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.

The second "D" is the test of double standards. When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored; when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross - this is anti-Semitism.

The third "D" is the test of delegitimization: when Israel's fundamental right to exist is denied - alone among all peoples in the world - this too is anti-Semitism.

Consistently comparing Israelis to Nazis etc. is not "political criticism of Israel"; in fact, proponents of the concept of New antisemitism point out that it is well beyond the realm of "political criticism". Plastering campuses for weeks the campus with posters showing soup cans with pictures of dead babies on them and labels reading, "canned Palestinian children meat, slaughtered according to Jewish rites under American license"[21] is not "political criticism of Israel", it's a blood libel. Again, opponents of the concept of New antisemitism may come to all sorts of agreements on this talk page about what the proponents are saying, but WP:NPOV does not allow their straw man presentations to be used in the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But Tony Judt, Stephen Walt, Tony Kushner, Richard Cohen, Jimmy Carter et al haven't engaged in any of these things and yet they've been singled out by the proponents of NAS for their political criticisms of Israel, right Jay? If you want to create two categories – "strong political criticism of Israel" and "demonization of Israel and Israelis" – that would be fine with me. But let's not pretend that political criticism of Israel (the kind free of references to eating dead babies and so on) isn't central to the discourse of NAS.

Also, what you keep confusing with a "strawman" argument is actually one side of a – perhaps the – debate at the heart of the NAS discussion. Those on one side of the NAS debate insist they don't object to "strong criticism" of Israel, only "disproportionate criticism" or "singling Israel out" or "demonizing Israel," etc. Those on the other side insist they're not "demonizing" Israel, they're offering legitimate "strong criticism," and that strong criticism (as opposed to toothless blandishments) is exactly what the advocates of NAS are opposed to. It's a debate about what constitutes "strong" criticism and what constitutes "disproportionate" criticism, and where the line between them falls. The sides disagree – that's why they're "sides" in the first place, that's why they're debating, and that's why NAS is a controversial subject. There's no "strawman" here, just disagreement about where "strong criticism" shades into something nasty and unfair. --G-Dett 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sharansky's is not the only POV on this. For the first "D", Klug claims that there is a difference between extreme and unwarranted criticism of Israel, and anti-semitism. There is extreme and unwarranted criticism of other countries too, it doesn't necessarily refer to their people.

For the second "D", as Mearsheimer and Walt point out, there is good reason in the U.S. to especially focus on the actions of Israel, given the amount of support America gives to Israel. The MDA wasn't allowed in to the Red Cross because they insisted on using a religious emblem, and the RC really didn't want to add a second religious emblem (after the crescent, the red cross itself is not supposed to be religious). This RC instead went to all the trouble of coming up with a new neutral emblem, under which the MDA has now been admitted.

For the third "D", the criticism in question more or less refers to the same kind of criticism of the constitution that was aimed at the old South Africa. Sure, if you're demanding that the Jews are expelled from the land, that's anti-Semitism. But if you're demanding that everyone live together, even though Jews might end up as a minority, that's not anti-Semitism, portentous phrases about "the destruction of Israel" notwithstanding. —Ashley Y 18:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

These are all good points. "The three D's" is an argument relevant to the larger debate about NAS; it does not constitute, however, an editorial guideline for Wikipedians writing an article about NAS. If we take it as such, we violate WP:NPOV.--G-Dett 18:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I disagree with Ashley Y's assessment of the first two D's, at least her arguments are logically sound. Her third argument does not correctly interpret the word delegitimization. She assumes it refers to delegitimization of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza (a debatable issue in domestic and international Israeli politics), but the delegitimization Shaansky refers to is the delegitimzation of the very concept of a Jewish state in the Jews' ancient homeland. This is what sets it apart as anti-Semitic and not simply a political difference of opinion on disputed territory because only a racist would deny a people their rights to self-determination within their ancient homeland especially if they've fought and won several wars to earn and preserve that right. --GHcool 19:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting digression, especially on how the right of self-determination is predicated on winning wars, a logic only racists resist. Now, back to the lead. Suggestions?--G-Dett 19:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, you deliberately twisted my words. The onus is on you to explain why. --GHcool 19:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The onus is on you to explain how.--G-Dett 20:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

'Sources are vry clearly divided'

Ashley, I don't see any of those names brought in this article as examples of New antisemitism; are you sure you're not creating another straw man argument? Also, I won't go through all the names, but I could point out that Judt has deligitimized Israel's right to exist, proposing it be dissolved into some other entity. Carter has both demonized and deligitimized Israel, by using the "apartheid" epithet to describe it. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is you who's making the strawman argument, Jay. Are you willing to "commit to NPOV" (your phrase) or not? It really is that simple. Our reliable sources are very clearly divided on what constitutes "demonization," "delegitimization," "valid criticism," etc. For Wikipedia to pick a winner in that debate, as per your suggestion, would be an obvious violation of WP:NPOV. (p.s. I don't believe you have read and understood the Judt piece you refer to, but that's neither here nor there.)--G-Dett 19:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, a set of Wikipedia editors who insist that there is no New antisemitism also claim that "our reliable sources are very clearly divided" on the subject. That's an entirely different thing. NPOV means fairly presenting the views of proponents, not watering down or undermining their claims even as you present them. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Review WP:NPOV, Jay. We present debates, we don't adjudicate them.--G-Dett 19:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still puzzled by your last post. You don't think our RS's are divided about the line between legitimate criticism and demonization? How much of the material for this article have you actually read, Jay?--G-Dett 19:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The proponents aren't divided, only the opponents. Please stick to discussing article content, not other editors. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, according to one of your own sources,

The new antisemitism used by NGOs is reflected in frequent accusations of “war crimes”, violations of international law, "indiscriminate killings", apartheid, racism, etc. in which the context of terror is erased, and Israeli is singled out for obsessive condemnation. The powerful global NGOs, including HRW and Amnesty International, continue to actively promote the Durban strategy of demonization and singling out of Israel.

Therefore, HRW and Amnesty are Israel demonizers. Now I'd like you to point out any instance of HRW or AI making comparisons "between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz", which is the one and only ingredient in Sharansky's definition of demonization which would be shared by people other than NAS proponents. Also, please quote HRW and AI as claiming that Israel is at the root of all evil, which is another example of demonization provided by another of your sources.

My point is, NAS proponents take advantage of the fact that certain people out there are engaged in Israel demonizing to lump other persons or institutions into the demonizer troupe.

There is a big difference between calling Israel an apartheid state (which ex-Israeli ministers, more knowledgeable than us, have done) and calling it a Nazi state. NAS proponents disingenuously call both demonizing, when only the latter is. A Wikipedia intro should not accept such a free mixing of concepts.

The word milk means milk. If certain gropus use it meaning meat, Wikipedia may report so, but noting the the usage is unique to those groups.--Abenyosef 20:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Obsessive condemnation" is getting closer. By the way, none of the sources is "my own", and even if you think a group has misused the word "milk" to mean "meat", you really can't "report so, but noting the the usage is unique to those groups" unless some reliable source has already made that argument. You keep forgetting that your arguments don't belong in Wikipedia articles, only those of reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you understood me perfectly. Wikipedia can't use the word milk meaning meat without making it clear that it is reporting a usage, not upholding it. --Abenyosef 21:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus among the sources that what Judt is suggesting is anti-Semitism. For some perhaps that's "the destruction of Israel". For others, there's an obvious parallel with what happened with South Africa, which was hardly "anti-Boerism" or whatever.

I'm sorry, but there's no way we can consider "reconstitution of Israel as a binational state = destruction of Israel = anti-Semitism" as an neutral POV. And sure, Israel was the Jews ancient homeland, even though many Jews have no ancestral connection for almost 2000 years. But Angeln and Saxony are the ancient homeland of the Anglo-Saxon English, and in a slightly shorter timeframe, and there's no right of "return" there. OK, so this too is a POV. But it's not an anti-Semitic one, and we can't use any of these POVs as guiding the article. —Ashley Y 20:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, that's nonsense. The whole idea of Israel was a state for Jews. Turning that into an Arab state with a Jewish minority? You could as easily say that Palestinian nationalist ambitions could be satisfied by joining the West Bank with Jordan and the Gaza Strip with Egypt. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Judt and the concept of binationalism isn't even mentioned in this article, so why is it brought up so often in the talk page? Its only tangentally relevent. --GHcool 20:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone suggested the possibility that Gaza could join Egypt and the WB Jordan, and suggested that this would somehow be desirable, or at least the best choice among bad alternatives, and admitted moreover that such a notion was at this point purely utopian, and stressed that it should never be implemented against the will of anyone involved... then I wouldn't call the suggester an "Islamophobe" or an anti-Palestinian bigot, and I wouldn't describe his argument as a "delegitimization" of Palestinian rights, and I would question the judgment and/or honesty of anyone who did so.--G-Dett 20:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, that is your POV. It's a common POV in some quarters, it may very well have some currency among some of the sources. But it's not a neutral POV. —Ashley Y 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Trying to get back on topic. Jay, do you have any suggestions for the lead? Anything to add or alter in Mackan's template?--G-Dett 21:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I think most of the above discussion is unnecessary. I think everyone is agreed that a proper lead in an article on a controversial theory should present its advocates' views. I don't think anyone wants to withhold that. All we're talking about is ensuring that the phraseology doesn't present highly debatable points of view as if they were background fact. Is that OK with you, Jay?

On a closely related matter, Jay, will you help me rewrite the lead to the "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" article so that it reflects the views of the theory's advocates? I'd be much obliged. I'm having difficulty selling that principle over there, but perhaps you'd have more influence with the editors opposed to me. You've articulated the principle involved, and this is really a chance for us to work together. Thanks.--G-Dett 21:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for Lead

Can I also ask, then, whether there is agreement regarding the parts other than the specific choice of criticism/demonization/condemnation? If we can agree about the rest, I'd like to implement it, which might also help focus the debate. I've pasted my generally preferred version below, which is to say the version I think best accomodates the various viewpoints according to WP:NPOV.

New antisemitism is the concept of a new 21st-century form of antisemitism emanating simultaneously from the left, the far right, and radical Islam, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel. The term has entered common usage to refer to what some writers describe as a wave of antisemitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks. [2][3]

The concept generally posits that an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, and vilification of Israel by various individuals and world bodies, together constitute a single phenomenon, and an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs.

Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and demonization of Israel or double standards applied to its conduct may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism. [2][3] Critics of the concept argue that it trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence debate.

Regarding the word choice for Par 2, I note G-Dett's point, but simply couldn't get it to sound right with the disproportionate condemantion language and without the statement about "not in form." In that regard, maybe if anybody has small changes, they can feel free to make them in the above, with comment below? Hopefully then we can move forward. Mackan79 23:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the evident problem is that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, and third worldism are objective categories, while "obsessive criticism" has a load of subjectivity that we should strive to avoid. I've replaced it with "criticism of the state of Israel not accompanied by comparable criticism of other countries alleged to violate human rights." It's long, it's clumsy, but it's neutral and it appropriately describes what NAS proponents object to at the end of the day. Maybe a native speaker of English can improve the wording?--Abenyosef 00:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the wording to represent what proponents actually say. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No way. Wikipedia does not endorse their improper usage of the word demonization -- and no, it's not OR not to use a word. Back to square one.--Abenyosef 07:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded my proposal as "criticism of the state of Israel not accompanied by comparable criticism of other countries with arguably worse human rights records."--Abenyosef 07:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the obvious straw man argument again, and replaced it with what they actually say, since we have to actually represent their views, not things they aren't saying. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Jay, I don't really understand. Are you denying that the "double standards" argument exists? You keep referring to straw men, but it seems this is simply a matter of sourcing. We have sources saying that demonization and double standards are not the same thing. We have sources saying that double standards against Israel are New Antisemitism. Why are you calling this a straw man? Mackan79 16:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

How about "what they consider demonization"? Do the sources bear that? —Ashley Y 09:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's put it in, then. I think it's an improvement over the original, at least. —Ashley Y 02:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like we're getting there. Regarding the first "vilification", though, I still hope we can find something better, which I really think we can if we all want to preserve the NPOV tone of the article. The continuing problem, then: 1.) Vilification is a loaded word, and 2.) Vilification simply doesn't speak to the issue of double-standards, which (as I think GHcool correctly notes) is (for at least some) a different (and equally important) issue.[22] My main problem with the current version, thus: if we keep that wording in the second paragraph, then I think there simply has to be another sentence about what is actually controversial, since "vilification" really isn't. This sentence would be something like "More controversially, the term is used in regard to criticism or condemnation of Israel which applies different standards to Israel's conduct than to other nations." I guess this raises the question: Would people agree to adding this sentence, or something similar? The sentence would be well sourced, both on people making the argument and on the controversy surrounding it.

Personally, I wouldn't have any problem with adding that sentence, because I think that's the huge controversy here, and I don't see why we shouldn't recognize it. If so, I would have no problem with "vilification" preceding it. If we don't, though, then I think we need to find something better than "vilification," which manages to encompass all three D's, not just the least controversial one. Jay, or others, can I ask whether you'd be more agreeable to either of these approaches? Mackan79 14:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Another approach would be to make the last sentence – noting the controversy sparked by the concept – more specific. "Critics of the concept argue that it defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, and that it exploits antisemitism to silence serious debate," or some such thing.

I also think "opposition to Zionism and the state of Israel" is a little redundant as well as vague. Opposition "to the state of Israel" can mean being opposed to Israel's existence or opposed to its policies. If the former, it's redundant because opposition to Zionism covers that. If the latter, the phrasing is unfortunate. I'd suggest "opposition to Zionism and the policies of the state of Israel," which covers both kinds of opposition more clearly.

Nice work on all this.--G-Dett 14:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, except for the fact that 4 editors who oppose the concept of New antisemitism, and cannot seem to "write for the enemy", can't really expect their misrepresentations of the view of the proponents of New antisemitism to actually go into the article; that would be silly. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you rephrase that in terms of a constructive suggestion?

I think the "4 editors" you keep presuming to speak for have bent over backwards to accomodate your suggestions so far, and will continue to do so. They've also put together, with your input, a vastly improved lead. Can you say explicitly what needs to be changed with it and why? Thanks.--G-Dett 16:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. As I said above, I think the issue we're trying to resolve here is why you think this is a misrepresentation. We have here several sources now discussing double standards and demonization as different things, along with discussing disproportionate criticism and/or condemnation of Israel as antisemitic and the New Antisemitism. At this point, G-Dett and I have also come up with two separate ways to incorporate the "vilification" idea, as long as we note the "double standards" point as well. I would think we really should be able to discuss how best to proceed. Mackan79 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as a thought I don't currently have time to develop: one other issue with what we have is whether the second and third paragraphs shouldn't go together. I've considered ways to do it, but perhaps others have a way. I also feel, generally, like it's strange we don't mention the fact that NAS is controversial (even though much of the article relates to the controversy). That said, we could combine them something like: "Proponents generally argue (surge, public discourse, vilification). Some proponents further argue (anti-Americanism, third worldism, etc.). Controversy exists over (fill in blank)." Perhaps then the final paragraph would briefly note the opposition, or perhaps it could all be put together. Otherwise, I'm simply not sure what makes the second paragraph the theory as opposed to the third paragraph what proponents say. It looks like basically 6 or 7 of the same types of things. Is this worth trying to fix? I just feel like we should get something good now while everybody is looking at it. I may come up with a proposal later. Mackan79 19:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we can mention "double standards" without any original research around the words. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change

I believe the "Critics of the concept" sentence should be changed to read as follows:

Critics of the concept argue that it trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence debate.

This proposed change (re: trivialization) is consistent with objections raised by Brownfield, Klug, Lerner, Butler and others. The argument is an integral component of the "new antisemitism" debate, and I trust that it will not be identified as "original research". Discussion is welcome. CJCurrie 22:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to say it defines "demonization too broadly", you'd obviously have to use "demonization" in the first place. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As it happens, I merely copied the word "demonization" from Mackan's suggested version (above). I don't have any strong opinions concerning its usage, and would have no objection to replacing it with "illegitimate criticism" or something similar.

Since you raised no objections to "trivializes the meaning of antisemitism", should I assume that you have none? CJCurrie 22:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think all changes could be made at once, not a bit here and there, so that the paragraphs are in harmony with one another. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My suggested change is meant to be considered as an amendment to Mackan's revised introduction, not as a stand-alone proposal. In any event, I don't believe that my proposed addition would destabilize any other part of the intro. If you disagree, please tell me why. CJCurrie 22:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my absence; I've just implemented CJCurrie's suggestion, as well as a brief mention of the "double standards" idea per Jay's suggestion above in my proposed version. Does the current suggestion work for everybody? Mackan79 21:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's ready to go in.--G-Dett 23:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I changed the first paragraph, and am actually wondering now if this doesn't solve the issue without getting into some of the messier issues about demonization or double standards. Indeed, one concern was our continuing attempt to make so many categorical statements about the concept, some of which may not be true in all circumstances. Any thoughts on the paragraph as is? If this has concensus, I think I'd be fine. Mackan79 13:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me.--G-Dett 15:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Being unsure why Slim removed it, I'll try again. If there's an issue, please do explain; we've tried very hard to incorporate all sides here. Mackan79 03:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Too Long

I feel this article is too long and too repetitive. Several different people are quoted or paraphrased at length, making the same points over and over.

Hypnopomp 22:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

1949 Commentary article

The article's "History" section currently begins as follows:

An early use of the concept in close to its modern form was in the late 1940s, when the Soviet Union was accused of pursuing a "new anti-Semitism" against Jews, of the sort manifested in the so-called Doctors' plot, a supposed conspiracy by Jewish doctors to poison the Soviet leadership. Stalinist opposition to "rootless cosmopolitans" – a euphemism for Jews – was rooted in the belief, as expressed by Klement Gottwald, that "treason and espionage infiltrate the ranks of the Communist Party. This channel is Zionism."

There are some problems with this section.

• Solomon Schwarz's article was published three years before the "Doctors' plot", making the link somewhat tenuous.
• On a more fundamental level, Schwarz's article is only tangentially focused on the relationship between Zionism and anti-Semitism. Consider the following:

The unexpectedness of this rapid succession of apparently anti-Semitic moves has caused commentators to improvise hasty explanations. The most popular of these is that Jews are, by cultural and familial ties, internationalist in outlook and therefore do not fit very snugly into the recent wave of officially fostered Russian nationalism. Another school of thought holds that the setting up of a Jewish state in Palestine has reawakened outlawed Zionist sympathies in the Jews of Russia proper as well as in the annexed sectors of Poland. Both of these explanations are pertinent, but they do not get to the heart of Soviet anti-Semitism. (p. 536)

The particular virulence of the present purge of Jewish intellectuals -- the purge of Jews from the political apparatus having been to a large extent already achieved -- is apparently due to the convergence of the revived bureaucratic anti-Semitism of the late 30's with the postwar growth of Russian nationalism as a political instrument of the Soviet government. Unquestionably such specific factors as the wave of general xenophobia sweeping Russia -- a Xenophobia which daily becomes part of the permanent cultural atmosphere of the country rather than a passing excess -- as well as the Soviet disappointment over the composition of the new Jewish state, also play an important part in the genesis of the incidents that are arousing apprehension among Jews everywhere.

But it is to the careful study of the Russian system that we must look for the social context in which such political and diplomatic developments bear fruit in anti-Semitic sentiments and actions. (p. 545)

Most of Schwarz's article is focused on "popular" or institutional forms of anti-Semitic discrimination within the Soviet state, and has nothing whatever to do with Zionism or Israel. It does not represent "an early use of the concept in close to its modern form", and is accordingly an unsuitable source for our article.

• Once Schwarz's article is excluded, the remainder of the paragraph appears untenable -- at least in its present form. The only other external source currently provided is a brief fragment from Pravda, which is critical of Zionism but does not reference the term "rootless cosmopolitans" (despite an inference to the contrary). Whether or not the Pravda fragment is anti-Semitic is a subject for debate; identifying it as representative of "new anti-Semitism" seems more than a bit dubious.

• The anti-Semitic character of the "Doctors' Plot" has been addressed by innumerable historians, and is not particularly controversial. However, no reliable evidence been provided in this article to demonstrate that the "Doctors' Plot", or Stalin's purges generally, are relevant to the modern concept of "new anti-Semitism". Once the Schwarz article is excluded, there are no reliable sources in our article which link Stalin's late period of rule with the "new anti-Semitism" term.

Given that my last attempt to remove something from this article led to an inane month-long dispute (in which some editors argued for the retention of a demonstrably inaccurate statement), I'm prepared to wait for a response before deciding what to do with the paragraph. If other editors (i) believe that the basic thrust of the paragraph is relevant to the article, and (ii) are able to cite appropriate sources to demonstrate its relevance, then it may be possible for the paragraph to be retained. In its current form, however, it is clearly unacceptable.

Comments welcome. CJCurrie 01:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't you object to it when ChrisO added it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I found it innocuous at the time. I can't remember.

I'll assume that you have no objections to raise. CJCurrie 07:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Would Armon please explain why he returned the paragraph? CJCurrie 08:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Because there's no consensus to remove it. Please leave it there and don't start another revert war to remove material other people have written that has been there for a long time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, WP:BOLD. Could we please use this page to actually discuss reverts as well as changes? —Ashley Y 08:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a page that editors should be bold on, because it's too controversial, as it says at the top of this page. Such large changes, especially the deletion of long-standing material, has to be discussed in advance, and then only carried out if people agree. No response does not signal agreement. CJCurrie does this far too often and it causes trouble every time. He also only does it in areas where he feels the left is being criticized, which is tiresome and I wish it would stop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's sensible to discuss a big change in advance, but I think no response actually signals no objection. If someone comes along later and reverts, they should probably at least discuss it afterwards on the talk page. —Ashley Y 09:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Response:

(i) I don't consider the removal of this paragraph to be a "large change".

(ii) I don't consider this deletion to be especially controversial, nor do I consider it to be "causing trouble".

(iii) I've outlined a case for deleting the paragraph. No one has responded.

(iv) For some curious reason, most questionable assertions throughout the history of this article have had to do with criticism of the left.

(v) I have no particular desire to defend the Soviet Union, but I don't believe the paragraph is relevant to the concept of "new antisemitism".

Sigh ... in my naivete, I actually thought a change this simple could be accomplished without a protracted standoff. Apparently not. Could others please respond to my original post? CJCurrie 09:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the USSR is important here. Even today, the rhetoric and the imagery used by the Left comes straight from the Soviet propaganda: anti-colonialism, anti-apartheid, anti-imperialist, etc. Let's keep in mind that what they shyly called "anti-Zionism" was a rallying cry throughout the Cold War. As you noted yourself, "Schwarz's article is only tangentially focused on the relationship between Zionism and anti-Semitism." ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's presumably why ChrisO added it in the first place. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted and was going to discuss here, but real life got in the way. It's fair comment that I should have explained myself. Basically it's the same reasons SV and Hummus gave, it's important historical context which, if anything, should be expanded IMO. I don't agree with your reasons to exclude Schwarz's article. If fact, in the quotes you presented he's clearly talking about "the Soviet disappointment over the composition of the new Jewish state" or "anti-Zionism" as a key pretext for Soviet antisemitism. <<-armon->> 11:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Our use of the Schwarz article would indeed seem to constitute OR. HumusSapiens post above sums up the grounds for its inclusion, without quite realizing those grounds are pure OR. Armon says that in the cited passages Schwarz is "clearly talking about the Soviet disappointment over the the composition of the new Jewish state." Yes, Schwarz clearly mentions this, but only as an example of an unsatisfactory explanation, something that fails to "get to the heart of Soviet anti-semitism."

Are there others with substantive responses to CJ? He's made a serious case here, which merits a more serious response than has yet been provided. --G-Dett 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Jay, I asked "who but Wikipedians says that what these 1949 and 1952 writings describe is NAS 'in close to its modern form'?" You say you still don't understand what I'm getting at, so I thought I'd explain here and give you a chance to self-revert. CJ's demonstrated at length why this paragraph is problematic. His reasons are sound and have yet to be answered with any detail or seriousness. What I'm adding is only a footnote to this, but it's enough on its own to disqualify the paragraph. If you only have energy to respond to one of us, however, let it be him.

The question that CJ raised is, how does this writing from 1949 belong here, if its author is stressing that what he means by "new antisemitism" has little to do with Zionism? Are we trying to give the subject of this article a historical pedigree – "an early use of the concept in close to its modern form," etc. – by referencing something written over a half-century ago, on the grounds that it uses the same phrase – "new antisemitism" – while arguably if not unequivocally meaning something else by it? The "new" of 1949 is not necessarily the "new" of the 21st-century, and after all the new this or the new that is about as generic a phrase as can be imagined. This is why I asked, what reliable source is saying that the subject of the 1949 article is the forerunner of what is now (controversially) called "new antisemitism"? As far as I can tell, it's a Wikipedian who's decided this. But please correct me if I'm wrong.--G-Dett 03:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The 1949 Commentary article has no clear connection to the current concept of New Antisemitism. It just mentions en passant Zionism as one possible cause for the purge of Jewish intellectuals. There was no follow-up. It seems a bit far-fetched to make mention of this article here. I fully support removing it.

Also, please note that the Talk page is where proposals for changes are made. If someone disagrees with a proposed change, they should say so and say why, rather than filibustering the proposal by not responding to it.--Abenyosef 04:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Update

I first raised objections to the "1949 Commentary article" paragraph on March 10. Since then, three editors have responded on this page to indicate their objection to its removal.

• In response to my question as to why Armon restored the disputed paragraph, SlimVirgin wrote the following: "Because there's no consensus to remove it. Please leave it there and don't start another revert war to remove material other people have written that has been there for a long time." She later added: "This is not a page that editors should be bold on, because it's too controversial, as it says at the top of this page. Such large changes, especially the deletion of long-standing material, has [sic] to be discussed in advance, and then only carried out if people agree. No response does not signal agreement. CJCurrie does this far too often and it causes trouble every time. He also only does it in areas where he feels the left is being criticized, which is tiresome and I wish it would stop."
• Humus sapiens wrote the following: "I think the USSR is important here. Even today, the rhetoric and the imagery used by the Left comes straight from the Soviet propaganda: anti-colonialism, anti-apartheid, anti-imperialist, etc. Let's keep in mind that what they shyly called "anti-Zionism" was a rallying cry throughout the Cold War. As you noted yourself, "Schwarz's article is only tangentially focused on the relationship between Zionism and anti-Semitism."
• Armon wrote the following: "Sorry, I reverted and was going to discuss here, but real life got in the way. It's fair comment that I should have explained myself. Basically it's the same reasons SV and Hummus gave, it's important historical context which, if anything, should be expanded IMO. I don't agree with your reasons to exclude Schwarz's article. If fact, in the quotes you presented he's clearly talking about "the Soviet disappointment over the composition of the new Jewish state" or "anti-Zionism" as a key pretext for Soviet antisemitism."

My responses:

• SlimVirgin's opposition to removing the paragraph appears to rest upon two planks: (i) the fact that it has been in the article for some time, and (ii) the fact that CJCurrie supports its removal. She has not provided any defence of the paragraph itself.
• Humus sapiens's argument that "the imagery used by the Left comes straight from the Soviet propaganda: anti-colonialism, anti-apartheid, anti-imperialist, etc." is Wikipedia:Original Research, as G-Dett has already noted. While his belief that "the USSR is important here" may be heartfelt, he has not shown any evidence that Soviet anti-Zionism (or Soviet anti-Semitism) dating from 1949-52 is relevant to the modern concept of "new antisemitism". I'm hesitant to comment on his statement, "As you noted yourself, Schwarz's article is only tangentially focused on the relationship between Zionism and anti-Semitism.", as I'm not entirely certain of what he's trying to argue.
• Armon's objection is based on a misreading of the source material. Schwarz explictly argues that "Soviet anti-Zionism" and "the Soviet disappointment over the composition of the new Jewish state" is not central to Soviet anti-Semitism circa 1949.

No-one has yet presented a credible defense of the paragraph, although this hasn't stopped SlimVirgin and her allies from resisting all attempts to delete it. I would suggest that if editors want the paragraph to be retained, they should be prepared to argue a more convincing case in its favour. Alternately, if editors want to cite connections between Soviet anti-Zionism and "new antisemitism", they should be prepared to provide better sources.

From what I can tell, the only thing linking Solomon Schwarz's article to the modern concept of "new antisemitism" is that fact that the phrase "New Anti-Semitism" appears in the title. This is not a particularly compelling connection. The phrase itself is fairly generic, and has only taken on a particular meaning since 2000 (or 1973, if you want to trace it back to the first ADL book). The fact that the words "New Anti-Semitism" appear in a 1949 article is not particularly relevant, and I rather doubt that any recent works promoting the term "new antisemitism" have made use of Schwarz's observations.

Schwarz's article is not focused on the Soviet Union's opposition to Zionism, and Schwarz himself was not prescient enough to foresee the "Doctor's Plot" three years later. The article is about "popular" prejudice and institutional barriers to advancement, and its title refers to mutations in Soviet anti-Semitism from the 1920s and '30s. It is not, as such, relevant to an encyclopedia article on the modern "new antisemitism" concept.

Of course, it might be possible to retain the disputed paragraph if other editors are willing to acknowledge that the term "new anti-Semitism" has had different meanings in different historical contexts, and to restructure the article accordingly. Past experience suggests that such an acknowledgement will not be forthcoming.

If no-one can make a credible case for retaining the paragraph in the next day or so, then I can see no reason why it should not be removed. CJCurrie 01:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

External sites/further reading

Hi Slim, geocites isn't appropriate is it? Also, frontpagemag.com is an attack site isn't it? --Tom 23:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not an attack site. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Foreign-language links

English language links are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia. It may be appropriate to have a link to a foreign-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English, when the link is to the subject's text in its original language or they contain visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables, per the guideline on foreign-language sites.

When linking to a site in a foreign language under the exceptions above, label the link with a language icon, available for most languages, using two-letter language codes: for example, {{es icon}}, {{fr icon}}, etc. --WP:EL#Foreign-language_links

Someone said that foreign language links should be removed. That's overstating the case, though clearly English is strongly prefered. I don't read Hebrew; to what extent are the articles at http://www.geocities.com/byemini/yemini.html a 'unique' contribution to the debate? Regards, Ben Aveling 00:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about this link either way. I was concerned about the removal of Frontpage mag as an "attack site." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well perhaps I was too brief in my edit summary but given the combination of (1) foreign language and (2) hosted on Geocities... I'm having difficulty seeing how that link qualifies under a combo of WP:EL and WP:RS. (→Netscott) 00:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither hosting on geocities (convenience links are allowed) nor foreign language (also allowed) would disqualify it. However, those issues apart, I don't see it as particularly useful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)Which falls under WP:EL. Essentially, does the link provide content in that foreign language that is more or less essential to the topic at hand and the same content can't be found in English? I think you're answering that question with your response Slim Virgin. Thanks. (→Netscott) 00:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Netscott for your imput and help with that external link. Slim was telling me to read the WP:EL policy when in fact it seemed that she need the refresher course. Anyways,--Tom 01:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but I didn't advise you to read WP:EL and it's not a policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Slim, which policies were you referring to here? And I see that WP:EL is a MOS or guideline? Is it me or is this place overly policy/guideline ridden. Anyways, no big deal, I have trying to remove external links lately that are "not appropriate" whatever that means :) Cheers, --Tom 01:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just so there's no misunderstanding about this. If other editors see that link as having compelling content that's essential to this topic and can't be found elsewhere in English then I'd certainly not have any problem seeing it come back. I say this because I must admit that I don't read Hebrew and made my editorial decision about this from the look of the site and what I percieved to be shortcomings about the link. (→Netscott) 01:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And it's not like there's a shortage of external links from this article... Ben Aveling 00:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Mackan, please don't change the lead over objections. Just because people don't keep on responding to your many, many posts doesn't mean they agree. Your changes don't improve anything and you're removing sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There's been plenty of response and discussion of this issue. —Ashley Y 05:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say there hadn't been discussion, Ashley? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite. And that discussion has generated a rough consensus. —Ashley Y 06:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed ad nauseum, as you know, for over a month, and achieved a clear concensus of a large number of editors on the talk page, at least 6 of whom directly participated in creating the new version. Also, I did not remove any sources, but made sure to retain them, and simply moved one in accordance with the new version. Is this ok then? Also, am I wrong to think that if you disagreed with the change, that perhaps you could have spoken up over the last month while we were discussing it? Mackan79 05:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Until the objections become more detailed and engaged, I think it should be fine to go ahead and keep editing the article, reverting non-constructive deletions as we go along. WP:Consensus is not meant to provide veto powers through stonewalling.--G-Dett 14:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Leifern, have I gathered correctly from the above that you would be ok with the change to the lead? I think we should try to separate this from the original research issue later on. I tend to agree with G-Dett on both points, but am somewhat skeptical of our ability to decide this all together. If you don't object, Leifern, I'll reintroduce the new lead, without comment on the second OR issue, just so we can try to deal with this appropriately. Mackan79 15:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It depends on which version of the lead you're talking about :-) Seriously, we should be able to come up with something reasonable, and then maybe structure the rest of the article in a reasonable way. I would recommend that we keep proposing new leads here or on a separate page and critique it earnestly with each other. But I want to state for the record that it's NPOV to say that Israel has defense needs, just like Palestinians have humanitarian and political needs and rights. This could devolve into the depths of pettiness unless we're willing to be serious about it. --Leifern 16:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I think we're all doing a little mixing of the two articles here :) Revise comment for New Antisemitism (I think you're still in Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid mode)? The question related to whether we should use the new formulation that is clearer about the connection between NAS and anti-Zionism. I won't repeat since I know you've been following the discussion. Mackan79 17:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Protect

I have protected this entry due to excessive revert warring. Please try to settle disputes in a civil and collaborative fashion here on the Talk page. Just blindly reverting each other will not work. Try to find a middle ground, which I am sure exists. I would like to unprotect the entry as soon as possible, so please settle down and give collaboration a chance. Thanks, Crum375 16:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You had every reason to protect the page, Crum375, but I'm not sure a cooling-off period is going to help much. The edit-warring may be borne of frustration, frayed nerves, etc. on one side, but it appears to be strategy on the other. That is to say, there are influential editors on one side of this who are refusing even to address the patiently detailed arguments of their opponents on the talk page, but hasten to revert edits that – after exhaustive discussion here – appear in the article itself, on the grounds that there's "no consensus" for them. This in effect turns stonewalling into veto-power. Short of comprehensive mediation, I don't see a way out of this.--G-Dett 00:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why not go for mediation? Crum375 00:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)