Talk:New antisemitism

Archives

Organizations that fight anti-Semitism

I guess the question of whether these orgs are relevant depends on whether new antisemitism is one of the forms of antisemitism they challenge. <<-armon->> 22:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that many organizations (and commentators) consider the term "new antisemitism" to be a political epithet rather than a signifier of an actual phenomenon. Retitling the section as "Organizations that fight new anti-Semitism" would only beg the question, and would serve no useful purpose.

On a side note, I can't help but notice that most groups mentioned in the "organizations that fight anti-Semitism" list are from one particular side of the "NAS" dispute. This strikes me as ... well ... more than a bit leading. If we're going to have the list, shouldn't we diversify it by adding organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International (or Anti-Racist Action, for that matter)?

In any event, I have no objection to listing the arguments of the ADL, AJC, etc. in the main body of the article. CJCurrie 22:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

HRW and AI (ARA is fringe) have different, broader, mandates so they aren't the same. If the organizations actually involved in fighting antisemitism are all in agreement that NAS exists, that should be telling us something. <<-armon->> 03:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Zombietime image in the lead

For some time now, I've believed that the Zombietime image in the lede is unsuitable for this article. There are several reasons why I've reached this conclusion:

• The image is obviously leading, and a clear instance of well-poisoning. The "New antisemitism" article is supposed to provide an overview of the "NAS" concept, not to advocate for its proponents or critics. By including an obviously anti-Semitic image in the lede, we are effectively validating the concept.
• The image is not notable. Zombietime's image is of a sign held by single protester at an anti-war rally (an act which was presumably undertaken without the support or encouragement of the rally's organizers). The image has not been not widely publicized outside of Wikipedia, and is not independently notable.
• The image represents a fringe minority viewpoint. The poster's reference to "Counterfeit Jews" very likely represents a fringe, far-right and quasi-religious POV -- ie. that modern Jews are impostors who've usurped another group's identity. This view is held in some fringe African-African and British circles, but carries very little weight in the world beyond. It's certainly not a view held by most opponents of the "NAS" concept.
• We can do better. This is the most fundamental point: even if other editors don't believe that my previous remarks invalidate the relevance of the Zombietime image, we can surely choose a more representative image for this subject. I don't believe it will be especially difficult to find an image that has been the course of legitimate controversy, and has brought the NAS debates to light in a public forum.

There is, in fact, a specific image that I believe would be more suitable: Dave Brown's 2003 cartoon depicting Ariel Sharon as Goya's "Sharon consuming one of his young" (viewable here). This image was the subject of extensive debate on both sides of the "NAS" divide (as so was not leading), won a major international prize (certainly notable) and was featured in a major British newspaper ( not fringe). All told, it would be a much better selection for the lede than the current Zombietime pic.

What do others think? CJCurrie 03:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

---

In my opinion, the main point of including the Z. image is not that it's either inherently notable or "typical" (whatever "typical" is even really supposed to mean in this context), but rather that it shows the general kind of thing which seems to be openly tolerated at certain allegedly "left-wing" demonstrations, where as long as you avoid certain codewords (such as chanting your love for Adolf Hitler or whatever), you can proclaim almost any bigoted hatred or defamation against Jews and/or Israelis and still be accepted as part of the demonstration. We could explain more or less the same thing in carefully neutralized and quasi-scholarly language, but the image makes this fact crystal-clear in concrete visual form. And the fact that the image does not use pure quasi-leftist rhetoric or symbolism makes it even better for the purposes of this article, since this article is predominantly about a certain observable practical convergence between elements of the far-left, the far-right, and Islamists, who have all found a common interest in Jew-hating. AnonMoos 11:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe you've made an interesting point, though perhaps not the one you had intended. As you've outlined the situation, the poster appears to demonstrate the concept of "new antisemitism", rather than inform viewers on the debates surrounding the term. Given that "NAS" is a disputed concept, I don't believe that our inclusion of such an image in the lede is appropriate (though it may be suitable elsewhere). It's certainly not the optimal choice.

(Btw, there's no evidence that this poster was "tolerated" at the anti-war demonstration; the most likely explanation is that one (1) idiot decided to crash the event, and few people other than Zombietime noticed.) CJCurrie 21:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The placard is very large and very brightly colored (so presumably hard to ignore), and the person holding the placard appears to be surrounded by a closely-packed knot of people (not skulking around the fringes as a lone wolf). If the people who run such demonstrations don't want to be tarred with the brush of the New Antisemitism, then they should be much more vigilant in actively rejecting such expressions of opinion as part of their demonstrations, since currently a significant number of "Jewish-identified Jews" and people inclined to support Israel are convinced that groups such as A.N.S.W.E.R. and the general Berkeley demonstration culture do tolerate (and therefore passively endorse) such bigotry -- whether this is really true or not. Certainly I've never downloaded a single audio or video file from Indymedia, but I saw several years ago how many discussion areas on Indymedia were filled with racist bigotry and hatred. Such self-proclaimed leftist groups leaving matters ambiguous as to what they will tolerate accomplishes nothing other than increasing the degree of political acrimony in the USA, but many of the groups still don't seem to have come down hard against bigotry in this matter (or at least that's the impression which has been created, and which they don't seem to have done much to publicly address). AnonMoos 03:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with CJ (as people will expect since this has come up before). Could there be any copyright problems with the Dave Brown cartoon? I got myself into trouble before (and worse still got an independent admin into trouble) for questioning the copyright status of the Zombietime image. Itsmejudith 20:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Dave Brown cartoon is currently featured on his biography page. I'm not familiar with the copyright situation; perhaps others could review the matter. CJCurrie 21:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The caption reads: "...this placard mixes anti-imperialist, anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-Zionist and anti-globalization imagery with some classic antisemitic motifs." This is indisputable. The only real, reliably sourced, debate about the "new antisemitism" concept is whether it's "new" or not. The phenomenon itself exists, it's a completely appropriate photo, and the caption doesn't take sides on the issue. I don't see any merit in the objections to it. <<-armon->> 02:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this isn't correct. No one disputes that anti-Semitism still exists, and I don't believe anyone would dispute the fact that some expressions of anti-Zionism are anti-Semitic. There is, however, a large discussion as to whether "new antisemitism" is a legitimate phenomenon or a mere political epithet. By using this photo, we're effectively utilizing a fringe expression of bigotry to favour one side of the discussion.

(But even you disagree with what I've written, do you honestly believe that Zombietime's picture of one (1) insignificant demonstrator is the best image for the lede?) CJCurrie 03:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do. As you said, no (reasonable) person disputes the fact that some expressions of anti-Zionism are antisemitic. The actual debate you're taking about is where the line is drawn. I don't think there's any argument that the placard in question crosses all the reasonable "lines", therefore, it's a good example of what the article is discussing. If the protester is "fringe" -that's good. Hope he is. <<-armon->> 03:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The picture is unquestionably antisemitic, but it doesn't prove the reality of the "new antisemitism" concept. New antisemitism is supposed to outline the discussions around "NAS", as well as explaining the views of proponents and critics -- it isn't supposed to endorse one particular side within the discussion.

Seriously, why wouldn't the "Sharon" image be more suitable? CJCurrie 04:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If the Z. image is really a picture of a far-right Christian religious kook holding up a bigoted sign as an accepted part of a nominally "left-wing" protest demonstration, then it's a perfect illustration for this article. At a thumbnail resolution, the Dave Brown cartoon mainly looks like a generic editorial cartoon, vaguely similar to numerous others -- the aspect of the cartoon which most steps over the line (the use of the word "kosher") is not visible unless the illustration is displayed at a rather large size. AnonMoos 07:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head, AnonMoos: "if the image is really...". Assuming that we are not arguing that Zombietime's website is a WP:RS then how do we know that this poster was really carried at any demonstration at all? What is there to say that the demonstration at which the poster may have been carried was "left-wing"? Itsmejudith 08:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the only part of it that I was neither accepting nor denying (instead leaving under suspension of judgement) was CJCurrie's apparent claim that the placard reflects Christian identity ideology. If Zombietime were a systematic fabricator in taking demonstration photographs, plenty of people would have had plenty of opportunities to expose him, but that doesn't seem to have happened... AnonMoos 09:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether the photo is fabricated, but of whether we have a RS for saying that it was carried on a demonstration. I've looked again at Zombietime's website and his "hall of shame", where this photo appears first. The assemblage of photos there is clearly following an agenda. What I actually find most shocking is his juxtaposition of examples of perfectly legitimate political protest alongside completely illegitimate examples such as this one. NB also that there is no basis for your twice-repeated assertion of this being carried at a "left-wing" demonstration - Zombietime describes it as an "anti-war" demonstration. Unless you want to allege that only people on the left were against the war... Itsmejudith 10:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to see the photo in its original context, look at the photo page for that particular demonstration -- not the hall of shame overview page. It's nice that you clearly distinguish between what you consider "legitimate" and "illegitimate", but Zombietime's main point in setting up his site was that there seem to be a lot of people out there with much less firm personal boundaries. I assume the demonstration was carried out under the aegis of some such organization as A.N.S.W.E.R., and that those who consider themselves to be at least vaguely left-wing would have far outnumbered the Buchananites and followers of Sen. William E. Borah and Rep. Burton K. Wheeler. Frankly, I consider myself to be at least vaguely left-wing, and one major reason why I haven't attended an anti-war demonstration is that I don't want to affiliate myself with, or endorse, the assholes at A.N.S.W.E.R. AnonMoos 15:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in the US then an anti-war demo is necessarily left-wing, which does not apply the UK or Europe generally, where a much wider range of public opinion has been against the war. On the general question of boundaries of protest, you will have noticed that Zombietime includes some very different categories: for example, people dressed as terrorists alongside people who are protesting naked, antisemites alongside people who just hate G.W. Bush. Placing these people together as similarly "shameful" is suggesting that we make a moral equivalence between them, and I find that suggestion repugnant. Itsmejudith 20:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

My observation is that moderates don't tend to go to demonstrations. They're busy at work, taking the kids to soccer, etc etc. <<-armon->> 01:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

2 million people demonstrated against the invasion of Iraq in London. For most of them it was their first (or only) demonstration. I'd be interested in your view of whether moderates have time to edit Wikipedia. Itsmejudith 10:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"For most of them it was their first (or only) demonstration"...unlike the sad gray people who are always there selling copies of Socialist Worker -which proves my point. Anyway, this is going waaay off topic. <<-armon->> 15:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And rather fewer went on the next demo. In my case it was because, even as an anti-Zionist Jew, I did not like how the anti-Israeli message was delivered and given weight.--Peter cohen 16:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Where does the word "kosher" appear. I've checked the larger image and can't see it.--Peter cohen 16:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, sorry -- I was influenced by my memory of a case of some other controversial cartoon (where the word "kosher" actually was used) into reading "kosher" into that image. AnonMoos 22:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism! Antisemitism!

There are other (and free) images that also give an overview of the subject. // Liftarn

Note the Jewish religious side-curls in that image. How typical. AnonMoos 08:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Of what?--Tom 17:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

By depicting the person with an Israeli flag shirt as having side-curls, the cartoonist is revealing that either: 1) His real objection is to Jews on the grounds of religion (not to Zionists on the grounds of politics) or 2) He is so utterly and abysmally ignorant of the relevant details of the middle-east situation (such as that no Prime Minister of Israel has ever worn side-curls, and many of those who do wear side-curls are ambivalent or even opposed to Zionism) that he would have done well to avoid sticking his foot into the whole topic. It's unfortunately somewhat typical for "radical" agitprop imagery to insert inappropriate religious symbolism into what are ostensibly supposed to be political posters, cartoons, etc. AnonMoos 18:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explaination. I'll admitt that I for one, would not be able to tell you what level/type of religion "militant settlers" are or what their specific beliefs are. Anyways, --Tom 15:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My hunch is that your second explanation is spot-on and for that very reason this image works on a number of levels as an illustration of the NAS debate. Itsmejudith 20:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well it's a bit of self serving apologia from Carlos Latuff. Here's some of his other work: Image:Ariel Sharon by Latuff.jpg I don't think he's the sort of representative the "anti" side of the debate really wants. <<-armon->> 01:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Judith was being charitable when she assumed that he was a moron rather than a bigot -- AnonMoos 07:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In any case, as far as the suitability of the shepherd cartoon (why a shepherd?) for this article, probably many people would find it offensive, but as also with the Dave Brown cartoon, the most offensive detail is unfortunately not too visible unless the cartoon is displayed at a fairly large size... AnonMoos 09:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a shepherd because as a reference to The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Feel free to draw your own conclusions. // Liftarn

That is your point of view. I would instead guess that the side curls combined with the rifle and handgun is used to indicate a settler type zionist. You may also notice the abcense of the large, crooked nose that is the hallmark of antisemitic cartoons (and now used in antiarab cartoons as well). // Liftarn

Unfortunately for your interpretation, only a relatively small minority of West-bank settlement-dwellers wear side-curls -- and the majority of Israelis who wear side-curls in fact reside in ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods of west Jerusalem, where they speak Yiddish instead of Hebrew, attend yeshivas, are exempt from general Israeli army service requirements, and are by no means necessarily Zionists (some have pro-Zionist leanings, others are anti-Zionist, and a large number are somewhat ambivalent). However, thanks for the elucidation on the shepherding. AnonMoos 14:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

But there are some obvious examples[1]. Ultra-Orthodox settlers do exist. Settler cummunities are attractive to the ultra-Orthodox as it offers cheap housing, segregated communities, and easy access to Israel. Ultra-Orthodox settlements include Beitar Illit, Modi'in Illit (aka Kiryat Sefer), Tel Zion, Immanuel, Mattityahu, Ma'ale Amos, Nahliel and Asfar. With over 70 000 ultra-Orthodox living in the West Bank (and 70% of the births) it's not that small. It may also be because the ultra-Orthodox are very hawkish in Israeli politics. // Liftarn

You seem to be using a very significantly different definition of the word "Ultra-orthodox" than the one I was using. Side-curls are not too often worn outside of communities where a significant proportion of adult men spend their days studying in traditional Yeshivas. I could believe that many of the Hebron city settlers and the floating population of west bank hilltop outpost kids wear side-curls, but I very much doubt whether most "Yesha Council" types do... Avigdor Lieberman seems to embody everything you most hate and despise, and he doesn't wear side-curls. AnonMoos 10:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Did people have an opinion on the Sharon cartoon linked by CJCurrie? I personally don't know that a picture in the lead is necessary, but this seems better for several reasons (particularly with a caption noting the controversy that surrounded the cartoon). There are a number of issues with the current picture, but one is simply that it's shocking, in a way that doesn't suggest an enyclopedic article. If people are saying the message in the photo is actually the crowd's reaction, also, I don't think that comes across. If we want a picture, I'd think the Sharon cartoon would be much more appropriate. Mackan79 13:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I already discussed some of CJCurrie's objections to the Z. image in detail in the discussion above. I don't actually insist that the image be the first one in the article, just that whatever is first be clear -- and unfortunately, the Dave Brown cartoon looks somewhat like just another generic editorial cartoon (unless you blow it up enough so that the word "kosher" is clearly visible), while the most offensive feature of the shepherd cartoon is again not clear unless the image is displayed at a large size (and might not be considered offensive unless you actually know something about the social meaning of side curls). AnonMoos 14:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does the image has to be offensive? The main requirement is that it's informative. // Liftarn

If it's a clear example of the kind of thing that some people consider to be the New Antisemitism, then it's probably going to offend somebody, just by the nature of the subject. AnonMoos 14:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is why I think a caption would be important, since this would then explain the basis for the claims of New Antisemitism, as opposed to shocking people with a blatantly and obviously antisemitic picture. The thing is, one key aspect of New Antisemitism is that it is some way indirect, which is another problem with the picture we have. This is why I think the Sharon picture, along with a caption, would be more informative. It's also possible any picture in the lead is going to make too strong a statement about what "New Antisemitism" is about, in which case we may be better without one. With a good caption, though, I think the Sharon cartoon could be a plus. Mackan79 17:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well-considered public pronouncements by prominent personalities are often "subtle", but one of the allegations connected with the whole "New Antisemism" thing is that some of what is done behind the scenes and/or by less well-known people can be startlingly unsubtle. AnonMoos 18:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't really justify the ZT image either, though, does it? If I were characterizing this concept, one way would be "old wine; new bottles." That's not necessarily subtle, but if you still have the old bottle, then I think it doesn't qualify. There is also an element to the concept of antisemitism on the left; however to pick such a shocking image, with no notability on its own, over other options is what I think creates the issue. Mackan79 21:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the Sharon collage is not related to the concept of NAS while the Cry Wolf cartoon is. But, then there is no need to have an image just to spice up the article. It has to be relevant as well. // Liftarn

Actually, Mackan79 was referring to the Dave Brown cartoon, not to Latuff's Goebbels-esque vomitation. AnonMoos 14:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean the collage, but the one linked by CJCurrie here. Here's a search on the controversy;[2] there was quite a bit about it at the time. Mackan79 14:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If we want informative, the ZT image illustrates the convergence of various "streams" of antisemitism in a way which perfectly illustrates the concept -which should be the point of a lead illustration. As for the Brown cartoon, it's ridiculous to suggest that picture of a man devouring a baby is "less shocking" or "spicy".

BTW CJC's WP:OR regarding the ZT photo is completely irrelevant and most probably wrong. For example, "Counterfeit Jews" -the most likely explanation is the claim that Jews (esp European Jews) are actually Khazars and have no claim to Palestine. This is very common in "anti-Zionist" circles. <<-armon->> 16:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

a) the image is unfree (and from a very biased source), b) that's OR. // Liftarn

Are you accusing Zombietime of faking the photo? AnonMoos 18:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not from a reliable source, but a very biased source. // Liftarn

Whatever -- No one has ever produced the slightest evidence that Zombietime doesn't do exactly the things which he claims that he does, viz. wander around at demonstrations, parades, and rallies associated with the general quasi-"leftish" culture of the Northern California bay area, and take photos of what goes on at the events, or in the immediate vicinity of the events. From all evidence, Zombietime's photos are more "reliable" than the Adnan Hajj photographs published by Reuters. AnonMoos 22:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, we don't have to prove a negative. It is the ones that want the image included that have to prove that a) the image isn't fake, staged or missinterpreted and b) that it is an example of NAS. And use reliable sources for that. // Liftarn

You're rather missing the point, which is that there are a lot of bloggers out there who would enjoy discrediting Zombietime, (i.e. doing a "Dan Rather" on him) -- but none seems to have successfully done this. AnonMoos 17:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That is no evidence that "Zombietime" is a reliable source. Sounds a bit like a Russell's teapot argument. // Liftarn

OK, starting over here. First, I'm not at all convinced that the poster displayed is anti-semitic or has anything at all to say about Jews specifically. Yes, it contains Israeli flag imagery (as well as Nazi German flag imagery - is it anti-Germanic?) and it advances a theory that United States foreign policy is greatly distorted by the Israel lobby (a view which I don't share, but which is very common across the political spectrum). One could certainly draw anti-semitic inferences of Jewish world control from it. I would personally never display such a poster, for that reason. But it's another thing to attribute "classic anti-semitic motifs" to it. Actually, that's an odd turn of phrase. What is an "anti-semitic motif"? We couldn't get away with saying just "poster is anti-semitism" outright, but I think that "motif" is a vague weasel word designed to get around this.

Anyway, the real issue, per CJC, is the selection of an image designed to shout "AHA! Here it is, the New Anti-Semitism!" when the very existence of "new antisemitism" is very much in dispute. I don't know how copyright works here, but ideally I'd like to see the poster, the above cartoon of an Israeli settler, and maybe Abe Foxman and Norm Finklestein to boot. Eleland 23:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

How can a placard which shows two skullcapped Jews directly associated with a Satan-with-Swastika not be antisemitic??? 02:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonMoos (talk • contribs)

Good question. As for "what is an anti-semitic motif"? Take a look at this >>

Antisemitic caricature (France, 1898)

-and note the similarities. Also compare it to the other illustrations in the article. Motif has a specific meaning, and I don't see how it's weaselly at all. If we just said "this is antisemitic" there'd be complaints of POV. What we can say, because it's blindingly obvious, is that it features antisemitic motifs. <<-armon->> 11:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The question is, do you have a WP:RS for your claim? // Liftarn

Is that a serious objection? <<-armon->> 11:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you don't have a reliable source to back it up you can't say it. That would be original research. // Liftarn

Note the cites. This is not a serious objection. <<-armon->> 09:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's rabidly antisemitic. The question is whether it illustrates "new antisemitism". Itsmejudith 11:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Motif" has a specific meaning and labelling a drawing "capitalist whiteman" is not a motif of the anti-capitalist movement any more than it is a motif of the anti-racist movement. I'm not going to waste everyone's time by altering the caption to include "anti-racist motifs" but logically we might as well. Pictures of dollars do not an anticapitalist make either. The author of this appalling image has really succeeded hasn't he, in getting us all running around la-la-land wondering exactly what he was about. Itsmejudith 15:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really. It's abundantly clear what the protester is on about. The problem is that the editors who would like to believe the the phenomena doesn't exist, would rather not have this clear example of it. <<-armon->> 09:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't attribute views to editors but find some substantive reasons why the image should be included. Itsmejudith 11:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Because its a good visual example of what the article is about. I'm not attributing any views which weren't stated explicitly. See the beginning of this discussion. <<-armon->> 14:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that claim? // Liftarn

This is just surreal. We don't need one. The placard speaks for itself and the reader can make their own judgements. As I've already pointed out to you, we don't need a cite to call a photo of a fish a fish, but it's been cited anyway. BTW, no, it's not a pipe, it's a painting of one. <<-armon->> 10:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

---

• I agree with CJCurrie. Having the image in the lede is a perfect example of poisoning the well. It's hard to describe a debate about whether "new antisemitism" is a genuine phenomenon when you introduce the article with a photo whose caption in effect says that anti-war demonstrators engage in new antisemitism.

• Has anybody clicked through the image to see the caption on its page? "Poster held by a protester at an anti-war rally in San Francisco on February 16, 2003. We are using the image to illustrate the attitude toward Jews and Israel at this rally." (My emphasis) More well-poisoning, and OR to boot, unless we assume that readers never enlarge the images in Wikipedia articles. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That's actually not really a "caption" in the usual sense, but rather supporting information for the fair-use rationale. AnonMoos 15:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

But it's still WP:OR. // Liftarn

That's irrelevant and wikilawyering. Any fair-use rationale is therefore OR. <<-armon->> 09:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. "The poster was allegedly held by someone" et.c. There is no reliable source saying the views expressed by the placard was the general attitude at the rally. // Liftarn

No one ever claimed that the views expressed in the placard were representative of the general attitude at that particular rally, as far as I'm aware. Rather, it is claimed that expressions of hatred or defamation (sometimes veiled, sometimes blatantly overt) against Jews in general are sometimes either tacitly tolerated or openly accepted as a part of various political events with a significant left-wing presence (however one may choose to define "left-wing). The Zombietime image is one conveniently-available semi-random crystal-clear concrete example for this general point. AnonMoos 09:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So basicly it's WP:OR and/or WP:SYN packaged as an image. // Liftarn

First, let's stop pretending that this is a fresh topic: see archives. Second, as noted the image illustrates/exemplifies the phenomenon of NAS. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No reliable source has said that image has anything to do with NAS. // Liftarn

It's a bigoted racist anti-Jewish hate poster displayed as part of, or in immediate proximity to, a predominantly left-wing demonstration -- therefore ipso facto it's an example of what is called by some the "New antisemitism", Q.E.D. AnonMoos 17:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think geographical proximity is in the NAS concept and it's still WP:SYN. // Liftarn

You're pretty handy at pulling out convenient acronyms, and demanding "proofs" of things that seem rather obvious to most other than yourself, but it doesn't seem to me that these tactics have done much to significantly clarify or resolve debates about how to improve this article. AnonMoos 07:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Anybody can manufacture "obvious" thing is they really want. It would be quite easy to "proof" that Toys "R" Us are nazis. The proof goes like this: Hitler was a nazi, Hitler liked Wagner, ergo Wagner was a nazi. Pampers used a Wagner piece in one of their commercials, ergo Pampers are nazis. Toys "R" Us sell Pampers, ergo Toys "R" Us are nazis. If you disagree with my logic you are defending nazism, ergo you are a nazi. // Liftarn

You knocking down a ridiculous strawman which you yourself created doesn't do much to significantly clarify or resolve debates about how to improve this article either, as far as I can see. AnonMoos 13:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a strawman, but an example of how you can manufacture things out of thin air. You stating that Wikipedia policy can be ignored because they are just "convenient acronyms" doesn't help either. // Liftarn

If you stopped relying heavily on bureaucratic jargonese acronyms, and demanding "proofs" that B follows A in the alphabet, or 2+2=4, and instead formulated reasoned aguments addressed at reasonable adults, your comments might then have some value in significantly clarifying or resolving debates about how to improve this article... AnonMoos 16:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so you agree that we should follow Wikipedia policy, but you still think that you can put unsourced statements in the article. Have I understood what you are saying? // Liftarn

I can see value in including several of the images as illustrations of the discources that go on about NAS:

• Zombietime - actually example of anti-Jewish caricatures combined with anti-Israel/anti-capitalist/anti-American motifs. But it is hand-made and therefore not "official".

• Sharon eating baby - example of how opinion, even Jewish opinion can be split on the intent of the poster. Brown claims he deliberately stripped the cartoon of any Jewish symbols such as Magen Davids on the helicopters, others see it as a reference to the blood libel. I think this is a good example for the lead because it shows how contraversial the discource of NAZ is.

• Sharon-Nazi comparison - This is actually something which I, a critic of Sharon and much of what Israel does, find highly offensive. I've also seen grafitti in London of (magen David)=(Nazi swastika). Given that Israel's racial crimes are dwarfed by Saddam's attacks on the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs, Mugabe's starvation of Matabele territories, the Rwanda massacres, etc. and those don't get compared to the Nazis in cartoons, the use of the Nazi comparison is deliberately selected to be highly offensive and has a racial motive.

• The boy crying wolf - an example to illustrate the critique of NAS as an attempt to tar legitimate mainstream criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism.--Peter cohen 11:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Have any of them been described as an example of NAS or do they illustrate something that a reliable source has been described as NAS? The Zombietime poster has only been described as antisemitic (not NAS). Sharon eating baby: ditto (as far as I know). Sharon-Nazi comparison: comparing Israel with nazi Germany has been called NAS, does that include Sharon as a person as well? Btw, Saddam, France, Bush, USA and so on (Goodwin's law) has been compared with nazis. The use of nazi comparison is common. Cry wolf: true, and the only free image as well. // Liftarn

Have your demands for "proof" of the fairly obvious ever actually usefully contributed to discussion on how to improve an article? However, I do think that the shepherd cartoon is fairly interesting -- since the cartoonist's choice to depict religious sidecurls rather clearly reveals his real agenda... AnonMoos 02:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Has this discussion ended? Relata refero 09:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know -- some good points were made on both sides, but towards the end the discussion was dragged down by a series of remarks by Liftarn which did extremely little to advance constructive debate, and by the replies to Liftarn's aforesaid remarks. AnonMoos 10:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Free replacement that illustrates the subject.

Watch your personal remarks. I suggested that the article (including image caption) should follow WP:V and WP:NOR while you seem to think they can happily be ignored if it's just in image captions. // Liftarn

I wasn't the only one who expressed frustration that your style of discussion seems to rely more heavily on bureaucratic jargonese acronyms, and demanding "proofs" that B follows A in the alphabet or 2+2=4, rather than expressing detailed reasoned aguments addressed at reasonable adults (and of course your behavior on commons:Image_talk:Gathering_of_eagles.jpg was profoundly even less impressive).

However, your proposed "alternative" image expresses Leftist intolerance towrds Right-wingers, while the main thesis which this article discusses is one of relative Leftist tolerance towards Right-wingers and Islamists in some cases, when it comes to the issues of the Middle-east and Jews -- so that the proposal that this image can meaningfully "replace" the Zombietime image is rather ludcrous. Furthemore, I'm distinctly less than impressed that this commons:Image:Nonazis2.gif image is by the very same cartoonist Latuff who chose to depict Jewish religious side-curls in a bigoted hate-mongering way in his other cartoon commons:Image:Cry-wolf.png. In my mind, Latuff has absolutely no valid credentials whatsoever to be accusing other people of racism... AnonMoos 16:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never made unreasonable demands for reliable sources, but when you try to sneak in your own personal views into the article with no source whatsoever then I think it's quite reasonable to point that out. Yes, I am aware of your odd and baseless views of Latuff, but as I already pointed out your own personal views is not a reliable source. // Liftarn

Dude, I have made exactly and only three edits to this article, none of which are strikingly controversial ([3], [4], [5]) while you have made many edits to this article which have been found to be controversial by other editors. Furthermore, my "baseless" view of commons:Image:Cry-wolf.png comes from general knowledge of which social groups wear Jewish religious side-curls, while your convoluted defense of the image seems to be based on general ignorance on this topic, supplemented by a little Google searching. AnonMoos 08:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

So your evaluation of the image is based on your own original research rather than a reliable source? // Liftarn

It's based on my pre-existing knowledge of the subject, which I didn't acquire for the purposes of this article. But by your criteria, you using Google Image Search to turn up the "bp2.blogger.com" photo could only be "Original Research". Pot, kettle, black as they say on Usenet... However, I think that the policy is intended to control article page content, not to squelch the give-and-take of discussion on talk pages (the way that you sometimes seem to try to use it). AnonMoos 09:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If the talk is about the content of the article WP:RS is a good idea rather than "Oh, I think A = W so then it's OK to put it in the article.". // Liftarn

People blathering on at length on article talk pages about their personal alternative physics theories, or personal historical conspiracy theories, is certainly severely discouraged. But in general, there is no requirement that each and every comment on an article talk page must obey all of the Wikipedia article content policies which you're so fond of referring to in acronymic bureaucratic jargonese form... AnonMoos 10:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't said that either (nice strawman),b ut you seem to suggest that since OR is ok on talk pages it's also OK in the article. // Liftarn

Someone has tried adding material to the Latuff article wich indicate that he is Jewish and was brought up orthodox and that he is now in a relationship with a Jewish man. The contents of his articles should be considered with this in view.--Peter cohen 12:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I really couldn't care less whether Latuff is from outer Mongolia with Djibouti-Tuvaluan ancestry -- the way he used Jewish religious side curls in commons:Image:Cry-wolf.png is still clearly inappropriate for a cartoon which claims to target Zionists as a political group, instead of Jews as a religious group. AnonMoos 15:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

---

I think the image should stay.

It combines new anti-semitic and anti-zionist motifs with old ones. Did you notice the Zionist-Pigs line? See Judensau. It also shows Jews hiding behind Satan and says "no war for Jews", implying a jewish (not a zionist) consipracy causing war (this was also a nazi claim). The suggestion of Jews in league with nazis and with satan (satan is wearing a swastika and an israeli flag) is obviously insulting and one of the NAS / anti-zionism issues.

The Jew on the right has a text on him saying "counterfeit Jew" and the fire says "counterfeit Jews" while satan has "counterfeit whiteman" written on his shoulder. I assume this is an attempt by the artist to make their (racist) poster appear acceptable by claiming that the Jews are not "real Jews" (real jews presumably are the ones who agree with the artists opinions). So i think the image goes right to the heart of the issue, about how anti-israel stuff merges with antisemitism.

I can't imagine a more effective picture.

Telaviv1 14:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate C J Currie's initial objection, it is clearly viciously antisemitic. But it is not an example of new antisemitism. Analysis of the imagery and wording shows that it is from a Black British Israelite position, an idiosyncratic and non-notable viewpoint. See previous posts. Itsmejudith 14:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And to reiterate again. Yes, it's antisemitic (we have a source for that). Apart from that it's all WP:OR. // Liftarn

Black British Isrealite? What is that? The pic is from LA not Notting Hill!

Isn't New Antisemitism essentially old antisemitism coming from new sources (eg afro-britons, afro-americans, feminists, marxists, moslems) and dressed up as anti-Israel? so this picture fits the bill.

I don't think it is OR, the research has been done by zombietime and we have used it. its out there on the web and they have a lot of pictures. We're allowed to use other people's OR, just not do it ourself. Telaviv1 13:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

1) As far as I know Zombietime made no such conclusions about the image being an example of NAS. 2) Zombietime is strongly biased 3) Zombietime is not a reliable source. // Liftarn

How do you determine that something is too biased to be excluded from an article? Does that argument apply to pictures?

Telaviv1 13:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a guideline over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. // Liftarn

Archive

Can some of the discussions be archived? It takes a while for this page to load... Since I only sporadically follow this article, I'm not sure what the currently relevant discussion topics are. AnonMoos 09:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In a day or two, I'm probably going to move the top 2/3rds or so of this page (which is almost 400k in length!) to archives. If you want archiving done in a different way, please do it soon. AnonMoos 18:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead and archive it. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I had already reduced it from almost 400k to less than 150k (archive 12) before you archived it further... AnonMoos 18:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Section on Germany

Thegoodson added the following section to the article concerning Germany. I moved it here so we can discuss it rather than edit-war over it.

A militant German neo-Nazi holding a rifle.

Anti-Semitism appears to be an essential part of the European cultural tradition, and in Germany, more or less conscious Jew-hatred exists by "tradition" as well. Former East Germany, and before that the Soviet Occupation Zone, never conducted a survey of anti-Semitism, and no data is available. Such surveys were, however, conducted in West Germany. In 1949, a quarter of the West German population described themselves as anti-Semites; in a 1952 survey, one-third said they were definitely anti-Semites.<ref>See Werner Bergmann and Rainer Erb, Antisemitismus in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Ergebnisse der empirischen Forschung von 1946–1989 (Opladen: Leske & Budrich, 1991) (German).</ref>

By 1980, however, the tracking of various population samples showed that anti-Semitism had decreased. Surveys conducted after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 revealed a huge gap in anti-Semitic attitudes between East and West Germany.<ref>Bernhard Prosch, Reinhard Wittenberg, and Martin Abraham, "Antisemitismus in der ehemaligen DDR. Überraschende Ergebnisse der ersten Repräsentativ-Umfrage und einer Befragung von Jugendlichen in Jena," Tribüne, No. 118 (1991), 102–120; Emnid, for the American Jewish Committee, 1991 (German).</ref> Surprisingly, East Germany appeared to be very congenial to Jews with almost no anti-Semitism. This, however, was a fallacy related to the fact that many people and even researchers make a facile distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, despite the fact that scholars from the Centre for Research on Anti-Semitism in Berlin<ref>Zentrum für Antisemitismusforschung, Technical University (TU), Berlin. Its director, Prof. Wolfgang Benz, is a renowned scholar in this field. Prof. Walter Berg, a member of the Institute, already decades ago pointed to the similarities between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in his research.</ref> pointed to the similarities. In addition, East Germans were used to saying what was officially required of them. And, as implied, anti-Zionism and attitudes toward Israel per se were not probed. Indeed, in subsequent surveys the gap between eastern and western Germany closed quickly.<ref>Surveys were conducted, e.g., by Emnid in 1994 (Zentralarchiv für empirische Sozialforschung, Cologne, No. 2418), Infratest Burke (1996), Forsa (1998), and Infratest Sozialforschung (2002), and published, e.g., in the weeklies Der Spiegel, Stern, and Die Woche.</ref>

File:Neonazimarch.jpg

Numerous supporters of the NPD, including many neo-Nazis, during a march in Berlin, 2005.

In May 2003, the Federal Office for Protecting the Constitution published a special study on anti-Semitism and its links with rightwing and neo-Nazi groups.<ref>Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, "Die Bedeutung des Antisemitismus im aktuellen deutschen Rechtsextremismus," 20 May 2003. See http://www.verfassungsschutz.de (German).</ref> The same institution recorded more than 1400 anti-Semitic crimes in 2001,<ref>Ibid., p. 40.</ref> confirming a steady rise including a 100 percent increase for Berlin. Anti-Israeli activities, however, such as attacks on the Israeli embassy, are not included in these reports because there is still no systematic monitoring of anti-Zionism.

In 2002, as the neoliberal FDP Party maligned Israel, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and German Jewish leader Michel Friedman, anti-Semitism became an issue for the first time in a postwar German election campaign.

In April of that year, the Sigmund Freud Institute in Frankfurt am Main and the University of Leipzig confirmed a new height of anti-Semitism. In their joint study, 20 percent of the respondents agreed that "Jews are to blame for the major conflicts in the world," and another 26 percent shared this opinion to some extent.<ref>Elmar Brähler and Horst Eberhard Richter, "Politische Einstellungen in Deutschland. Einstellungen zu Juden, Amerikanern und Arabern," results of a representative survey conducted in spring 2002. A press conference was held at the Sigmund Freud Institute in Frankfurt am Main, 14 June 2002 (German).</ref>

In May 2002, the weekly magazine Der Spiegel published a survey in which 25 percent agreed that "what the State of Israel does to the Palestinians is no different than what the Nazis did during the Third Reich to the Jews."<ref>Der Spiegel, May 2002 (German).</ref>

As reported in 2003, studies now estimate overt anti-Semitism at around 23 percent, and covert anti-Semitism as existing among 30–40 percent of the German public.<ref>"Unser Verhältnis zu den Juden" (a survey by FORSA), Stern, No. 48 (2003) (German).</ref>

In 2002, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) in Vienna and the above-mentioned Centre for Research on Anti-Semitism conducted a study on "Manifestations of Anti-Semitism in the European Union: First Semester, 2002." In October 2003 the first version of the report was submitted to the EU, and by January 2004 the final report was in the hands of the EUMC, which kept the study - with the EU’s knowledge and approval - under lock and key. The research shows that, aside from the clear threat posed by "ordinary" right-wing anti-Semitism, Muslims and pro-Palestinian groups are also playing a crucial role. Furthermore, leftist and antiglobalization groups such as ATTAC were described as more or less anti-Semitic.<ref>The EUMC website now presents the study and some additional material, http://eumc.eu.int/eumc/index.php?fuseaction>content.dsp–cat–content&catid>1.</ref> The EUMC vaguely criticized the study, saying that "there was a problem defining anti-Semitism, the definition being too complicated," as a member of the Centre for Research on Anti-Semitism told the author. Once again, anti-Zionism was treated as distinct from anti-Semitism.

In April 2004, as the Conference on Anti-Semitism in Europe took place in Berlin, the Stephen Roth Institute of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Racism at Tel Aviv University revealed that the countries with the highest rates of anti-Semitic incidents in the world are Germany, Austria, France, Britain, Russia, and Canada.<ref>See Stephen Roth Institute, Tel Aviv University, http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/.</ref> Compared to France or Britain, in Germany Islamic and pro-Palestinian groups are involved in only a very small percentage of anti-Semitic incidents: indigenous German anti-Semitism does not need "support" from others. Since there was never a time free of anti-Semitism, it is necessary to ask whether the current wave is really "new anti-Semitism" or centuries old anti-Semitism that has been "modernized" and adapted to the circumstances. Above all, it is a post-Auschwitz anti-Semitism. For many people, provided they are not Holocaust deniers or neo-Nazis, Auschwitz as the symbol of the Holocaust is the obstacle to expressing anti-Semitism and aversion to Jews and Israel. Hence Germans, like many other anti-Semites, use the "anti-Zionist" disguise. This enables declaring Israel "the most evil country" and "nazifying" Israel with comparisons to the Third Reich, or advocating that it vanish from the world’s stage. This, in turn, opens the door to proclaiming Jews to be evil people in general.

These manifestations of anti-Semitism in Germany are deeply linked to the German past from 1933 to 1945 and the wish to get rid of guilt or responsibility for dealing with that past. Germany’s ideological unification since 1989 has two main pillars: a strong anti-American and anti-Israeli attitude, and a new position toward the history of WWII.

Comments? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Original research, highly tendentious and POV claims and overreliance on partisan sources. Not much that is redeemable there IMO. This article is already much too long anyhow. Editors should be looking at ways to prune it back, not add yet more material. Gatoclass 08:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It also appears to be a blatant copyvio from this website. Gatoclass 08:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, the whole thing is a word-for-word copyvio of the section entitled Anti-Semitism in Germany, 1945–2004 on that webpage, the only difference being that the original footnotes have been wikified. Gatoclass 08:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Size of Article

Apologies if this has been discussed before but why is this article much bigger than antisemitism? I read this article and it seems like a somewhat fringe theory and I believe we may be giving it inappropriate weight within wikipedia. Pocopocopocopoco 00:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it's a controversial topic, which leads to a panoply of evidence and counter-evidence and counter-counter-evidence. Whether you agree or disagree, the thesis of a certain limited opportunistic convergence between elements of the far-left, far-right, and Islamists -- who all find a common practical interest in Jew-hating -- has been taken up by a number of moderately prominent political commentators, and also occurred in a moderately famous EUMC report which was controversially withdrawn before being released. AnonMoos 02:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There's too much space devoted to what indivdual thinkers say. The article needs editing. It may also need rearranging. Its not a fringe theory in the Jewish world.Telaviv1 13:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If we weed out the OR and SYN the size will certainly become more reasonable. // Liftarn

You forgot to mention WP:ABCD and WP:DEFGH.... AnonMoos 17:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't bigger than antisemitism. On the rough measure of how many page-downs on my computer it takes to reach the end of the article. This article has 43 screenfuls to the main article's 44. And there are many more illustrations, pictures and formatted quotes and a longer further reading list bulking things out here. But, yes, some of the suggestions from others may reduce the size.--Peter cohen 15:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The main antisemitism article also makes much more extensive use of sub-articles to split off its discussion---racial antisemitism, religious antisemitism, history of antisemitism, antisemitism around the world, etc., etc., making the main article basically an overview and index into the other articles. In any case I do agree this one could be tightened up significantly; the main problem is that it's on a recent and ongoing topic, which tends to promote incremental accumulation of cruft. --Delirium 19:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

See also

I removed the part about Israel and the list of names, not sure what that was all about. Can it be worked into the article itself if its appropriate and relevant? Also removed an entry already linked above per WP:GTL. Thanks, --Tom 17:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism in Latvia

The passions around two recently published here while only on latvian language, anti-semitic books of the known latvian attorney Andris Grutups "Beylisiada" and "Scaffold". The First in detail introduces the readers with version of the accusers of Beylis and all jew in ritual murderin the trial in Russia in the beginning of XX century. The second – tells us about that, what monstrous unjust was a postwar trial of nazi general in Riga, organized by jews themselves only in revenge for destruction jews. Are described the monstrous bestiality soviet soldier in Kenigsberg, which perpetrator was a jew sovjet wrighter Ilja Erenburg, called to kill the german and force their womans. At the same time are opposed to high formed defendand nazis their semiliterate accuser. On sense: "but judges who..." Books these beside us in seal and on TV glorify the latvian historians, journalists, some other seen representatives to latvian intellectuals, rest is keeping silence. Grutups - a person exceedingly influential, directly connected with elite ruling presently in Latvia. The material for his books he received in russian and in german history archive, most of them in declassified (not for it-only?) archive of Russia Federal Security Service, for that he expresses its thanks in introduction to its last book. The majority of the references in book - on this archive, turned out to be so favorable exactly to him , notwithstanding, seamingly, that that book uniquely disputes fairness of the victory USSR on Hitlers Germany. -- 13:35, 30 November 2007 212.70.170.17

What is this New Antisemitism?

In short what is this New Antisemitism (sorry the article was too boring and rather too bigotted for me to stomach it, no offense, this is always the case with controversial articles here)? Is this basically a POV fork saying that Anti-Israeli and Anti-Zionist sentiment is the same thing as being anti Jewish race? Or is it saying that you dont have to be a right wing Nazi to be an anti-semite, but you can also be a moderate left-winger who opposes double standars and globalization, as this is exactly the same thing as Anti-semitism. Sorry if I got the wrong ideas, these were just things I picked up from the selective pictures and their overly-long POV captions, and the bigotted heading, perhaps someone would feel like explaining the idea to me better?

BTW despite the fact I may not seem a fan of killing arabs, I am not an antisemite (which etmyologically woudlnt make any sense seeing semite includes both arabs and Israelis, although it is not used in this sense, if it were we would have probalems with Jewish people being anti-smites, and we couldnt have that now), I have donated money to various organizations for racial equality and against bigotry towards the Jewish race, I am simply not a hypocrite and therefore do not indulge in double standards.172.141.237.172 (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am an anti-semite according to the omnisicent and infallible wikipedia however, as I oppose both arab-killing exercises and am moderately left-wing, I think that perhaps counts as anti-semitic enough to be ignored on wikipedia, Good day to you sirs.172.141.237.172 (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have very little interest in engaging in any wide-ranging quasi-philosophico-political debate, but one simple definition of "new antisemitism" is an observable practical convergence between elements of the far-left, the far-right, and Islamists, who have all found a common interest in Jew-hating. Here's one basic piece on it: http://www.axt.org.uk/HateMusic/essay_rich_barriers.htm AnonMoos (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah well after reading the article I've decided to become a little more helpful and dismount from my high horse (thanks for the definition), the heading rather put me off as well as the pictures, the probblem with the article seems not be it is completly polarized in different sections, am I right in believing that different people wrote and are attracted to different sections? Some sections seem to be repeatedly trying to criticse all critcism of Israel, and some seem to be trying to ay it is entirely legitimate. At the moment sympathisers with the idea of New Antisemitism seem to outnumber the opposers (unfortunately on wikipedia, as in life, its rare to find anyone who is completly in the middle, even if they claim to be), which is probably due to the fact that wikipedia has many on the moderate right editing articles such as these (i.e. nationalists, often quite anti-arab, such as some Assyrian nationalists or Zionists), although of course some wikipedia articles are worryingly on the left as well. The prblem with this seems to be that the sections supporting the idea of New Antisemitism seem to have many a strawmman arguemtn inside them designed to instantly refute any ciriticism, without editors being able to reverse this later on and still remain neutral.172.213.122.220 (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

On the subject matter, I study psychology, although it is of little intrest, personally I would not call myself an anti-semite, and am moderately left wing. However at times I admit to occasionally having irrational anti-semitic thoughts (which I reverse), basically because of the way the human mind works. It is the same phenonomen as having anti-arab thoughts which are often irrational (i.e. all arabs support war with Israel) or any other form of racist thought. Whereas I can admit that because I lean to the left I am often critical of Israel, and when angered this irrationally spills over to the Jewish race, many cannot admit the same thing happens with arabs etc.. and it does. It is the same thing as calling all Americans stupid for example, it is something many of us can do when we get angry, yet it makes no sense, thus is the way the human mind works. Simply because someone is anti-semitic, it does not reneder all of their criticism null and void of Israel, it simply renders their irrational cirticism of an entire race, or unjustified criticism null and void. although you amay not be happy that I have had anti-semitic thoughts (which I repeat I always dismiss), I can tell you I am no permanent anti-semite, I just do what we all do which is sterotype (its how we cope) but at least I can admit it...172.213.122.220 (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

btw if you see any spelling errors feel free to correct if your one of those kinds of ppl, I have dyslexia so cannot always spot them

Ill show you what Im really getting at here, the following taken from above:

In May 2002, the weekly magazine Der Spiegel published a survey in which 25 percent agreed that "what the State of Israel does to the Palestinians is no different than what the Nazis did during the Third Reich to the Jews."

Peersonally I do not agree entirely with the statement (i.e. that things are exactly the same, no holocaust, but ethnic cleanising and ghettos) however I support the idea that the state of israel and Nazi Germany are unfortunately too close in their methods (of course its still a democracy, for waht good it does the Palestinians in occupied territories who cant vote on israeli policy). Does that make me an anti-semite? Personally I dont think that claim is actually anti-semitic, as it does not state Jews are doing.., , yet ths article lumps all such claims together in the anti-semitic bin, basically stating that criticism of Israel is the same as anti-senmitism. Some of the questionaire examples given I agree are anti-semitic, however examples such as the one I have given (of which there are numerous) seem not to be legitamelty classified as anti-semitic but classified as such because of someoens POV.172.213.122.220 (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

To summarise, you seem to be saying that the article is in the end reasonably well balanced but is too long and that different sections are not consistent in their approach. Is that right? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

172.213.122.220, your opinion is entirely irrelevant to this article, as is for that matter mine. The article is intended to describe a phenomenon and state the controversy around it. I rather think it's a strawman argument to say that "the article" lumps all views together into one - the article explains the basis for certain accusations, which is what it's supposed to do. --Leifern (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, there's no consensus among the sources that it is a phenomenon. Some say it is, others say it's just a term used to deflect criticism of Israel. —Ashley Y 03:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A better location for Zombie's snapshot?

Please note my most recent edit: [6]. I still think Zombie is an unreliable source, and I don't think the image belongs on this project in the first place ... but if we're going to include it, surely it would make more sense to have it the section relating to allegations of a left-right convergence in the anti-war movement. I would add that it makes eminent sense to include a more notable image in the lede, and that Dave Brown's cartoon certainly qualifies. CJCurrie (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC) updated 07:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I should point out to Lobojo that the Zombietime image is about as far from a "consensus" image as one can possibly get. Given that the edit summary was profoundly inaccurate, I plan to return the page to the previous version at the earliest opportunity. CJCurrie (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It was a consensus in the sense that it's been in that location for a long time, following a lengthy discussion. Your move follows an attempt to delete the image altogether. --Leifern (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

CJ's is a much better solution. One image is an (in)famous cartoon which sparked a firestorm of condemnation, international media coverage, intense debate, a PCC investigation, a "Cartoon of the Year" award, etc. The other image is a cherry-picked photo from some dude who calls himself "Zombie" and makes a hobby of snapping photographs of idiots or bigots who happen to hold political beliefs he wants to discredit.

(Frankly, I'm not sure that the Brown cartoon image passes NFCC for any article not about the cartoon or artist specifically, but it seems to have been accepted at Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so it would pass here as well.) <eleland/talkedits> 20:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

1) Several people think that the published cartoon image is much better, but a number of other people disagree, so that what you think should be a noncontroversial issue in the editing of this article is actually a controversial issue...

2) We actually don't know whether Zombietime is a "dude" or a "chick".

3) The reason why Zombietime receives any attention at all is that he or she takes all of his or her photographs at left-wing-affiliated Bay Area political events. If Bay Area left-wingers could have found a way to discredit Zombietime, then they already would have done so eagerly and in an exceedingly public manner. The fact that they haven't yet been able to do so tells its own story... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The point, AnonMoos, is that no-one has given a compelling reason why Zombietime's non-notable snapshot of one idiot at one parade should be included over Dave Brown's very-notable cartoon. (I should clarify that I don't consider "But it's been there for over a year!" to be a particularly compelling reason, given the image was always contentious.) CJCurrie (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So the complaint here is that Zombietime takes pictures of news events that puts the participants in a bad light? Gee, I wonder how that must feel... Seriously, unless he's Photoshoping the images, who cares what his motivation is? The fact remains that the clown who brandished this sign was - at best - politely ignored, whereas I bet that anyone who showed up with a pro-Israeli signs would - at best - be booed and verbally abused; at worst, beaten up. --Leifern (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but think you may be letting other factors cloud your assessment of this situation. We're discussing whether or not Zombietime's snapshot of one idiot at one parade (which was ignored by the mainstream media and world at large) is more notable than a cartoon that set off a firestorm of controversy on the concept of a "new anti-Semitism". So far, the best argument that supporters of Zombietime's image have come up with is "but it's been there for quite a while already!", which I'm afraid doesn't pass muster. CJCurrie (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand the reason for the deletion. Care to explain?≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why some editors believe it's the best available image for the lede. Care to explain? CJCurrie (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a very odd image, isn't it? What's it trying to say? —Ashley Y 04:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC0..)

It's a replacement, not a deletion. One image is obscure, comes from an unreliable source, and effectively takes sides in the debate by presenting a clearly antisemitic^* image. The other is widely known, was published in a leading newspaper, and was viewed variously as a harsh but legitimate criticism of an Israeli politician, or a backslide to medieval-European-style blood libel.

It's worth mentioning also that Zombie, the "dude" I mentioned earlier, is at least as crazy as the people he caricatures. For example, he refers to the kaffiyeh, the distinctive Palestinian scarf, as a "terrorist scarf", and claims that a placard showing the Dome of the Rock is "a symbol of the movement to replace Israel with a Palestinian state." And here's my favourite: he deduced that a kid who blew himself up in Oklahoma was an Islamic suicide bomber because he lived "only three blocks" from a mosque! We should not be believing anything this looney says, and that includes believing the captions on his images. For all we know, that sign was a plant by counter-demonstrators trying to embarrass the other protesters.

*Not helping my own case here, I know. But I fail to see what's inherently antisemitic in the image, though the potential implications are manifest. It's Israel that puts the Magen David on its flags, its army uniforms, its tanks - hell, probably some of the missiles that slam into Palestinian homes have the symbol on it. As long as Israel chooses very deliberately to conflate its barbaric acts with its Jewish character, there is going to be a considerable overlap between criticism of Israel and antisemitism. Deal with it. Other countries are caricatured, other national symbols are used in cartoons and placards against their leaders. A cartoon depicting the sword on the Saudi flag dripping with blood, and the shahadah replaced with some message of intolerance would not be anti-Islamic, it would be anti-Saudi. Israel gets no free ride. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleland (talk • contribs) 04:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That occurred to me, too. It's principally an anti-Israeli image, and if Klug is to be believed, even extreme and unreasonable anti-Zionism is not necessarily anti-Semitic. On the other hand, the two "Israeli" figures flanking the "Devil" are wearing kippot and their fangs(!) seem to be harking to some kind of anti-Semitic propaganda image. Oddly, the artist captions them as "counterfeit Jews", as if sort of hedging their bets. —Ashley Y 05:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"Counterfeit Jews" almost certainly refers to a fringe right-wing belief that Ashkenazi Jews are the descendants of a people called the Khazars, and not the true descendants of the Jews of the Bible. (To avoid any possible confusion, please note that I am not endorsing this belief.) CJCurrie (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, so that's genuine "European fantasy" anti-Semitism. No particular point for the argument here, I'm just trying to understand the image. —Ashley Y 06:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Also no reliable source have described Zombietimes picture as "new antisemitism". // Liftarn (talk)

it's a perfect example of the duck test. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ducks are not reliable sources. Since NAS has no agreed upon definition it's just WP:OR. // Liftarn (talk)

Trying something different

It's obvious from recent edits that there is absolutely no consensus opinion as to which image should be included in the lede. One group of editors favours the retention of the Zombietime image, while other editors believe that Dave Brown's cartoon is more appropriate.

I'm going to recommend that we not include any image in the introduction until we've had a chance to discuss the matter more thoroughly on the talk page. Editors are encouraged to bring forward arguments for and against both images over the course of the next few days; perhaps a solution will present itself through this process. CJCurrie (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Zombietime image

I believe this image is inappropriate for the article, for the following reasons:

• The image is obviously leading, and a clear instance of well-poisoning. The "New antisemitism" article is supposed to provide an overview of the "NAS" concept, not to advocate for its proponents or critics. By including an obviously anti-Semitic image in the lede, we are effectively validating the concept.
• The image is not notable. Zombietime's image is of a sign held by single protester at an anti-war rally. There is no evidence that this sign was endorsed or approved by the rally's organizers (or, for that matter, by any other participants in the rally). The image has not been not widely publicized outside of Wikipedia, and is not independently notable.
• The image represents a fringe minority viewpoint. The poster's reference to "Counterfeit Jews" very likely represents a fringe, far-right and quasi-religious POV -- ie. that modern Jews are impostors who've usurped another group's identity. This view is held in some fringe African-African, British and far-right survivalist circles, but carries very little weight in the world beyond. It's certainly not a view held by most opponents of the "NAS" concept.
• Zombietime is an unreliable source, as others have noted. (added 06:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC))
• We can do better. This is the most fundamental point: even if other editors reject everything else I've said about Zombietime's image, the fact remains that we can surely choose a more representative image for the "new antisemitism" concept.

If these points seem familiar, it's not your imagination. I made much the same argument in a previous post on 4 September of this year. As I recall, the subsequent discussion ground down into a stalemate, and the matter was left unresolved.

If the Zombietime image must be kept on this page, I believe it would make more sense to have it in the section dealing with a reported left-right convergence (ie. anti-Semitic groups infiltrating far-left and anti-war organizations), rather than in the lede.

Comments welcome. CJCurrie (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The response to your 03:25, 4 September 2007 posting above was very very far from being a unanimous outpouring of support, so I'm not sure what the real point of cutting-and-pasting the same material here is. And in any case, the essence of the whole idea of New antisemitism is a claimed practical convergence between left-wing elements and right-wing and/or Islamist elements. If leftists or claimed leftists weren't involved, then it wouldn't be "new" antisemitism at all (just boring old antisemitism), so I'm not sure what meaningful distinction there is between the top of the article and further down in the article in this respect... AnonMoos (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the definition of "NAS" as a "practical convergence of left/right/Islamist elements" is somewhat problematic in and of itself. I'm aware that this supposed convergence is one of the features that is said to distinguish the concept, but it's by no means a universally accepted definition. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the only reason this definition is currently in the lede is a flawed compromise that took place over a year ago, at a time when the page was even more dysfunctional than it is now. (Btw, if you want to be technical, the image likely represents a convergence of far-left, far-right and fringe-Christian motifs. According to your definition of NAS, this should invalidate it from the start.)

However, this is beside the point. The real issues are that the image is leading and non-notable, Zombietime is an unreliable source, there's no evidence the protester in question represents anything more than his own moronic POV, and we can certainly do better. CJCurrie (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"New antisemitism" is about a certain type of anti-semitism. nothing is well poisioning about an image which depicts this type of anti-semitism; and notability is not an issue here. if you think we can do better, i'd be happy to see what examples you can come up with (dave brown is not clear front image material imo). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"New antisemitism" is actually about the concept of a certain type of anti-Semitism. The concept is not agreed upon. If you're coming at this article from a different vantage point, perhaps it makes sense that you'd favour the Zombietime image. CJCurrie (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I read all the arguments ands still do not understand why this image cannot be used. I do not care if it is on the lead or not, but it is a good illustration of the concept covered by the article's text. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've indicated that I'm willing to compromise, and have the Zombietime image in the "Left/Right" convergence section (where it actually sort-of makes sense, notwithstanding all of the problems I've outlined). Would that be acceptable to you? CJCurrie (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I see that some who favour retention of the image in the lede are trying a new tactic: accusing those who question its suitability of "denial". Perhaps it should be stated again that the concept of "NAS" is not universally agreed upon, and that there is absolutely no consensus that a sign held by one idiot and one parade is indicative of a global phenomenon. CJCurrie (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I would accept moving the image to the nearby section. Unfortunately for deniers, there is more than enough of undeniable evidence that it is not "one idiot and one parade". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're willing to accept moving it, then why are we having this edit war? I only deleted the image as a temporary measure, pending discussion (look back through the recent changes if you don't believe me).

In any event, I wouldn't dispute that the phenomenon of real anti-Semitism -- and the image is unquestionably anti-Semitic -- is far more than one idiot at one parade. But, as you should know by now, the concept of "new antisemitism" is a bit more complicated than that. CJCurrie (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to return Zombietime to a different section of the article, per Jossi and Humus's comments that such a move is acceptable to them. Given that Jossi and Humus are long-time opponents of my views on this page, I'm taking their position as indicative of "cross-party" support for this move.

I'm hoping that this will put the edit-war to an end, although my suspicion is that someone will revert to the previous image anyway. Perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised. CJCurrie (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that User:Armon is the only contributor to have reverted the page in recent days (and that he's done so twice). Should I assume that most others are willing to live with the compromise version, even if it's not quite their preferred choice? CJCurrie (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see much enthusiasm for your "compromise" and replacing an image which is is a clear example of NAS with one you can argue about (the Brown cartoon) is clearly an attempt to push the denialist POV into the lead. <<-armon->> (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, (i) two of my long-time opponents on this page (Humus and Jossi) have indicated their willingness to support moving the image; this indicates some level of cross-party support, (ii) the whole point about the concept of "new antisemitism" is that it's contentious; I can scarcely see the problem with including an image that highlights the debate, (iii) your comments about a "denialist POV" are quite off the mark (opposing the concept of "new antisemitism" is not the same as denying the phenomenon of anti-Semitism), (iv) I can't help but notice that everyone except you has left the matter alone over the last few days. CJCurrie (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

(i) Let's see what Humus and Jossi -and others, say. There's not a consensus simply because you claim there's one. (ii) No actually it's not contentious, except among, unsurprisingly, those on the far left, which (iii), constitute the "denialist POV". (iv) No comments in few days during the holidays suggests pretty much nothing. (v) If a consensus does develop for your proposal, I won't stand in the way, however, I'll ask you to self revert until that time. <<-armon->> (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

(i) All of my allies and some of my opponents are willing to accept the compromise (Humus said he would support the move and Jossi that he doesn't care if Zombie's snapshot is in the lede or not); as I've said before, this is as close to consensus as we're likely to achieve, (ii and iii) have you actually read the article page?, (iv) most people are able to go online during the holidays, (v) I'm not inclined to revert to an unacceptable version of the text when cross-party support exists for a better version. CJCurrie (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I too very strongly object to moving the image. The image is the best one to illustrate the concept in question as it brings in all the themes mentioned in the article and is thus the ideal one to accompany the lead. The other ones are not as good as they focus on one aspect or another. The arguements that CJCurrie makes dont hold up as there is no suggestion thatir minds prejudiced by an example of the conccept that the article is trying to describe. This edit war is very lame and I implore users to get to work improving the text of the article and not playing games with the images. Lobojo (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even remotely convinced by this argument. Your view that the Zombietime image "brings in all the themes mentioned in the article" misses the point in a major way. The main aspect of the "new antisemitism" debate is the simple fact that there is no consensus on the concept. Accordingly, this article is much better served by an image that highlights the debate than by one that merely demonstrates what proponents believe it to be.

In the months that I've contributed to this page, I've noticed that editors who favour the "NAS" concept are generally able to act in a well-coordinated manner. Accordingly, the fact that only two contributors from this tendency have reverted the page in recent days strikes me as notable -- I strongly suspect that most editors are willing to accept the compromise version, and have taken a conscious step away from the page accordingly. I hope that the small number of holdouts will desist with the revert wars, and that we can move on to more important matters.

If the revert war continues, we may need to take this matter to mediation (and I have little doubt what the outcome will be, if this is the case).

On a separate-but-related matter, I trust I'm not the only person who thinks it might be just a bit leading to have a "Sharon as Antichrist" cartoon in a section marked "Criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitism". CJCurrie (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, I have no history of editing Israel related articles and I feel that the image is fine, Why not try to adress te compromise I suggest below. The context is all. If the image is contextualized then nobody can compolain. The Sharon thing is really not anywhere near as general, and also i set up reasons above, and I see no need to repeat them again. Lobojo (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see arguments being raised on both sides, regarding whether or not Latuff's image is anti-Semitic; I strongly suspect that he was deliberately raising the question, as he's done on other occasions. The point, however, is that the Latuff image is (i) inflammatory, and a clear instance of well-poisoning, and (ii) completely unrelated to the text of the section. CJCurrie (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The caption

The problem cannot be the image. An image cannot be a POV problem in and of itself. You can however argue about the context of the image, IE, the caption. In the same way that the article is called "New antisemitism" despite the fact that some deny the existence of such a motif in contemporary society, the image to illustrate the page, must illustrate the concept in the most explicit way possible. And just like the article, the image must be contextualised by those who dispute the articles very premise.

Thus this whole lame edit war as to the image, is a just a proxy for the debate about whether the article should exist at all, or whether the whole thing is just "fundamentally POV", since having an article here implies that there is a reality to the concept. Well, that debate has been had ad nauseum, and there is no point revisiting it either directly or by proxy.

Why not work on the text of the caption to enable it to summarize the entire debate in 30 words alongside the image. Lobojo (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This argument isn't at all convincing. The "NAS" concept is strongly disputed; we should have a lede image that highlights the dispute, not one which demonstrates what one particular side believes the concept to be. Moreover, I've never argued that this article should be deleted. CJCurrie (talk) 04:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Great. So the image represents what is ceratinly a from of new antisemtism. So the image should be contextaulised by a wording that includes the views of those who say that it is only a tiny fringe. Then it is completely fair. Lobojo (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

While your changes to the Zombietime caption are certainly an improvement over the previous text, I still don't believe that the image is in any way suitable for the lede. Apart from the problems with well-poisoning, notability and reliability that I've mentioned above, the fact remains that the Zombietime image doesn't get to the heart of the debate over NAS. The Sharon image (by which I mean the Dave Brown Sharon image) does so. And, as I've said before, it has consensus from both sides of the debate on this page.

Anyway, opponents of the NAS concept do not necessarily argue that anti-Semitism is a fringe view. Most opponents of the concept believe that anti-Semitism has increased worldwide since 2000; their opposition is rather with the conceptual framework of "NAS". (I think that the person carrying the placard in Zombietime's image does represent an extreme fringe minority view, but that's a different matter.)

Perhaps I could issue a challenge to you (and to Armon): would you refrain from editing the page until more discussion has taken place? Given that the Sharon image seems to have cross-party support, perhaps you could hold off from reverting unless and until others raise objections. CJCurrie (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

cite error

Cite 61 in the "'Progressive' Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism" section regarding Alvin Rosenfeld is throwing up "^ Cite error 8; No text given". anyone know what the cite was? The actual cite with the name must have been deleted by accident. <<-armon->> (talk) 04:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

it seems to be connected with this edit [7] but there's no clear indication on what source it is supposed to be. i tend to think though, that this source [8] could replace all the <ref name="IUinterview" /> links... need to check it when the article re-opens, or maybe open an 'edit while protected' thingy. i also got a cite error for the Alvin Rosenfeld article, but i found a source for it here [9]. cheers. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

p.s. apparently, alvin rosenfeld redirects to an article about the essay - [10] <-> Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Debate redux

It appears that we're stuck with the Zombietime image in the lede until January 2nd, due to a counting error on my part -- I forgot the time of my edits yesterday, and inadvertently violated the 3RR (details here). I apologize for this, though I hope we'll at least be able to improve the level of debate between now and then.

Zombietime

I've already indicated several reasons for opposing Zombietime picture in the lede. In summary, they are as follows:

• The image is obviously leading, and a clear instance of well-poisoning.
• The image is not notable.
• The image represents a fringe minority viewpoint.
• Zombietime is an unreliable source.
• We can do better.

For a full explanation, please read the "Zombietime image" section above. I could add that the Zombietime image does not actually address the debate concerning "New antisemitism", but instead demonstrates the concept from the perspective of one side only.

I would prefer to remove the Zombietime image from the article entirely, but I'm prepared to compromise and move it to the section entitled "Reports of a left/right convergence" (where, as I've said before, it actually makes a bit of sense).

Dave Brown

I have also recommended that Dave Brown's cartoon of Ariel Sharon as "Saturn devouring one of his children" be included as a substitute image for the lede. (To see the image, click here.) I've not yet explained my reasons for this in detail; they are as follows:

• The image is not leading, and is not an instance of well-poisoning. While Brown's image is unquestionably shocking, it is not unambiguously anti-Semitic (although it does raise the question).
• The image is very notable, having sparked an international controversy following its publication.
• The image does not represent a fringe minority viewpoint, but rather represents (in a manner of speaking) the perspective of many who opposed Israel's response to the Second Intifada.
• The source is eminently reliable.
• The image goes directly to the heart of the debate over "new antisemitism", as regards the question of whether or not certain criticisms of Israel may be deemed anti-Semitic.

In other words, Dave Brown's image is everything that Zombietime's is not.

Feedback from other participants

Somewhat to my surprise, two of my long-time opponents on this page have accepted the possibility of moving the image. User:Humus sapiens has endorsed the suggestion directly:

I would accept moving the image to the nearby section. Unfortunately for deniers, there is more than enough of undeniable evidence that it is not "one idiot and one parade". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jossi indicated a willingness to accept the possibility:

I read all the arguments ands still do not understand why this image cannot be used. I do not care if it is on the lead or not, but it is a good illustration of the concept covered by the article's text. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been involved in masny on-Wiki disputes having to do with Israel, and I know from experience how divisive the the subject can be. From my perspective, it's a rather significant development for two participants from the "other side" to indicate their willingness to accept my position. I'm inclined to regard moving the Zombietime image as having "consensus support", accordingly -- at minimum, it's as close to consensus as the regular parties to this discussion are likely to achieve without mediation.

User:Leifern, User:Jaakobou and User:AnonMoos initially opposed moving the image, although none have been active in the discussion since Humus announced his willingness to accept my proposal. User:Armon and User:Lobojo have continued to oppose moving the image from the lede. User:Eleland and User:Liftarn have intervened on my side.

From my perspective, no-one has presented a compelling argument as to why we should feature a well-poisoning, non-notable image from an unreliable source instead of a discussion-provoking, notable image from a reliable source. I'm aware that others have indicated they regard the matter differently, of course.

Latuff

On a separate-but-related matter, I find the inclusion of a "Sharon as Antichrist" image under a section marked "Criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitism" to be extremely dodgy, and one of the clearest incidents of well-poisoning I've seen on this page. (It doesn't even have anything to do with the text!) There's no doubt in my mind that this should be removed at the earliest possible moment.

Invitation to discussion

I would invite other parties (preferably those without a history of partisan intervention on this subject) to comment on the matter. CJCurrie (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you please stop posting the same lengthy material over and over again, and try engaing with other editors? Lobojo (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please respond to my arguments, rather than criticizing me for presenting them? CJCurrie (talk) 06:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

In the event that my last edit provokes a trumped-up charge of violating Wikipedia policies regarding page protection, I should indicate that (i) SlimVirgin's decision to hide the pp template was not discussed in advance on the talk page, and appears to have been quite arbitrary, (ii) the only purpose of my intervention was to restore the original template. I trust the original template will be left in place. Thank you. CJCurrie (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Bless_sins view

CJCurrie brings up a few points:

• 1. The concept of "leading" and "well-poisoning". Can you explain this further? It would also help if you showed wikipedia policies that discouraged the behaviour.
• 2. Notability. CJCurrie certainly has a point there. The question now is, whether CJCurrie is correct in saying that Sharon cartoon is more notable than the Zombietime one. From what I see, the Sharon cartoon is more notable, but perhpas there should be discussion on this point.
• 3. Reliable source. This is one of the most important issues. If Zombietime isn't a reliable source, then its image shouldn't be in here at all. While we tackle the issue, I definitely support putting more reliably sourced content in the lead.Bless sins (talk) 07:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou's view

An image portraying what New-Antisemitism stands for is not well poisoning, and an image which is only borderline anti-semitic is not a front cover image for an article about New-Antisemitism, regardless of it's notoriety; Notoriety is not an issue as long as there is no clear cut front cover material suggested for substitute. reliability was already discussed on the attempted, failed image deletion and i don't see a reason to cover resolved issues. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That image is back again? It was never very clear what that image was about. There's some context available for that image.[11] In a larger picture, another sign by the same artist is visible, this one with the text "Don't Let Capitalism Control Your Mind". That one has mostly dollar signs and a Chevron logo. Then there's another sign from the same demonstration: "Stem Root Cause ($) Post 2nd War Anti-Semtetic (sic) Israel Plan + US Fed Iran Iraq War Stop Ethnic Wipe Out ($)". The photographer comments "Not all the protesters were completely sane". If the image stays in, we need more background on that rally. Wikipedia has an article: February 15, 2003 anti-war protest. There's more photo coverage available.[12]. There's an incredible variety of positions expressed on signs (this is not unusual for San Francisco rallies). My favorite is "Frodo Failed - Bush has the Ring". There's enough press coverage of that rally that we ought to be able to find a reliable source for this information. --John Nagle (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, between edit wars, would someone please fix the <ref>tag error at footnote 62? Somebody broke that while edit warring. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

tag issues can be found here: Talk:New_antisemitism#cite_error. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• This article is not about Frodo or "incredible variety of positions" on other topics. Clearly the poster on the Zombietime photo recycles ancient antisemitic lies, and there is plenty of evidence that this is (unfortunately) far from being a "fringe minority viewpoint." I am sorry to see my good faith effort being misused. Please stop mentioning my name in order to push your agenda. I have never consented to have Dave Brown's cartoon as the lead image. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Though I appreciate honest attempts at finding compromise solutions, I do not buy CJCurrie's arguments for de-emphasizing this particular caricature. Specifically,

• The image is obviously leading, and a clear instance of well-poisoning - it is neither obvious nor clear that this is the case. And it illustrates rather well the demonization of Israel that is commonplace in the media, and also here on Wikipedia.
• The image is not notable - by what standards? It is large and appeared at a demonstration, and as far as I know, nobody in the demonstration objected to it.
• The image represents a fringe minority viewpoint - again, how do you know? You're arguing against it based on original research. I can tell you that in Norway, the Jewish community discourages its members from wearing anything that might identify them as Jewish, and one Jewish girl was suspended from school for wearing a Star of David necklace, as this was viewed as a provocation. And if you see some of the caricatures published in the mainstream Norwegian press, you'd see that the image encapsulates well the convergence of views related to Israel.
• Zombietime is an unreliable source - it's a photograph, so unless Zombietime has a history of Photoshoping history, the photograph is what it is.
• We can do better - obviously we can't. --Leifern (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• The image is obviously leading, and a clear instance of well-poisoning - yes, and that's why some people insist on it being used.
• The image is not notable - indeed, and so is the viewpoint expressed, but those who WP:OWN this article doesn't care.
• The image represents a fringe minority viewpoint - indeed it does (and that comment about ban on religious symbols in Norway was a nice strawman by the way)
• Zombietime is an unreliable source - we have no way of telling how significant that poster was or indeed if it even was taken where Zombietimes claims it was.

• We can do better - yes, but again there are those who don't want to do better and that image was the worst they could find. There are other images that are directly related to the concept of new antiemitism like this and this. // Liftarn (talk)

I accept CJCurrie's carefully laid-out reasoning for moving (or removing) the image. Beyond Leifern's reflexive gainsaying above, I don't think CJ's argument has been addressed. I would add a couple of things, which merely build on CJ's cogent comments:

1. The core issue here seems to be, how do we use an image to "illustrate" the concept of a phenomenon the very existence of which is debated? Let's imagine we were dealing with an image of comparable content but without the very serious and unanswered reliability and notability problems CJ has patiently laid out with regards to the "Zombietime" image. Let's imagine, for example, that we had a photo (a) from a reliable source, say Reuters or the New York Times; (b) in long shot establishing the context, say, a sizable street demonstration; with (c) its notability established by the RS-caption or accompanying story. We'd still be faced with the following question: does providing an image purporting to show "new antisemitism" in action not presuppose its existence, thereby violating NPOV? How do other articles about disputed "phenomena" deal with this? It might be useful to look at articles like Allegations of Israeli apartheid for guidance here.
2. All NPOV issues aside, I do not think the image is representative of the concept of new antisemitism, period. The theory of new antisemitism alleges something much more subtle and insidious than this. This is like illustrating an article on structural racism with a placard from a Klan rally saying "Go back to Africa."--G-Dett (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)