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)

Sigh. Very few dispute that antisemitism is being commingled with animosity toward Israel. The issues are a) whether this antisemitism is anything new or just recycled "old" antisemitism; and b) whether the charge of antisemitism (old or new) is invoked to detract from the "real" discussion. --Leifern (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2008 (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)

Views of current parties

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 that plague 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)

should we understand that you believe the image doesn't fit as a cover image for New-Antisemitism because it's too Anti-semitic? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Too overtly and old-fashionedly antisemitic. Is there an RS that describes this image as a representative example of "new antisemitism"?--G-Dett (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

old fashioned antisemitism... from an 2003, left wing rally. *giggles* Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

When the ripples of mirth have subsided, would you mind explaining the joke to big-boned, thick-tongued and dull-witted me? Do you believe that antisemitism on the left is a new and novel thing? Or is the notion that anything old-fashioned could happen in 2003 what's prompted your sudden gayness? Will you be giggling your way out of all requests for sources?--G-Dett (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

i'd giggle at the saying that left wing event in 2003 is too 'old-style'. according to you this article shouldn't even exist. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course I think this article should exist; do you have some sort of editing bot that belches out these antagonistic non sequiturs when socratically cornered?

Let's give Jaakobou a moment to get a hold of his giggling self and stop typing gibberish; does anyone else in the meantime have a reliable source establishing the veracity and notability of this image, and its relevance to 'new antisemitism'? If so, we can then move on to question (iii) below. Otherwise we're kind of stuck, and Zombietime will have to go.--G-Dett (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

once we've established your opinion about the already discussed issues per image deletion attempts, i believe you should remove yourself from the image debate per WP:COI.

such repetition of the points which were rejected by the community is a waste of everyone's time.

cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I trust that if anyone here knows what the !&?$ Jaakobou is talking about and thinks it worthy of my attention they'll explain it to me.--G-Dett (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

please go over the link and avoid re-mentioning of issues that the community expressed explicit opinion about. thank you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I trust you're dropping the WP:COI baloney, as well as the bluff/fabrication that I somehow believe "this article shouldn't even exist." Regarding your claim that a debate about deleting that image from Wikipedia entirely settles our present disputes about (a) its reliability, notability, and relevance with regards to this article, and (b) the general appropriateness of 'illustrating' one side of a contentious debate within an article about that contentious debate – I vigorously disagree. My reasons can be found below.--G-Dett (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We can also ask ourselves: Does the article need to be illustrated at all? Also compare the simmilar image (and the placement of it) over at the islamophobia article. // Liftarn (talk)

Yes, Islamophobia is an appropriate parallel example. However, I think the first thing to do is separate out the three salient strands of the present debate about the Zombietime image. So far as I can tell, these are: (i) the reliability of Zombietime per WP:RS; (ii) the notability of this image and its relevance to "new antisemitism"; and (iii) the appropriateness (per NPOV) of "illustrating" a phenomenon the very existence of which is in dispute.--G-Dett (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou has directed our attention to a previous debate about whether to delete the Zombietime image from Wikipedia entirely. He believes the closing admin Quadell's statement settles our present disputes about whether to use the image for this article; specifically, he believes it resolves the three core problems with the Zombietime image as I've laid them out above. I think it does nothing of the sort. Here is Quadell's statement in its entirety (minus the "personal note"):

This image was kept. This one's controversial, so I'll try to cover all points. Concerns about "undue weight" are concerns for material in an article -- there is no image policy reason why an image can't be used in multiple articles, so long as it has valid rationales for each use. The rationales were a legitimate problem, but have since been fixed. "Reliable sources" is a concern for sourcing facts on Wikipedia, not from the providence of images. (No one claims the image was faked, for example.) If it doesn't belong in a given article, and if there is consensus on that article's talk page to remove it, then do so, and if the image is an orphan it can be tagged for that reason. But it seems to me to pass WP:NFCC#8 in all three uses, and that seems to be the consensus here as well.

The WP:UNDUE argument Quadell addresses is whether one image can be used for three different articles, which is entirely unrelated to the UNDUE issues CJ has raised for its use in this article. Whatever one may think of Quadell's argument that images needn't be reliably sourced, it has no application here, because there is indeed a "fact" that needs to be sourced: that the photographed poster did in fact feature at a peace rally in San Francisco on February 16, 2003. I would add that it needs moreover to be demonstrated that this poster represents "new antisemitism." This last is difficult to demonstrate, given that the photo appears to be known only to Wikipedians and the obscure blogger who's vouching for its authenticity. Lastly, note that Quadell explicitly invites editors to discuss the appropriateness of this image for individual articles; he refuses, that is, to weigh in on the very question Jaakobou thinks he's decided.

The three issues again are (i) the reliability of Zombietime per WP:RS; (ii) the notability of this image and its relevance to "new antisemitism"; and (iii) the appropriateness (per NPOV) of "illustrating" a phenomenon the very existence of which is in dispute. The closure of the image deletion debate doesn't even address any of these questions, much less decide them.--G-Dett (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(i) please stop restatement of reliability arguments. more than enough people expressed the opinion that it's a moot point. (ii) same for notability. (iii) as for your last point, you seem to be again claiming that the phenomenon does not exist. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(i) Point me to an editor or editors claiming that "Zombietime" is a reliable source for the claim that this photographed sign featured at a rally in San Francisco on February 16, 2003 (ii) Point me to a reliable source vouching for the notability of this image, and its relevance to the disputed concept of "new antisemitism" (iii) The phenomenon of a 'new antisemitism' is hotly disputed by reliable sources. Cease your blundering guesswork about what my views may be; they are a red herring, and by definition have no bearing on the decision we need to make about what to do with this image.--G-Dett (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

click the link. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, and as usual there's nothing there. Except your stupid and as yet unretracted COI accusation.--G-Dett (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

here's the link inside that diff: [13]. try going over the material instead of making (to paraphrase:) "your stupid" redundant commentaries. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing relevant in that link. I've addressed its contents at length above; your response is to mechanically re-post it – an empty gesture, sheer bluff. As for personal attacks, the relevant one here is your stupid and as yet unretracted COI accusation. If and when you stop trolling, bluffing, and posting gibberish, I'll re-engage you without prejudice, but for now we're done.--G-Dett (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that Jaakobou was challenged to confirm or deny an apparently glaring case of CoI of his own - he threw his rattle out of the pram and refused to answer. He has insisted on continuing to edit the article in question - and at the related Saeb Erekat is apparently defying, single-handedly, the consensus of 7 other editors to keep the (likely BLP-breaching) allegation of lying in the article. It seems astonishing he should now be accusing others of CoI (on either flimsy or non-existence evidence?) while refusing to clear himself! PR^talk 15:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with the image per se, I think it's colourful and illustrative and brightens up the page a bit (which contains a lot of text). I do have a concern with the source though. "Zombietime" is a hate site, nothing more. It's about as far from a reliable source as one could get, and I don't think Wikipedia should be sourcing material from a site like this as it is liable to lend it a patina of legitimacy. Gatoclass (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass, see #zombitime image. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

zombietime image

1. the artist is well-known, and insists his images are not antisemitic, but rather anti-Zionist.
2. i believe the image to be a perfect cover image for the article new-antisemitism as it is from an 2003 left-wing rally.
3. i have not seen any suggestions that are even close to fitting for replacement.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The artist? What do you mean, the creator of the poster, or the person who photographed it? Gatoclass (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know the artist is unidentified. What you beleive is not a reliable source (we have been over this many times before) and the history of the image is unreliable at best. There have been many other suggestions. // Liftarn (talk)

"the artist" is the creator of the poster. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know Liftarn is correct – the artist is unidentified.

This seems to me a cut-and-dried decision, even if we bracket for the moment the NPOV problem: we can't use material that isn't reliably sourced. There are assertions of fact here, both explicit and implicit. We couldn't, for example, illustrate Allegations of Israeli apartheid with a photo provided by a fringe blogger, claiming to show West Bank Palestinians being bullied off their land by soldiers and settlers. Even before we got to questions of possible well-poisoning, or the notability and representativeness of the image, or its sourced relevance to allegations of "apartheid" – there would be the basic and intractable problem of establishing its authenticity.--G-Dett (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you quote the specific policies regarding images that you are referring to? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:Image pertinence and encyclopedicity, WP:RS.--G-Dett (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The first one doesn't appear to be policy, nor does it appear to directly address your concerns. The second, even if it were relevant, and it is not, is not policy, and doesn't mention images at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen pictures of Caterpillar bulldozers pushing down walls be removed from a section on house demolition in the IP conflict because the source was an anti-Caterpillar site, and we can't trust that as a reliable source for the facts that the house was Palestinian, was demolished involuntarily, etc etc. <eleland/talkedits> 18:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

After having read the debates on this issue I must say that I find the cases for deletion of the image to be far more compelling than the counter-arguments. Principally I feel that as per WP:V, accusations of anti-semitism are exceptional claims and thus they require exceptional sources.BernardL (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I already made my position clear at the deletion discussion. Fringe blogs like Zombietime are not a reliable source and should not be used for contentious material like this. The photograph itself is inappropriate and its placement violates WP:NPOV. *** Crotalus *** 01:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, your inappropriate pseudo-description of the Zombietime website as a "fringe blog"[sic] shows a much greater degree of "well-poisoning" than any simple factual photograph ever could... The website isn't even a "blog" at all (in any ordinary or usual sense of the term), and Zombietime's amateur reportage has in fact achieved a moderate degree of prominence within its particular chosen niche -- and Zombietime has never yet been caught in any deliberate falsification (despite there being a fair number of people out there who would like to discredit Zombietime if they could do it).

Furthermore, CJCurrie can keep on monotonously repetitively redundantly boringly cutting-and-pasting his list of rehashed talking points again and again into indefinite perpetuity, and it won't change the fact that a significant number of editors of this article remain unconvinced... AnonMoos (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that some editors will continue to favour the Zombietime image regardless of what arguments are brought against it, but it's quite clear that the image does not have consensus and is regarded by many as entirely inappropriate.

In any event, it might be advisable for AnonMoos to actually engage with the objections other posters have raised. "Zombietime is not a blog", "Zombietime has not been caught deliberately falsifying images" and "CJCurrie has repeated himself in the course of this discussion" are not valid reasons to keep the picture. CJCurrie (talk) 09:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't immediately understand the discussion - but I can see that a new section has been opened with, apparently, a falsehood in the opening statement. I'd be reluctant to engage with people who can do this in such a blatant fashion and apparently not seek to correct their mistakes. If that's how they behave in Talk, can they be trusted in articles? PR^talk 19:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to slur all the people who hold views different from you in this discussion because User:Jaakobou seems to be personally somewhat confused about one point? If you want to devolve this into a discussion of personalities in such a way, then frankly, I could point to some of your own uses of rather questionable rhetorical tactics in past talk-page discussions (starting with Talk:Ouze Merham). AnonMoos (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If I ever present a clear falsehood (or even a wobbly assertion based on dodgy evidence) then I'm sure you'll remind me. The assertion you make as to my personal reliability will be severely dented by reading this.

In the meantime, I see what appears to be a clear falsehood in the section-starter, and I wonder how we can be expected to cooperatively write good articles when others editor introduce falsehoods, fail to correct them or - worse still - seek to defend error-introducing statements. PR^talk 17:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Zombietime is a self-published, pseudonymous website that is devoted to attempting to discredit the anti-war movement by associating it with extremism (including anti-Semitism). The photo may or may not be real, but we have absolutely no reason to believe it is representative, nor do we know how anyone else at the rally reacted to it. Our policy on verifiability and reliable sources indicates that, whether it can technically be classified as a "blog" or not, sources like Zombietime are of very limited value to Wikipedia. *** Crotalus *** 01:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No-one has ever been able to present the slightest concrete evidence that Zombietime doesn't do exactly what he or she claims to do (despite there being a number of people who would love to be able to present such evidence, if they could) -- namely, go to left-wing sponsored or affiliated events in the Bay Area, and take photos of things going on as part of, or in the immediate vicinity of, such events. The degree of direct involvement of any one individual sign-bearer in any one particular event is rather hard to prove without the existence of extensive video footage shot for that specific purpose, but nevertheless, one of the general accusations connected with the whole issue of "New antisemitism" is that in many cases left-wingers are distinctly less than fastidious in preventing the participation of, or disassociating themselves from, those who express bigoted anti-Jewish sentiments at left-wing-affiliated events. Such incidents of various types have been reported on a number of occasions in multiple sources, including the "mainstream media". AnonMoos (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources are those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not those for which no concrete evidence has been presented that they are frauds. The rest of your post is interesting, but has little bearing on the provenance of this particular image. <eleland/talkedits> 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:V is an official policy. The segment on "Questionable sources" reads as follows: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." Furthermore: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." As a questionable, self-published, pseudonymous website, Zombietime fails WP:V by a wide margin. *** Crotalus *** 05:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You may be on more solid ground when you take refuge in formalistic bureaucratic jargon and technicalistic paperwork requirements, but unfortunately for you, your characterization of the Zombietime site as a "fringe blog"[sic] was complete and utter nonsense, which did not add any helpful information to the current discussion, or clarify any disputed issues, and in fact contributed absolutely nothing whatsoever useful or relevant to the discussion of ways to improve the article New antisemitism. AnonMoos (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You have completely failed to address the policy issues in any substantive way. Whether Zombietime is considered a blog or not is irrelevant. It's a pseudonymous, self-published website; official and long-standing Wikipedia policy makes it clear that such sites are not considered reliable sources except in a very few narrowly construed areas (such as information about the site itself). These are not bureaucratic legalisms. They go to the core of what an encyclopedia is. We don't source our material to random crap on the Internet. *** Crotalus *** 17:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If you wanted this discussion to be purely and strictly about Wikipedia policies, instead of about your inflammatory (and in my opinion clearly factually false) statment that Zombietime's site is allegedly a "fringe blog"[sic], then you should never have made your inflammatory and attention-diverting statement that Zombietime's site is a "fringe blog"[sic] in the first place... AnonMoos (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think that statement was "inflammatory," you really need to get out more. Discussing the reliability of sources is how we develop articles. If doing so hurts your feelings, you might want to find a new hobby. *** Crotalus *** 23:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Zombietime doesn't think that his/her website is a "blog", and I'm quite unaware of any criteria according to which it could be validly classified as a "blog" (unless you choose to loosely and sloppily call any and all self-published on-line material as a "blog"), and Zombietime is not particularly "fringe" in any ascertainable factual sense (such as being an isolated individual without admirers, or someone attempting to promulgate an ideology which most people find objectionable). Therefore your "fringe blog"[sic] comment did not contribute usefully to the discussion of how to improve this article in any way that I can see, and basically accomplished nothing except to gratuitously annoy me... AnonMoos (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It allegedly cost Deborah Lipstadt $10 million to prove that David Irving had been cheating on some (perhaps only a few) of his sources. She didn't spend this money by choice, she was forced to do so when Irving sued her in the notoriously defensive British libel courts.

Nobody has set out to disprove Zombietime in the same fashion, but it suffers the same problems that Irving already suffered before his real fall from grace, viz. it is promoting extremism and can reasonably be described as a hate-site. These are the problems that Irving suffered before 1996. Similarily, Zombietime's material should never be high-lighted in the encyclopedia as "fact".

Lastly, of course, the reference is actually spelled "Zombietime". Spelling weaknesses say nothing about a persons character - but they say volumes about his literary education and familiarity with scholarship. Again, good-faith editors shouldn't have their time wasted by having to deal with worthless intrusions. PR^talk

Frankly, I would characterize the website from which you cut-and-pasted all of the "Nile-to-Euphrates" propaganda garbage onto Talk:Flag of Israel as being far more of a "hate-site" than Zombietime's assembly of documentary photographs. AnonMoos (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

AnonMoos, will you stop using diversionary tactics, like quibbling over a (prima facie accurate) description of Zombietime as a "fringe blog," and bringing in (misrepresented) irrelevancies from other pages? This kind of tactic would seem to indicate that you lack the courage of your convictions to argue the point on its own merits. <eleland/talkedits> 18:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've probably said most of what I had to say on the general broad issues in the #Zombietime image in the lead section above, and the discussions that now occupy most of the second half of this page seem to me to be in a rather confused state which does not facilitate the addition of further constructive comments (or at the very least, I find it quite difficult to separate out the new discussions from the rehashed discussions triggered by the multiple repostings of the pre-canned talking points). But in this confused morass, I found certain of Crotalus horridus' and PalestineRemembered's comments to be unnecessarily derogatory, and apparently rather snidely jeering in tone (not to mention contributing nothing to advancing the cause of improving article New antisemitism), and was unable to restrain my annoyance therefrom. I'm sorry if I distracted from constructive and productive discussions, but that does not seem to me to have been the case... AnonMoos (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Snidely jeering in tone"? What on Earth are you talking about? I stated that this fringe, self-published website does not meet the requirements of WP:V. This has nothing to do with you and everything to do with our sourcing policy. *** Crotalus *** 23:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Where does WP:V discuss images, and for which sentence in the article is the image used as a source? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:V discusses article content. Images hosted on the English Wikipedia are article content, especially fair-use images which, by law and policy, may not stand alone but can only be used in a particular context. If the image doesn't add anything to the article, then it should be removed. If it does, then it needs to be verifiable. By longstanding custom, we tacitly waive the requirement for photographs that Wikipedians take themselves, in those cases where the nature of the uploaded content is obvious on its face; otherwise, we would have virtually no free-content pictures. For instance, if someone takes a picture of a Siberian tiger at the zoo, and it appears to be valid on its face, we can assume good faith that the picture is what they say it is. But that tacit waiver has never applied to random crap downloaded off of the Internet. Indeed, if you click on "Upload file" and then click "I found it on the Internet" as image source, you'll see a big warning telling you that "The vast majority of images on the internet are not appropriate for Wikipedia." If people didn't have such a strong emotional investment in this issue, that picture would have been removed years ago. Many users — on both sides — are unable to approach this issue objectively because it is so emotionally charged. I would like to obtain counsel from individuals who are not tied to one particular position on Judaism, anti-Semitism, the I/P conflict, and so forth. Therefore, I am going to post a request for comments on this article. It may not do any good, but it would be nice to get some new opinions rather than the same old arguments that have been hashed over by the same people a thousand times. *** Crotalus *** 03:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you quote the sentences in WP:V that directly discuss images, please, and explain for which sentence in the article is the image used as a source? Also, it seems perverse that one would Assume Good Faith regarding images uploaded by any anonymous Wikipedia editor, but Assume Bad Faith regarding images received from a fairly famous blogger, one who has been cited in a number of works. In any event, the image itself is as obviously appropriate for this article as a picture of a Siberian tiger is for the Siberian tiger article. Some might see the image as antisemitic; others simply as anti-Zionist. Indeed, the person who made the sign is a well-known artist notorious for making similar images, which he insists are anti-Zionist not antisemitic. All-in-all, the perfect image for the lead. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There are instances where an image self-evidently illustrates the subject of an article, and instances where it does not. I and a number of other editors do not agree that this image illustrates new antisemitism, so the Siberian tiger analogy – which presumes self-evidence, as opposed to demonstrating it – is out. There are also authenticity issues, carefully laid out above and still unaddressed. Finally, I do not think we know who created the sign.--G-Dett (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the spurious "authenticity issues", and the fact that we actually do know who created the sign, what then do you imagine the image illustrates? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You're "leaving aside" serious, cogently laid-out questions in order to pose an irrelevant and inconsequential one, and you still won't say who your "well-known artist" is; hard to know how to proceed.--G-Dett (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The WP:V objection is without merit

Green Party MPs at the hikoi/protest with a banner reading "Honour The Treaty".

See Jayjg's comments above. If people still want to attempt to object to it on that basis, they can start by explaining why this image can not be used in the New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy article. <<-armon->> (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

First, what is done on other pages is not what should guide us here. However, to address your analogy head on, there is a fundamental difference. As stated by AnonMoos in the RfC, this picture is being used as a "useful example" of left-wing tolerance for antisemitism. This is an "exceptional claim" as defined by WP:verifiability:

Including exceptional claims in Wikipedia requires locating the best available sources supporting such claims, but that alone is not enough: if and only if these sources are reliable should you include the material.[emphasis from source]

In comparison, a picture of Green Party members illustrating their support for a treaty is neither controversial nor exceptional. That makes all the difference in the world. For the record, I'm not "still" making this assertion but I'm a disinterested editor invited here to provide my comments. ∴ Therefore | talk 06:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The "exceptional claim" you refer to isn't in the article, it's someone's opinion on a talk page. It is therefore a moot point. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Is the Zombietime photo appropriate for this article?

• Agreed not appropriate This is not a reliable source In particular:

  A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

  This is not a published source. And again:

  Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.

  This has no such structures. And more:

  In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.

  This is none of those. More:

  Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

  The image isn't appropriate and certainly should not be used prominently in the lede where its sensationalism will only serve to discredit the integrity of the article. ∴ Therefore | talk 07:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's get the WP:V objection out of the way. The WP:V policy doesn't apply to images on WP, otherwise it would be almost impossible to illustrate any article because every image donated by an anon wikipedian "fails" WP:V. The image of a Monarch butterfly I uploaded wasn't vetted by an entomologist in order to verify that it was indeed one. <<-armon->> (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that a photograph of a Monarch butterfly is controversial? Or are you saying this photograph is innocuous? I would dispute either assertion and, therefore, don't see the analogy. On the other hand, if your picture had hundreds of butterflies purported to show that the Monarch is not threatened or had three heads, verification would, in fact, be required. ∴ Therefore | talk 07:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that if someone wants to object to the photo, they have to do it on grounds other than WP:V because that policy simply doesn't apply. <<-armon->> (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep saying this. WP:V begins –

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

How are you concluding that "any material" in the above doesn't include images and image-captions? The legitimacy and appropriateness of the Zombietime material has been challenged on many grounds. Presumably you're zeroing in on the WP:V objection because you think it's the weakest, but your reading of that policy seems idiosyncratic, even bizarre. "Any material" means, well, any material. See also guidelines on the pertinence and encyclopedicity of images in Wikipedia.--G-Dett (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The WP:V objection simply doesn't apply to images unless you can somehow square it with "You can take a photograph with your digital camera, mobile phone with integrated digital camera, draw an image digitally, perhaps with a graphics tablet, graphs drawn from your scientific simulations, or scan drawings or photos taken with a film camera and upload the image." as stated on WP:IMAGE. The image does meet the guidelines on the pertinence and encyclopedicity of images in Wikipedia, but that's a different issue. <<-armon->> (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia convention and WP:IMAGE (a guideline) allow the use of amateur images; WP:V requires however that "any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged" be reliably sourced ("or it may be removed"). Amateur images are fine so long as their appropriateness, accuracy, relevance, etc. are self-evident and uncontested; if not, not, per WP:V. This supposed problem of "squaring" image guidelines with core content policies is an imaginary one.--G-Dett (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely anything can be "challenged" if there are editors willing to wikilaywer (as you you are doing here) but that's not the point of WP:V. It doesn't apply to images, but it does apply to article content, regardless of whether it's "challenged" or not. Applying a non-applicable policy selectively in an effort to remove content you don't like is a perfect example of wikilaywering. Experience shows that pointing this out will fall on G-Dett's deaf ears, but everyone else should check out WP:WL. <<-armon->> (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Armon, if WP:V doesn't apply to "any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged," why does it say that it does, twice, once in the lede and the second time in bold type? If I produced a photo appearing to show a Palestinian family being attacked by settlers, sourced it to a fringey blog, and added it to Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs, what policy (if any) would you cite to support its removal?--G-Dett (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not the same thing, you're assuming I would object to it, and answering your question is a bad idea per WP:BEANS anyway. <<-armon->> (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep image, it illustrates the concept discussed in the article very well. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree. It displays traditional anti-Semitism (Jews as devils, a concept dating back over a thousand years) in an article that is supposed to be about a much more subtle and controversial phenomenon, new anti-Semitism (which some reliable sources maintain is simply heated criticism of Israel). *** Crotalus *** 23:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, the essence of the idea of a "new antisemitism" is the claim of a certain observed practical convergence of the far-left, the far-right, and Islamists, all finding a convenient common ground in Jew-hating. Multiple incidents of blatant Jew-hating language and/or imagery at left-wing-sponsored or predominantly left-wing events have been reported in multiple sources (including the "mainstream media"). So a poster incorporating traditional anti-Semitic motifs present at a left-wing political event could be suitable as an illustration here for precisely and exactly that reason... AnonMoos (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• From what I can tell this article describes anti-semitism in the 21st century. Providing the photo was taken in the 21st century I believe we should keep it. However this photo shouldn't be used in an article about a particular group e.g "The Anti-Semitism Party" (fictional, I hope), even if the banner in the photo was held by a member of said party. As one person's banner/view does not reflect the view of an entire group, or that this link cannot be proven. Also please don't respond to this opinion, I make a point of not watching or checking back on RFC's in order to avoid wikistress. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep image Ryan's point is very persuasive. It is slightly bizarre that we cannot use an new antisemitic image (nobody disputes this to illustrate an article on new antisemitism. However one defines the term, this image is certainly a very good emblem. Lobojo (talk) 20:46, 1
  • I dispute that this image is an example of new anti-Semitism. It is grossly anti-Semitic in the traditional sense. The reference to "counterfeit Jews" appears to be an allusion to the theology of Christian Identity, a racist and anti-Semitic fringe group that is not even mentioned in the article. The depiction of Jews as demons is, unfortunately, a very old part of anti-Semitic belief in Christendom, with examples dating back over a thousand years. What distinguishes new anti-Semitism from the traditional variety is its ambiguity; many people deny there is such a thing as new anti-Semitism at all, and argue that it is simply a term used to deflect legitimate criticism of Israel. There's nothing ambiguous about this blatantly bigoted sign, making it inappropriate for this article. Frankly, I don't think we need any images in this article at all (there's no Wikipedia policy saying we need them), but if we do, there are two other suggestions that would work better. One was to use Dave Brown's cartoon parody of a Goya painting, which was hotly disputed in the mainstream press, and which there was legitimate dispute over whether it constituted anti-Semitism or not (thus making it an example of the "new anti-Semitism" concept). Another possibility would be the cartoons of Carlos Latuff, which are strongly anti-Israel and some argue cross the line into anti-Semitism. These have the added advantage of being under a free license. *** Crotalus *** 23:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Err, Christian Identity is a whites-only movement, the artist is African-American. The fact that the devil-figure in the middle has the words "Capitalist White Man" written on his right shoulder should have been a clue. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I dispute that this should be used in the article. The source is not reliable nor is there any verification of authenticity (e.g., Photoshop). Even granting its authenticity, it adds no value to the article; it is the equivalent of finding a racist blog comment posted by some crank and concluding this reflects the views of the blog. To infer that this one placard represents the views of, for instance, that anti-war rally or indicative of a leftist antisemitism is not valid and is therefore used as misleading propaganda. Some editors, in their personal opinion, believe that it is appropriate, but why are they ignoring the policy of "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves"? It is not the function of editors to determine notability (violates no original research) but instead verifiable reliable sources are required to determine notability. Inclusion of this photograph violates the three core content policies of Wikipedia. Instead of voicing your opinions (an RfC isn't a vote; it is a request for outside editors' comments) address why these core policies are not relevant in this case? ∴ Therefore | talk 22:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No one has claimed that this one poster is "typical of" posters displayed at that particular anti-war rally, or that the sentiments expressed on it are "representative" of the sentiments of people who attended the rally. That is not the issue, and that never was the issue. The issue is that there are multiple reports in multiple sources of incidents at left-wing-sponsored or predominantly left-wing political events where open bigoted anti-Jewish hate language or imagery was at least passively tolerated (and some cases where the event sponsors or organizers seemed to be distinctly less than fastidious with respect to excluding or disassociating themselves from those who openly expressed such bigoted anti-Jewish hate-language or imagery).

If Zombietime were the only one claiming that such things happened, then his/her photographs wouldn't count for that much here. But all Zombietime's photograph is being used for here is as a useful example of what other people than Zombietime (some of them the so-called Reliable Sources) have reported as happening on multiple occasions.

Furthermore, the glaring discrepancy between the large number of people who would like to discredit Zombietime if they could, and the fact that Zombietime has never been shown to have engaged in a photographic falsification, indicates to me that at least as much credence should be placed in Zombietime's photos as in the hypothetical random photo of a tiger which Crotalus Horridus discussed above... AnonMoos (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The image is fine for this topic. It would be better to select an actual image used for advocacy purposes, many such exist. There are copyright challenges in getting an extreme advocacy group to license use. I would prefer an actual image with a link to it's source, but return to: The image is fine for this topic. Raggz (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Raggz point. It would be preferable to find an image that's currently in use on the topic. Otherwise, this is a vivid example of the topic; the caption can be modified to suit others' critiques. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

These multiple reports (presuming they are from reliable sources and not [say] blogs or personal knowledge) belong as sources in the article. Zombietime, as I outlined above, is not a reliable source. I'd appreciate if you would assume my good faith efforts here and not characterize my statements as an attempt to "discredit" Zombietime. I have no such personal interest to discredit or to establish his credibility. He is not a reliable source. Therefore, this photograph is not appropriate, presuming it is accurate in both form and context. You state your opinion that this is "useful example" of what left-wingers tolerate. I'm sorry, but, frankly, your opinion is not relevant when writing an encyclopedic article. Nor is mine. When you find a tertiary source that uses this photograph as an example of this phenomena, then it is appropriate.

Secondly, if the intent is to include this picture as a "useful example", then you are making an exceptional claim the use of which WP:V prescribes as such:

Including exceptional claims in Wikipedia requires locating the best available sources supporting such claims, but that alone is not enough: if and only if these sources are reliable should you include the material.[emphasis from source]

I support *** Crotalus ***'s statement above. I'm unsure if you have addressed his points.This insidious, dreadful picture harms the article by stunting its credibility. Credibility is gained by the use of verifiable reliable sources and no original research (which this is)

Why did you phrase the core Wikipedia policy as "so-called Reliable Sources"? If you question their value, then the appropriate course of action is to go to the talk page of reliable sources and argue for its change. Please explain how Zombietime is a reliable source (as defined by WP:RS) or why, in this case, this core policy isn't applicable? Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 06:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The constant quoting of WP:V and Reliable Sources is a red-herring. No-one has yet been able to quote the section of WP:V that discusses images, nor state which sentence in the article this image is supposed to be a source for. That's because neither exists, and the rest is hand-waving and attempts to extend policy into areas which it was never intended to touch. And to put the nail in the coffin, please review Custodiet ipsos custodes statement regarding the speciousness of the "Reliable Source" argument. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing that indicates that the Zombietime image is an example of NAS. As such it's just a case or OR. // Liftarn (talk)

"As Wikipedia ages, its editors increasingly write in a bureaucratic patois thick with internal jargon and acronyms, making it difficult to decipher the rationale for their decisions."[14] -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The five pillars of Wikipedia are essential. Another one of them is to act civilly to other editors. Attacking the motives of editors is less effective than addressing their concerns. I recommend we put forward an RfC to get community feedback on whether the core policies are considered "bureaucratic patois" or are essential to the project. Secondly, because it appears that discussion has stopped, I recommend that we take this to arbitration. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Liftarn has been informed several times (both here and on Commons) that others find aspects of his chosen debate style to be rather unhelpful, but he refuses to work with his interlocutors to reduce unnecessary frictions, refuses to meet the objections halfway, and in fact refuses to do anything whatsoever. AnonMoos (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And the personal attacks continue... // Liftarn (talk)

You can continue to use your elliptical-cum-pseudo-Socratic argument style (which contains a high proportion of bureaucratic jargon acronyms and requests for formal "proofs" of things which most other people find to be rather obvious), and other people can continue to find this to be unhelpful and unconstructive, and when other people point out that they find it to be unhelpful and unconstructive, then you can continue to accuse them of "personal attacks". That was what was referred to as "refusing to reduce unnecessary frictions", "refusing to meet objections halfway", and "changing nothing"... AnonMoos (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep Firstly, as has been noted, most photos on WP are Original Research, so that argument is a non-starter. Secondly, A.N.S.W.E.R. has been criticized for the antisemtism of some of the demonstrators at their rallies, and this sign would seem to be entirely consistent with that. IronDuke 19:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a disturbing image, to be sure. I suppose it's one thing that someone might think of making a placard like this, but it's something else that it may have been accepted by others in the demonstration where it was shown. The uncertainty surrounding the intent of the "artist" and the acceptance of the placard in the demonstration is a good indication of the issue of the article, because neither can be objectively verified. This is about a phenomenon that is the subject of intense intellectual debate that ranges from rational analysis to harsh polemics to outright demagoguery. The image serves nicely to show the confluence of the many themes that are raised in the debate as it were. The purpose of a demonstration, after all, is a show of strength, and neither placards nor individuals can have any expectation of privacy when they appear in them. --Leifern (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't think the "Let's get the WP:V objection out of the way" is appropriate. Of course every image has to come from a reliable source! In theory atleast. In practice there will be unsourced images, just as there is unsourced content. But whenever a controversy erupts, as has happened on this page, WP:V will be the deciding factor. And if a reliable source is not required for an image, can I make one up too?Bless sins (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, but not in the lede The photo is a very good illustration of what people who assert that "new antisemitism" exists mean when they refer to it. Putting the image in the lede, however, is a clear case of well-poisoning: it claims to demonstrate a phenomenon whose existence is described in the article as a subject of debate. I think the appropriate placement of the photo is in the section of the article that discusses the arguments of those who assert the existence of "new antisemitism". In this regard, Islamophobia may be a good example: maybe there shouldn't be any image in the lede unless we can achieve a broad consensus, but instead include images in appropriate sections that illustrate the arguments in those sections. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • comment - The reasonings given for rejecting this image from the lede (or entirely) have been rejected themselves by most people who commented, not only here, but also on the image deletion nomination. Pandering to these justification is defeative of the RfC purpose. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Response I think that Jaakobou has proven a point, though perhaps not the one he intended. The image deletion nomination process was (I'm choosing my words carefully) not exactly Wikipedia's finest deliberative moment. All of the keep votes in that discussion, bar two, were from contributors who have a known history of intervening on one side of the larger dispute involving "new antisemitism". Many of the "keep" votes in this discussion are from the same participants. I don't believe this is a particularly useful way of measuring community consensus. We already know that a group of editors wants to retain the image in the lede; a vote-stacking exercise at this stage will prove nothing. CJCurrie (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
      • And you, CJCurrie, have been prominent on the other side of that "larger dispute". We already know that a group of editors wants to delete the image from the lede, and preferably entirely; a vote-stacking exercise at this stage will prove nothing. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Jay, for confirming my point. It's true that I've become associated with a "larger side" in the nearly two years that I've been active on this page, but this was not the result of any design on my part. I have generally been willing to participate in negotiated compromises over our key disputes ... and I've often run up against a metaphorical brick wall when trying to do so. If I've become associated with a "side", it's because a certain bloc of contributors has too often refused to engage in meaningful debate -- and so has pushed anyone who disagrees with their approach into "the enemy camp". I'm hardly the only person who has found myself in this position.

In any event, it's quite clear that collegiality -- to say nothing of congeniality -- broke down on this page some time ago. Unfortunately, this page has become dominated by two parties: one that is quite well-organized and often works in a coordinated fashion, and another that is far more decentralized and open to divergent approaches.

I'm not pleased with this turn of events. I would much prefer a restoration of collegiality, but I simply don't believe the necessary trust exists on either side at present. Frankly, I'm not certain what turn of events could improve this situation.

But to return to the issue at hand: at the present time, one group favours inclusion of the Zombietime image in the lede, while the other group opposes inclusion of the Zombietime image in the lede. The contributions from neutral and uninvolved editors have more-or-less been a wash, which leaves this as a straightforward confrontation between two sides. In this situation, it doesn't really matter which group is able to command the greater number of votes. The system itself is broken, and I'm rapidly arriving at the conclusion that mediation will be our only way forward (unless some of my opponents change their mind, and conclude that it won't be the end of the world to move the Zombietime image down a grand total of two bloody sections). CJCurrie (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep in lede - quote from the lede: "The concept... purports to be criticism of Israel... is in fact tantamount to demonization... attacks on Jewish symbols and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs." -- i see nothing wrong with this image as a cover image. its a perfect front image for the subject as it's not attributed to any particular hate-artist or government so it holds no mal/intent at someone in particular. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Don't keep - there is nothing but some editors own opinion that says the image has anything to do with new antisemitism at all. // Liftarn (talk)

• Keep, but not in the lede I prefer serious, identifiable sources also for images. Besides, I think it serves the structure of the article better when moved to the convergence part (as proposec by CJ). There is no reason to have a disputed image from a strange, secretive source as a lede in this article. I'm wondering: what would encyclopedia britannica do? What is most fitting for an encyclopedia? I guess, to not use it altogether (there are many images out there) or to give it a less prominent place and even maybe a place where it has some merit. And I do believe it may possible serve to illustrate the left-right convergence. pertn (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep in lede. Obviously relevant and striking image - thus the multiple attempts to get rid of it. It strikes a bit close to home, as a good image should. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought the purpose of a good image was to illustrate an article. I didn't realize that it was also supposed to irk other editors. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Using a good image for this article is invariably going to irk some editors. The mere notion that the "left" is guilty of any sort of racism is huge challenge to their belief system. This is the obvious crux of the matter, and the reason why the more clear an example of antisemitism from the "left" we use, the greater the objections to it. It's the same as censoring the article on religious grounds. <<-armon->> (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It hardly need be said that there's a serious problem with this logic. No one in this dispute would disagree with the assertion that there is anti-Semitism on the Left. What's disputed is (i) that the Left has superseded the Right as the primary source of anti-Semitism, (ii) that left-wing anti-Zionism is inherently anti-Semitic, (iii) that Zombietime's image is indicative of what's usually called "new antisemitism", and (iv) for that matter, that the creator of the image is on the "Left" to begin. CJCurrie (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that anyone of note has claimed that the left is now the "primary source" of antisemitism, and I don't see a claim mentioned in the article that the left is now the "primary source" of antisemitism. That's not really the issue. What is an issue is that in some cases some leftist or quasi-leftist organizations don't seem to be too bothered by cooperating with or implicitly allying themselves with organizations which express open bigoted anti-Jewish sentiments (while they would never do so with organizations which express open bigoted racist or anti-Muslim sentiments), and that at some predominantly left-wing events, there is passive tolerance for participants at the event who express open bigoted anti-Jewish sentiments (while if open bigoted racist sentiments were expressed at such an event, those who did so would probably be quickly hustled out of the area or placed on the oppposite side of a police crowd-control barrier). Such hypocritical discrepancies are one large part of what's called "new antisemitism", and Zombietime's image illustrates it reasonably well. See my original comments of 11:18, 4 September 2007 above. AnonMoos (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In which case, don't you think the image should be included in the section of this article having to do with Chip Berlet's concerns regarding a left-right convergence? CJCurrie (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Good images invoke an emotional response; that's one of the main things that makes them good. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Good images in encyclopedias shouldn't skew the debate before it begins. CJCurrie (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Dave Brown's cartoon certainly would skew the debate, since it won the "The political cartoon of the year award 2003", and was exonerated by the Press Complaints Commission. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't entirely follow this logic. The 2003 award and the PCC decision did nothing to end the debate over the image -- if anything, they exacerbated it. CJCurrie (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment/Reiteration by CJCurrie

The image should removed. At minimum, it needs to be moved.

I've been active in this discussion for quite some time, and I suspect that my views will already be known to most participants (though for the benefit of newcomers I should indicate that I recently outlined the reasons for opposing Zombietime's image here.) At the risk of incurring more criticism for repetition, I'd like to add a few additional comments now.

(i) The crux of this argument is whether or not Zombietime's image is appropriate for an article on the concept of "new antisemitism". This is an important point, and one which is easily misunderstood. In order for us to assess whether or not Zombietime's image is appropriate, we first need to understand what precisely this article is addressing.

As it happens, there was an extended discussion on this point in early 2006. At the time, one group of editors sought to identity "new antisemitism" as a phenomenon, while another group argued that it was more properly described as a theory. Some who held the latter view also argued that the term was often used merely as an epithet. The matter was taken to [mediation], the result of which was a compromise wherein it was agreed that the term should be described as a concept.

This point cannot be emphasized strongly enough: Wikipedia's article on "new antisemitism" is about a concept, which is to say a framework for understanding and interpreting events. The article is not about the phenomenon of anti-Semitism in the late 20th and early 21st century (the reality of which none would dispute), but rather about a disputed conceptual framework that identifies certain perspectives and activities as anti-Semitic, and argues that the character of anti-Semitism has changed in broad terms during recent years. There are proponents and opponents (and for that matter skeptics) of the concept, and there is copious literature representing all perspectives. I would recommend that readers who are interested in reading a full range of views consult the relevant works by Pierre-André Taguieff, David Matas, Phyllis Chesler, Norman Finkelstein, Brian Klug, Tony Judt, Judith Butler and Walter Lacquer.

Our responsibility as editors of this encyclopedia is to outline the views of all sides in a balanced, representative and non-sensational manner. Unfortunately, we have not lived up to this standard ... and I would suggest that one major impediment to improving the quality of this article is the fact that some editors have continued to approach "new antisemitism" as though it were an undisputed phenomenon rather than a disputed concept.

As evidence, please consider these recent comments from User:Humus sapiens ([15], [16], [17]) and also User:Lobojo ([18]), wherein opponents of the Zombietime image are written off as "deniers". Neither editor explained precisely what was meant by this term, but I think it's a reasonable bet they were attempting to construe opponents of the "new antisemitism" concept as deniers of anti-Semitism in a more general sense. (I should clarify, in fairness, that both Humus sapiens and Lobojo have demonstrated a willingness to compromise on the particulars of the current discussion ... but this doesn't change the fact that their comments are neither civil nor productive.)

I think it's fairly clear these editors want our article to identify "new antisemitism" as an undisputed phenomenon, notwithstanding past mediation and extensive scholarly literature that asserts views to the contrary. Moreover, I think it's fairly clear that these editors are not alone in holding this view.

I would further posit that this ongoing problem of definition has allowed supporters of the Zombietime image to ignore the most fundamental argument in support of its deletion: the fact that it does not represent the debate over "new antisemitism", but reduces a complicated and contentious issue to a simple caricature. On this regard, I would draw the attention of readers to a point made by User:G-Dett a few days ago:

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." (Original link: [19])

I don't believe this point that been properly addressed (except here by User:Jaakobou, who does not appear to be clear on the terms of discussion).

G-Dett's assertion that the "new antisemitism" concept "alleges something much more subtle and insidious" is entirely accurate ... and it's no less accurate to assert that this concept cannot be proven or disproven by a single image, no matter how sensationalist, loathsome or bigoted that image may be. An instance of a protester displaying an anti-Semitic sign at a predominantly (but not exclusively) left-wing event does not automatically validate the concept of "new antisemitism", any more than an instance of a non-white applicant being passed over for a promotion automatically validates the concept of structural racism. While these concepts may or may not be accurate in their own terms, neither is inherently proven by the evidence in question.

In Zombietime's image, there is absolutely no indication of the debate concerning "new antisemitism", nor even the fact that there is a debate. The image serves to convey only one side of a very contentious dispute, and in the process skews the discussion before it can even get underway. Leaving aside all other considerations, this fact alone should invalidate Zombietime for the lede.

There's much more that I could add here (including that the fact that having this remarkably sensationalized image in our lede effectively reduces Wikipedia to the level of a common tabloid), but I'll defer in the interest of brevity. I have a few other points to address, after all.

(ii) Some contributors to this discussion have described Zombietime as an extremist site; others have argued that the site is a blog (or something similar) with mainstream credibility. This is a secondary issue, but is nonetheless relevant for assessing the general suitability of the image.

My own view is that even a quick perusal of Zombietime's site reveals him to be a rather dodgy and obsessive individual, who isn't above showing completely out-of-context images when it suits his purposes. He's quite obviously the sort of person who lumps anti-war/anti-Bush protesters with real anti-Semites, "9/11 truth" figures and so forth. In other words, he's precisely the sort of person whom we shouldn't be turning to for reliable facts and images, even if there's no evidence that he's ever "faked" a picture.

You needn't take my word for it, though. The following selection of references in the mainstream media seems to portray Zombietime as someone who doesn't quite reach the level of a credible source:

(a)

"Shortly after the winning design was announced, the use of the red crescent drew criticism from some religious groups and Web sites. As noted on the conservative blog Zombietime ( www.zombietime.com ), "The winning design chosen to memorialize the heroes and victims of 9/11's Flight 93 is in the shape of a red crescent that looks--either accidentally or intentionally--remarkably like an Islamic crescent."

When asked about the controversy, Murdoch explained that the term "crescent" should be interpreted on a "universal level" and that it also applies as a technical, not religious, term. The jury report anticipated the possibility for misinterpretation and had recommended that the " 'Crescent' should be referred to as the 'circle' or 'arc' or other words that are not tied to specific religious iconography." While no official project timeline has been established, the goal is to complete the first phase of construction on the memorial for the 10th anniversary of 9/11."

(Architectural Record, 1 October 2005, p. 57)

(b)

In complaints to me, to several reporters, to the managing editor and to the editor of SF Gate, e-mailers asserted that the paper had manipulated a front-page picture of a young San Francisco protester by cropping out radical imagery nearby. By doing so, they said, the paper was propagandizing, part of an effort to falsely portray the demonstration as centrist.

The reaction was prompted by a Web site called "Zombietime," which posted its own picture of the protester. It was a more distant, wide-angle view that showed Palestinian flags, other protesters similarly wearing "terrorist-style bandannas covering their faces," and a woman seeming to direct the group. She was wearing a red T-shirt with a yellow star on the back -- symbol of the flag of Vietnam.

Like a proton in a particle accelerator, the complaint spun quickly around the Internet. Jim Sparkman, who runs the anti- Chronicle Web site ChronWatch, wrote in his blog that "the editors got caught with their hand in the bias cookie jar."

Most of those who wrote to me accepted the Zombietime indictment as prima facie evidence of the paper's guilt. But after reading the arguments and examining the photographs, I thought the argument fell apart.

Set aside the contention that The Chronicle photo was a politically driven effort to distort (which would have involved at least one senior editor, the photo editor, the photographer, the layout desk and probably a handful of other co-conspirators). Consider just this: The allegedly more honest picture shows the protester at a distance, part of a group of similar demonstrators who could be seen, but were little more than part of a crowd. The Chronicle photograph closes in tightly on the teenager, riveting the reader on the bandanna mask, the steely-eyed gaze and the raised, clinched fist -- which the other picture doesn't show at all.

So The Chronicle photo didn't exactly shout "Middle America." It was far more dramatic and displayed the protester in far more detail. If the newspaper was setting out to "de-radicalize" the scene, it did a pretty lame job. If the paper wants to sanitize a protest, it should forget tight shots of radicals in disguise and go for pictures of suburban moms with young children. Now that's centrist.

[...]

Some of the outcry over the photo seemed to result from Zombietime's assertion that the disputed picture ran on the front page of the paper. It didn't. The Page 1 photo was a small shot of a crowd marching from Dolores Park in San Francisco. The protester photo ran on Page 15 next to a 6-column-wide picture of banner- waving marchers.

The picture did run on the SFGate.com home page starting late Saturday night and into early Sunday morning. When the page was updated, the photo was replaced by a shot of Pat Tillman, the former football star who was killed by friendly fire last year in Afghanistan.

Zombietime, informed of the mistaken reference to The Chronicle front page, changed the wording on its site, but didn't acknowledge the error.

(San Francisco Chronicle editorial, 2 November 2005, C5)

(c)

ALEXANDER Downer conceded yesterday he could have been wrong when he claimed the media was duped about an Israeli missile attack on an ambulance in southern Lebanon.

A day after the Foreign Minister was found to have relied on an unsubstantiated internet blog report to attack the media, Mr Downer was conceding the possibility the Red Cross ambulance could have been hit by other weaponry.

"I notice that new claims are being made about, well, there was a drone and something was shot out of the drone, maybe it wasn't a missile," Mr Downer told ABC Radio.

Defence analysts yesterday said Israel was a world leader in drone technology, including drone-borne munitions.

Mr Downer on Monday accused media outlets of failing to check facts when they reported the attack on the ambulance -- an incident he described as having "all the makings of a hoax".

He based his charge on an account in the anonymous blog zombietime.com.

Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd called on Mr Downer yesterday to make clear his sources.

"In launching an attack like this, Mr Downer's first responsibility is to make absolutely plain who his own sources are," Mr Rudd said.

"Are they (conservative commentator) Andrew Bolt or Zombietime? What are his sources? Are there other sources?

"Alternatively, is Mr Downer relying on incontrovertible intelligence sources available to the Government, in which case he now has a duty to make (them) public."

The Geneva-based International Committee of the Red Cross said there was no evidence to back Mr Downer's blogsite-based assertions.

[...]

When asked by The Australian to clarify claims of its alleged involvement in the attack, Israel's Foreign Ministry yesterday referred this newspaper to the same blogsite.

(The Australian, 13 August 2006, p. 4)

(d)

WHO is the Zombie behind zombietime.com?

He claims to be a "photoblogger" who lives in San Francisco. For fun, he attends protests by people of opposite political inclinations to his own - the extreme left. He turns their placards against them, takes photographs and posts the images on his site.

In this vein, his happy snaps of the 2006 World Naked Bike Ride are well worth a look. But recently he has turned investigator, challenging photo agencies such as Reuters over the alleged manipulation of images and - infamously - arguing that the bombing of an ambulance in Lebanon was a hoax.

Last month, another right-wing blogger ("Blonde Sagacity, the conservative that liberals hate to love"), claimed a rare interview with the Zombie, in which he chatted about his anonymity, his tricks to obtain pictures (sometimes the camera is hidden, sometimes he plays tourist), and his motivations.

"The anti-war movement is really an anti-American movement," he told Blonde.

"The media (try) to demoralise the country by portraying the anti-war movement as reasonable, widespread, and destined for victory. But in fact it is a hate-fuelled fringe movement that only maintains even a hint of credibility due to media misrepresentation. That's something I'm trying to correct."

Just how successful the Zombie has been in spreading the message is not clear. The site technorati.com - which measures the connections and mentions that build credibility in the web - show it as a low-wattage player.

Yesterday it had 955 blog posts, while Melbourne conservative Andrew Bolt had 4260, and the influential US Drudge Report more than 41,000.

(The Age, 2 September 2006, p. 16)

(e)

Initial media reports claimed the Israeli Defence Force targeted the vehicles, firing a missile directly through the roof of one ambulance using the international Red Cross symbol as a target marker. Others blamed Israeli artillery or armed unmanned drones.

An Israeli army spokesman has now gone closer than ever before to admitting responsibility. "We (the IDF) certainly do not target ambulances but in a combat zone, we cannot always co-ordinate their safety," Captain Benjamin Rutland said. "It (the ambulance) could have been struck by our mortar or artillery.

"There was (Israeli army) shelling in the vicinity of the ambulance, but we do not have UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) footage and we don't have access to the ambulance so we cannot tell for sure."

He made the comments during an Israeli army-hosted inspection of the South Lebanon border given to a group of Australian reporters earlier this month.

In August, Mr Downer slammed Australian and international media for not checking facts and branded reports of the alleged attack on the ambulance a hoax. His comments were based on unverified evidence carried on an unattributed right-wing website, Zombietime.com.

(The Australian, 27 December 2006, 6)

See also The "Hoax" That Wasn't, a 2006 report from Human Rights Watch.

To be fair, Zombietime has received some favourable press -- from Fox News, the Jerusalem Post and other right-wing sources. It should be obvious, however, that he's not regarded with any particular respect from the mainstream journalistic community.

(iii) I've noticed something odd that I'd like to have clarified ...

Two supporters of the Zombietime image, including User:Jayjg, have said that the creator of the actual poster in Zombietime's snapshot is a well-known figure who describes his works as anti-Zionist, but not anti-Semitic.

I've done a bit of research, and I've discovered the name of an individual who was identified as the creator of the poster. If this name is accurate, then I think it's fair to say that he's not a well-known figure at all, and is hardly the sort of person we should be promoting here.

I'm curious, however, as to what evidence exists for identifying this person as the poster's creator in the first place? Perhaps someone can inform us. (As a legal precaution, I've decided not to include this person's name in my comments.)

(iv)

Finally, I'd like to draw another point to the attention of readers. This comment as part of an email that I received a short time ago, though I've taken the liberty of adjusting the wording slightly.

One point that's being missed is that if you have a longstanding dispute about a picture, I would think the presumption would be very strong that this might not be the ideal picture for the lede section of an article (ie. if you want a NPOV article, you don't put a picture in the lead that causes this much controversy). Of course that kind of reasoning doesn't work everywhere -- you can't say the existence of a dispute should keep anything out of an article -- but it should certainly mean that a better image could be found for the lede.

I agree, of course, but I suspect it may not matter for some contributors to this discussion. There have been many entirely valid reasons for deleting (or at least moving) the Zombietime image presented in the course of this discussion, but some editors aren't even willing to countenance the possibility that a more suitable image could be found, or that the present image should be moved elsewhere.

According to the view of some editors, the Zombietime image simply MUST be retained in the lede and all objections dismissed out of hand. While I don't wish to caricature all defenders of Zombietime in this manner, I suspect the motivations of at least some of these editors will not be particularly difficult to fathom.

I'm going to implement my suggested compromise again (ie. returning the image to the the "left/right convergence" section, where despite everything the image actually has some relevance to the text), and will strongly recommend that other posters consider accepting it as a means of getting around this impasse. If the "pro-Zombietime" side isn't willing to compromise, I think mediation may be the only solution. CJCurrie (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie, thanks for your long and well-articulated explanation of your view. A couple of comments:

• I sort of agree with your definition of what the article should be about, but would like to add that it can be summarized as a set of assertions, the truth and usefulness of which are being disputed. These assertions are supposed to be based in observations of real-life phenomena, rather than a hypothesis that tries to find data points to support it. Of course, there are arguments whether it all adds up, but I don't want anyone to think that it's a theory furtively looking for support - it's intended to be more than that.
• Nobody is claiming that we accept Zombietime as a definitive authority on any type of assertion, only that the picture is of what it reports to be and hasn't been doctored. There may be arguments about how big the demonstration was, who else was in it, how prominent this placard was, etc., but nobody has disputed that it's a real photograph of a real event. I submit photographs to the commons all the time, and although I don't take pictures of contentious events, there is an assumption that I'm telling the truth.
• The question then is whether this image illustrates such a central point in the article's subject that it's worth keeping. I think it does, because it - better than any other image I've seen, and some clearly have just as strong antisemitic under- and overtones - illustrates the confluence of themes that wittingly or unwittingly gives rise to notion of new antisemitism.
• An image like this neither can nor should "prove" one side of the argument or the other, and I don't think this one does. But it does illustrate rather nicely the strength of convictions held against Israel and the many themes that get thrown in. --Leifern (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Leifern: Thank you for your response. I appreciate that you've chosen to interact with some of the points I've raised, rather than engaging in a back-and-forth discussion that's destined to lead nowhere.

While I agree that "new antisemitism" can be described as a set of assertions, I also think it's important for our article to clarify that these are highly contentious assertions not accepted by all participants in the broader debate. We should also note (as indeed we do, in the main body of the article) that some critics of the concept believe that the prevalence of actual anti-Semitism in Western Europe and North America has been overstated in the period since 2000 (witness Norman Finkelstein's remarks concerning "exaggeration and fabrication").

No one disputes that the "NAS-proponents" have used evidence to back up their claims. The problem is that some of this evidence is suspect, and none of it conclusively proves the suitability of the concept.

The fact that the Zombietime image has clear anti-Semitic overtones is, I would suggest, a strong point against its inclusion in the lede of this particular article. The "new antisemitism" concept is disputed -- therefore, whatever image we choose to represent the debate should reflect the dispute. It should not imply that one or the other side is correct. (To your secondary point, I don't believe the fact that no-one has refuted the accuracy of the image to be especially important. An unreliable source is an unreliable source, regardless of how often it happens to subtle across the truth.)

In any event, I don't for a moment believe that leaving the Zombietime image in its current position does anything other than caricature the debate to favour one particular side. I'm prepared to accept a compromise: we can keep the image but move it somewhere else (it doesn't need to be the left/right convergence section), and have no image in the lede. I would again encourage other contributors to reflect on this suggestion, as I'm not certain what other steps short of mediation could be taken to bridge the two sides in this dispute. CJCurrie (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

1) I think you've misunderstood my point. There is a difference between accepting zombietime's interpretation of an event and a photograph that he/she takes. 2) The interesting thing about this whole debate is that we can easily find political caricatures about Israel that are blatantly antisemitic, not the least in Norwegian newspapers. This particular image should cause some concerns but is actually less blatant. Setting aside copyright issues for caricatures, it is far easier to find caricatures that strengthen the so-called "pro-NAS" side than this one, which illustrates the complexity of the issue. In other words, your interpretation of the image shouldn't determine its placement any more than anyone else's. --Leifern (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Response: 1) I have no reason to believe the image is faked, but this is entirely beside the point. The fact that the sign was legitimately held aloft by a single marcher at a single parade isn't enough to justify its position in the lede, especially in light of all the other problems that have been raised, 2) I don't doubt that there are plenty of anti-Semitic images to be found (and I'm familiar with the unpleasantness of the radical right in Norway), but the point is that a brazenly hateful image isn't particularly appropriate for an article on a disputed concept, 3) as I've said before, the article shouldn't favour (or be seen to favour) either side in the controversy. CJCurrie (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding (a) the Red Crescent issue, in fact the design was subsequently changed for just that reason, so zombie couldn't have been that out to lunch. Regarding (b) the San Francisco Chronicle image, zombie responds rather convincingly here: http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/anatomy_of_a_photograph/ Regarding (c) the Red Cross ambulance incident, the claim of a magical Israeli missile than can strike the center of crosses on ambulances, not blow up, and leave tiny holes in the pavement, it (and HRW's ludicrous defense) have been thoroughly put to shame in multiple places, for example here: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/fake_but_true_the_age_defends_the_holey_ambulance_hoax/ and by zombie him/herself: http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/hrw/ Regarding (d), Zombie's site is not a blog, so it's not surprising it has fewer "blog posts" than actual blogs. Regarding (e), see (c). Regarding the identity of the poster-maker, if you know who it is, then you also know that a similar image of his raised a huge stink regarding whether or not it was anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic. Finally, your comments regarding the motivations and strength of the arguments of editors you oppose are noted, but so is the source. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Jay, your defense of Zombietime might be more convincing if it wasn't based around evidence from other sites operated by Zombietime. (For the record, I'd already seen those pages. "Rathering convincingly" is, shall we say, rather POV). Regarding your other points, (i) suffice it to say that most sources don't regard HRW's report as "ludicrous", (ii) could you please indulge me, and tell me what the "similar image" was?, (iii) while you're at it, could you explain your apparent reluctance to name the artist on this forum?, (iv) WP:AGF doesn't mandate willful blindness to the obvious.

And now that the preliminaries are out of the way, could I please request that you address my primary objection to the image? CJCurrie (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie, if you were only interested in discussing a "primary objection", then why did you make a post that was literally over 3,000 words on the subject? Perhaps in that short novel I missed the primary point, could you re-iterate (in, say, under 100 words) what your "primary objection" is? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the section marked as "(i)". Hope that helps. CJCurrie (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There's been lengthy debate on this issue, so I hope I've followed the back-and-forth accurately. The picture concerned is a useful illustration in some ways and I do not agree with CJCurrie that the image constitutes well-poisoning. However, I do agree with his concerns about the picture's notability and context. Without a better sense of how and when that placard was being used and received, something that is hard to get, I feel it is hard to be confident that this picture is an example of New Anti-Semitism rather than any other brand of anti-semitism; and it is hard to say whether that placard is representative of a common view or the product of a lone nutter. So, while I wouldn't object to that picture being used in some contexts (for example, in Anti-Semitism), I agree that it isn't a good example for the beginning of this article. What would be good is a picture that we know represents a wider view or reached a wider audience (e.g. a cartoon in a significant newspaper) and where we know its ideological background better (e.g. the author/illustrator is identifiable) so that we are confident that it is illustrating the particular form of anti-semitism described in this article. Some here (e.g. Leifern) have explained why they interpret the image as being a particularly good illustration of New Anti-Semitism. I am sympathetic to Leifern's reasoning, but such interpretations seem to me like original research if they lack knowledge of that placard's context and, especially, reliable sources to support those interpretations. If reliable sources about the artist concerned are available, that might change the situation, but I haven't seen such presented. Bondegezou (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the substance and the spirit of Bondegezou's statement above (though I think the notability/representativeness problems he notes do indeed lead to questions of well-poisoning). I suggest we use an image like this one. Not only are its provenance and notability known quantities, but it touched off discussions of the "new antisemitism," which explicitly cite it. In short, everything about it (including its relevance to the subject) is sourced, and we'd be supplying the reader with a key document in the controversy he's reading about.--G-Dett (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Aside from its other obvious failings, (being a fairly non-compelling image), there are copyright issues with that picture, aren't there? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-compelling?! That image gives me the heebie-jeebies. It's a perpetual check against my NAS-skepticism – hitting much "closer to home" (your insinuating phrase) than Zombieman's fever dreams. By the way, I think you're a little confused about the "emotional response" provoked by Zombieman's image. Editors who object to it feel like they're reading a tabloid, and object to editorial sloppiness and special pleading cheapening a project they're involved in.--G-Dett (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Zombietime

Not sure where or how to insert this in a suitable place above, but I'd like to point out that most of CJCurrie's collected criticisms of Zombietime apply to instances where Zombietime has gone beyond his/her core competence (i.e. speculating about Lebanese ambulances and a newspaper's motives for publishing a cropped version of a photo). In Zombietime's area of core competence (photographing left-wing events in the Bay area), he/she has received rather little criticism without obvious political motivations, and has never been exposed as engaging in falsification. AnonMoos (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more accurate to say s/he has received rather little attention this area -- with the exception of excerpt (ii) above, which is strongly critical. In any event, (i) I think that general criticisms of Zombietime's credibility and competence are relevant to determining his suitability as a source, (ii) the issue is secondary to begin with. CJCurrie (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "attention" -- compared to a broad general-interest site like the Daily Kos or whatever, Zombietime's site is of course puny and insignificant. However, within its own particular chosen niche (one which is highly-relevant to the topic of New antisemitism), Zombietime's site is in fact moderately prominent, and has received a fair amount of attention, relatively speaking. If that weren't true, then there wouldn't be a Wikipedia article on Zombietime at all... AnonMoos (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all certain I agree with the latter point ... zombie strikes me as the sort of person who'd likely attract a vanity article, one way or the other. (I'll also note that "within its own particular chosen niche", "in fact moderately prominent" and "fair amount of attention, relatively speaking" aren't exactly the most ringing endorsements). CJCurrie (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The image is what it is, a photo of picket at an anti-war rally. Does anyone seriously think it's been photoshopped? <<-armon->> (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The concern is that an evidentiary assertion relevant to the claims of NAS (that this antisemitic image featured at an antiwar rally in San Francisco in 2003) has no reliable source. From this edit of yours I gather that you understand the problem.--G-Dett (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no serious claims that the poster is anything other than what zombie says it is, a poster held at the antiwar rally in San Francisco in 2003. And I'm sure Armon does indeed understand the problem with continual disruptive edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the reference to WP:POINT. The claims in the image caption are not supported by a reliable source; hence fact tags are appropriate, as will be eventual deletion of the unsourced claims. One can't justify the inclusion of unsourced claims by saying that there are "no serious" counterclaims. That's not how writing from sources works on Wikipedia; you should know that.--G-Dett (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying you seriously question whether or not the placard was carried at the anti-war rally in San Francisco in 2003? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to answer personal questions on my talk page. The suitability of factual claims on Wikipedia is not determined by a given editor's inclination to believe them; it's determined by whether they're sourced and verifiable. Again, you should know these things.--G-Dett (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I ask only because that particular claim is referenced by seven sources - I suspect that would be a level of referencing for an image that is unique in the annals of Wikipedia. Again, you should know that personal comments of the kind of you have made violate WP:CIVIL; please desist. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You and your damn WP:CIVIL. Sorry to be blunt, but you do seem to be – how to put it? – rather eager with that particular accusation. Now, who are these seven reliable sources? And what do they say about new antisemitism? And why on earth don't you or Armon simply supply these reliable sources instead of edit-warring over fact tags?--G-Dett (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you've been reading my posts carefully. The issue in question is whether or not the placard was carried at the anti-war rally in San Francisco in 2003. That is what Liftarn continually and disruptively tags as unreferenced, in multiple places, despite 7 references confirming it. The references are attached to the image itself, as they have been for days. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Of the six (not seven) sources, one is a dead link to a blog, the second is to FrontPageMagazine, and three more are to blogs (one of which merely links to FrontPageMagazine). One of the six is to the Santa Cruz Sentinel, which seems to be a reliable source, so congratulations on the kernel of truth, and my apologies for sweeping it out with the dandruff. I should say though that while sifting through these things I did see another, slightly wider-angle photo, which goes a long way toward convincing me that someone indeed had this sign at said rally.--G-Dett (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe if you had simply clicked on the 7th source (zombietime, no?), footnoted in the caption, you would have seen a wider shot there [20]. IronDuke 07:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Zombietime is not a reliable source, hence this interminable discussion. The wider-angle shot I refer to was sent in to the non-RS blog by a she, apparently, who isn't Zombietime. If it's the same wide-angle shot Zombieguy has, then that rather weakens its corroborative effect. The Front Page thingie says Zombieman wanted to be anonymous for safety reasons. I hope his Zombie house isn't getting egged or TP'd on account of Wikipedia's enthusiastic dissemination of his picture. The perils of fame.--G-Dett (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

zombietime is certainly reliable enough regarding the provenance of the photographs, as are the other sources provided. Frankly, a far higher standard of verification is being demanded here than from essentially every other image on Wikipedia. This is an unacceptable double-standard. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an article on a controversial subject, and the notability, encyclopedicity, and overall relevance of this image are hotly disputed. The double standard here is that an image that clearly lacks consensus (and has been substantively contested on and off for almost the entire life of this article) is retained through brute force of edit-warring, while multiple viable alternatives are suggested and shrugged off. Do you know of any other parallel case where a badly sourced image causing so much controversy was retained in an article? I don't.--G-Dett (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In my experience almost any article can be "controversial", and the unfortunate behavior of various individuals attempting to overturn the longstanding consensus that the image should go in the lead is not really relevant to the "notability, encyclopedicity, and overall relevance of this image." Also, regarding your statement that the image is "badly sourced", again, I'm not aware of any image that has even two sources attesting to its provenance, much less seven. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you mention it, I'm fairly certain that Dave Brown's cartoon was mentioned in more than seven newspapers worldwide. Mind you, I suppose the discussion around that image can't really be compared that generated by the Santa Cruz Sentinel, FrontPageMag, and some blogs. CJCurrie (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't Zombietime

The issue is that there exists a phenomenon described in the article which multiple mainstream reliable sources agree exists and which the image is a good illustration of. Please re-read the article itself. The phenomenon has been describes as, "new antisemitism", "ideological antisemitism", "a brand new bug", or just plain old antisemitism in reaction to the behaviour of "Zionists". It all cases, the image can be read as an example of it, which makes it perfect for the lead. The problem with the image only really arises among WP editors who want to deny that the phenomenon exists. <<-armon->> (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, there are issues of authenticity, notability, and most importantly relevance which have been raised in detail and presented cogently. You haven't addressed them but keep waving them off peremptorily, questioning the honesty and integrity and ideological purity of those who raise them. Meanwhile CJ and I have laid out with considerable care and nuance why we don't think a picture (designed by one crank and photographed by another) of Jewish devils gleefully incinerating the globe is a good illustration of what is supposed to be a subtle, insidious form of antisemitism making its way into mainstream leftist discourse. And you won't respond to this critique except by insinuating that we're apologists. It's really insulting.--G-Dett (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"...what is supposed to be a subtle, insidious form of antisemitism making its way into mainstream leftist discourse" is your definition of NAS. You are redefining it in an attempt to make your arguments stronger. The reliable sources in the article do not describe the phenomenon as "subtle or insidious" among the far left, Islamists, or the far right. It may be more "subtle or insidious" once it hits the relative mainstream, but that's also when it becomes "arguable" for denialists who want to pretend it doesn't exist -or only exists in some abstract way which can never be found. It's also clear that people "draw the line" at different points, which is all the more reason to start with a illustration which is a clear example of the type of antisemitism being discussed, so the reader can read the article and form their own opinions. <<-armon->> (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would add to this that if the creator of the poster turned out to be, in fact, none other than IronDuke, and that I had created the poster merely to graphically illustrate what is meant by "New antisemitism" and enhance the article's content, I would have every right to upload the image and illustrate this article with it. Original research? No more than any other drawing uploaded by Wikipedians. IronDuke 01:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's crazy, Ironduke. First of all, there's a difference between an image that's merely illustrative and one with evidentiary claims – e.g., between a picture of a Monarch butterfly for the article on Monarch butterflies, and a picture allegedly showing hundreds of Monarch butterflies off the coast of Carmel in an article about a controversial theory positing an explosion in the population of Monarch butterflies on the West Coast. Secondly, if the hypothetical article was about an abstract and highly contested theoretical concept, and numerous fellow editors contested whether your drawing aptly illustrated it, it could indeed be removed.--G-Dett (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

1. "The new anti-Semitism is a much quieter and more insidious force. It comes from a newly-emerging American ideology dictating that anything goes as long as you’re attacking the people in power..." Amanda Zimmerman, The Chronicle, November 8 2004
2. "Instead of declaring its hatred of Jews openly, this new antisemitism is expressed indirectly through criticism of Israel or even opposition to Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. A particularly meretricious version suggests that opposition to American foreign policy, or even criticism of neoconservatives, is really a coded form of anti-semitism. This accusation isn't confined to the rough and tumble of the post-9/11 transatlantic debate, either. The normally measured Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, has cited "a leftwing anti-American cognitive elite with strong representation in the European media" as one of the main sources of anti-semitism. He doesn't spell it out, but we all know who he means. The argument is not just that there are individuals who harbour anti-semitic views, but that something in the political culture or ideology of the left predisposes it to anti-semitism. This is said to be the real reason why it criticises Israel." David Clark, The Guardian, Monday March 6, 2006
3. "I spend much of my time in colleges and universities, where anti-Israel sentiment flourishes and is regarded more or less as a default position. And I have seen (with apologies to Shelley) that when hostility to Israel comes, anti-Semitism is not far behind. But the deeper explanation of my apprehension is generational. One of my closest friends and I agree on almost everything, but we part company on this question. He tells, and believes, the “criticism of Israel is one thing, anti-Semitism another” story. I hear it, but I can’t buy it..." Stanley Fish, The New York Times, March 4 2007
4. "We're accustomed to associating hatred of Jews with the ridiculed Neanderthal Right of those in sheets and jackboots. But this new venom, at least in its Western form, is mostly a leftwing, and often an academic, enterprise. It's also far more insidious, given the left's moral pretensions and its influence in the prestigious media and universities. We see the unfortunate results in frequent anti-Israeli demonstrations on campuses that conflate Israel with Nazis, while the media have published fraudulent pictures and slanted events in southern Lebanon..." Victor Davis Hanson, Real Clear Politics, September 28 2006
5. "This is not to deny that contemporary anti-Semitism can take the form of hostility to Zionism and Israel. But how do we tell when it does and when it does not? ... It is often alleged that anti-Semitism is ‘hidden under the mask of anti-Zionism’. Certainly, it can be. But, on the one hand, if anti-Zionism can function as a mask, this implies that, in and of itself, it is not anti-Semitic; a mask that looks like what it is masking is no mask. (That would be like a wolf in wolf’s clothing.) On the other hand, if what is hidden is anti-Semitism, then the figure of ‘the Jew’ is implicit; and there are ways of bringing an implicit subtext to light by calling on evidence from other sources..." Brian Klug, Catalyst, March 16 2006
6. "...'what is supposed to be a subtle, insidious form of antisemitism making its way into mainstream leftist discourse' is your definition of NAS. You are redefining it in an attempt to make your arguments stronger." Armon, Wikipedia, January 5 2008

I think "my" definition is pretty well documented. At any rate, I agree that we should "start with a illustration which is a clear example of the type of antisemitism being discussed." The best way to do that is to begin with an illustration that is being discussed. See the section on "moving forward" at the bottom of the page.--G-Dett (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

But I wasn't talking about a picture per se, G-Dett. Using your butterfly example, what I'd be adding wouldn't be a picture of Monarch butterflies in Carmel, I'd be drawing a picture of them, a picture meant to illustrate a controversial theory. Perfectly acceptable. I say that this poster, regardless of the intentions of its creator, nicely illustrates NAS, so fits well in the lead. Secondly, I never said that my drawing "could not be removed." Of course it can, that's exactly what we're discussing. (And I don't think this concept could be called abstract--what part of the definition of that word am I missing?) IronDuke 02:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If your hypothetical example involves no evidentiary claim, IronDuke, then it isn't parallel to this one and tells us nothing. The reader is informed that this placard was "photographed at an anti-war rally in San Francisco on February 16, 2003" – a meaningful (and not reliable sourced) assertion given that the theory being discussed posits that the "virus" of antisemitism has infected today's antiwar left. That's the evidentiary issue. NAS is an "abstract" concept because it posits that various memes and various ideological agendas have converged to produce a insidious hybrid discourse. That's different from a recognized species of butterfly. No image can self-evidently illustrate such a hybrid hypothetical discourse, and a number of editors (including me) do not believe that this image does illustrate it. Given this situation, it would be better to either (a) use an image that a strong consensus of editors agree aptly illustrates the concept, or (b) use an image that reliable sources have themselves used to illustrate the concept. CJ and I have both suggested images of the second category.--G-Dett (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You have the cart before the horse; there is a longstanding consensus that the image is quite appropriate and belongs at the top of the article; you are trying to establish a new consensus, so far, apparently, without success. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Right now, there is clearly no consensus on whether the image should be included. That doesn't necessarily mean that the status quo stands. A while back, I was involved in a similar controversy about WP:MOSNUM and binary prefixes. The issue was hotly disputed, but existing wording seemed to favor one side. Those in favor of the existing wording argued that we needed a "new consensus" to remove the material or mark it as challenged. I initiated a discussion of the issue at the Village Pump, and the "status quo" position was rejected by the community — no consensus now is no consensus at all, even if consensus among a different group of editors has existed in the past. Since it's unlikely that this issue will be resolved by discussion on the talk page, the obvious next step would be a request for mediation. *** Crotalus *** 03:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So you figure now that since attempts to get the image deleted have failed, and subsequent attempts to force it out of the lead have failed, and subsequent attempts to win a vote on the Talk: page have failed, mediation is the next step in this venue shopping exercise? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a "vote," it's a discussion. As a long-time Wikipedia user and former arbitrator, you should know this. I'm sure you are also aware of WP:AGF and the above statement was simply a momentary slip. Mediation is an important step in the dispute resolution process, and there definitely is a serious dispute over the inclusion of this picture. *** Crotalus *** 04:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There has been literally weeks of discussion regarding the image - this section, however, was, for better or worse, a vote, and there's no reason not to call a spade a spade. Your spurious personal references violate WP:CIVIL - please desist, it really lowers the tone on the page. And I'm quite aware of WP:AGF, and the fact that my statement in no way violates it. As for mediation, it would have been a more compelling suggestion had it been made much earlier in the process. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) My hypothetical example? I’m confused—I thought I was using your hypothetical example. In any case, I have no problem with noting where the placard was photographed. From the research I’ve done, it looks to be entirely consistent with ANSWER demonstrators’ political philosophies. I disagree that NAS is abstract, despite your liberal use of three-dollar words to describe it. It basically boils down to, “Antisemitism used to take form A from persons B, and now takes a different form, and comes from different people.” As for your point that “No image can self-evidently illustrate such a hybrid hypothetical discourse.” Well, yeah, it can, or at least enough of the key components can be present so as to be understood as representing it. Indeed, if it were not demonstrating exactly what is purported, I think there might be far less resistance to it from certain persons. Actually, why don't I run down just exactly how the poster compares to the concept. From the lead:

“Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism [See “Zionist pigs”], anti-Americanism [See American flag on demon figure], anti-globalization [see globe with dollar signs on it], third worldism [said globe comprising mostly developing nations], and demonization [see actual freakin' demon] of Israel [See “No war for Israel”]… may be linked to antisemitism.”

As I reread that graf, it almost seems as though the creator of the poster had read the article before constructing his message. IronDuke 06:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think IronDuke's analysis of the placard is probably right. However, it also seems to me to constitute original research. I would feel happier if we had an image there whose provenance and context was better known and that reliable sources discussed in the context of New Anti-Semitism. Bondegezou (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

But as has been said before here, virtually all user uploaded images are Original Research. IronDuke 23:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the one proposed as a substitute would not be. Note also that most user-uploaded images self-evidently illustrate the article subject. WP:V specifies that "any material 'challenged or likely to be challenged" can be deleted if not reliably sourced (emphasis in original). Jay and Armon maintain that images and image-captions are never subject to the verifiability policy, making "any material" an interesting choice of words. Whatever one makes of that assertion, it would be interesting to know if the relevance and suitability of a badly sourced image has ever been as vigorously and consistently contested as this one – and if so, if it remained.--G-Dett (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested in your reaction to my post above, where I've come to the conclusion that the zombietime image more neatly fits our definition of NAS - graphically illustrates it, in fact - than any other I've seen. IronDuke 00:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Do I agree that the picture of my beloved Max[21] as capitalist pyromaniac in Nazi pajamas "neatly fits" NAS? No. Here's why I think that it's at best a very crude approximation of the subject. (1) NAS is not notable for claiming that those who believe Jews are gleefully incinerating the globe in search of profits are antisemitic. NAS is notable for positing that such beliefs (in fact all but universally acknowledged to be antisemitic) are only one symptom of a protean "virus," whose other symptoms include perceiving similarities between the realities of the occupation and those of South African apartheid, supporting university divestment from Israel, believing that a binational state is the best solution to the conflict, and so on. (2) NAS posits that virulent antisemitism has sprayed on Penhaligon, gargled Listerine, tucked in its shirt, and gone undercover in elite society. The Zombie image, by contrast, is wallowing in its own feces, grunting and lunging at the viewer like an extra from Deliverance. (3) In NAS, genteel antisemitism masquerades as anti-Zionism and legitimate pro-Palestinianism. In this image, the Palestinians don't even figure, nor really does anti-Zionism; it's just the Protocols all over again. (4) A key component of the NAS thesis is the prevalence of the 'virus' in mainstream and quasi-mainstream discourse. This image can't attest to that, for all that we hope to insinuate with it.

Please note that measured by the criteria above, the New Statesman image does very well indeed.--G-Dett (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, how deftly you side-step my point, G-Dett. Yes, you have raised some other issues in re NAS that the image does not cover. But what of it? Virtually all the major issues, as defined by the lead, are encapsulated in the poster. Look at nationalism (an article with which you are no doubt familiar). Does the Delacroix painting up top encompass all conceivable facts of nationalism? Nope, not even close. It's still a great picture to have in the lead, though. Try again, Protagoras. IronDuke 02:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And how deftly you flatter me into thinking I've sidestepped! The "other issues" I've named are those making NAS notable in the first place. And the Delacroix painting is recognized as artistically embodying the spirit of French revolution nationalism; much as the New Statesmen cover is recognized as embodying the subject of this article – with all due adjustments, of course, for differences in scale of historic magnitude and seriousness.--G-Dett (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

But the article isn't about "spirit of French revolution nationalism" or even "French nationalism" but nationalism as a whole. Which leads me back to my point: the picture needn't encompass every aspect of NAS to be a good illustration. As it happens, it includes almost every one mentioned in the lead, which is where it appears. IronDuke 02:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nationalism is not a contested theory, so the analogy (illuminating as it may be in some respects) will only take us so far. Our lede talks about a "form of antisemitism emanating simultaneously from (a) the left, (b) the right, and (c) fundamentalist Islam, and tending to manifest itself as (d) opposition to Zionism and (e) the State of Israel. I see (a) and (e) in this image (you're right that a good image needn't encompass every aspect, but I want to register my dissent about this one including "almost every one mentioned in the lead"). The main problem as I see it is that the key notable thing about NAS, the thing that makes it more than a truism (that there are forms of virulent antisemitism still alive in the 21st century) is the claim of its being widespread, and sharing a viral gene with mainstream and quasi-mainstream criticism of Israel. Hence my preference for the New Statesman cover (aside from the substantive notability of the latter, another point in its favor). Now it's my turn to ask you, why do you prefer the Zombie image to the cover of the New Statesman?--G-Dett (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to IronDuke above, I am not saying that the image per se is original research. I am saying that concluding that the image is an illustration of New Anti-Semitism, the sort of analysis IronDuke offers above, is original research. (I think it's quite possibly entirely correct original research, but it's still original research.) In most contexts, user-uploaded images are clearly of what they illustrate. Here, we're trying to illustrate something (or even somethings) more abstract, which is more difficult. I feel one needs to know the background and intent of the artist to reliably conclude that the placard illustrates New Anti-Semitism rather than any other variety of anti-semitism. Bondegezou (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett: I must object in the strongest possible terms to how easy you are making this; I expect to have much better arguments to wrestle with in future. The New Statesman image? Really? Okay. I look at it, and I fail to see an image that exhausts all major facets of NAS, which is one of your primary objections to the zombie image. In fact, the image you point to is borderline inscrutable. A “kosher conspiracy” to what? To defend Israel? To do so at the expense of the Palestinians? At the expense of Britons? Of the world? I have no idea. I think the cover is merely muddled, with a spicy dash of rank idiocy; nothing like as good as the zombie poster. And do you honestly think that an image exists that would illustrate antisemitism emanating from the left, the right, and fundamentalist Islam all at once? Love to see it, if you do. It seems to me your standards argue for the impossibility of having any image up top. As to the key point about NAS being that it is widespread, I can’t see where you’re getting that. It is a point, yes. But the Zombie image contains a great deal of what is in the lead. I shall enumerate:

• New antisemitism is the concept of a new 21st-century form of antisemitism emanating simultaneously from the left [Yes]

• the right, [No]

• and fundamentalist Islam [No]

• and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism [Yes]

• and the State of Israel. [Yes]

• The concept generally posits that much of what purports to be criticism of Israel by various individuals and world bodies is in fact tantamount to demonization [Yes]

• and that together with an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols [Kinda, but we'll go ahead and give you that one]

• and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse… [Yes]

• ...Proponents of the concept argue that… anti-Americanism [Yes]

• anti-globalization [Yes]

• third worldism [Yes]…

• ...or double standards applied to its conduct [No].

So that’s 8 out of 12, as I count it. I hereby challenge you to beat that score (and will make clucking noises at you should you refuse to try). IronDuke 00:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Bond, I feel that other “abstract” concepts have images and do just fine, eg nationalism, racism, homophobia, etc. And again, most images are OR, so that’s not an argument, the argument is: Does this image give a good sense of the subject matter at hand? I say yes. IronDuke 00:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"...and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse...[Yes]" Ironduke, this is exactly what the image does not show, and the fact that – after all this discussion and contemplation – you still mistakenly think it does... confirms my belief that the image is likely to poison the well for casual readers. And this of course is a central objection to the image voiced by CJ, myself, and others.

As I've explained several times, what puts this article in a special class of articles is that it's about a disputed hypothesis, and in that context a photo like this one takes on pseudo-evidentiary value (ergo your belief that it shows "acceptance"). Something like Allegations of Israeli apartheid is an excellent parallel example (far better than Nationalism or Homophobia), because in that article, like this one, the basic facts are not in dispute, what's in dispute is the theory explaining these phenomena. There is not a single image illustrating that article, incidentally, which I think is very telling. Would it be appropriate to place a photo of the wall around Qalqiya ([22], [23]) at the head of it? Or how about an image of Palestinians workers at an Israeli checkpoint? ([24], [25]) How about pictures of Hebron under curfew? ([26],[27]) Perhaps with an article-space link to the fringey pro-Palestinian blog of the pseudonymous photographer who took it? Or on the other hand how about a photo of a Barak supporter with an "Us here, them there" placard? I would find all of these problematic. I would object to them, and my guess is I'd be joined by you, Armon, and Jay in objecting to them. I would much prefer to find, say, an image of the cover of Nation or The Economist or something with a picture of the wall with the headline "An apartheid state?" All the better if said magazine cover had itself been discussed at length in the context of the controversy. The reader is supplied with an image central to a controversial subject, as opposed to being supplied with what purports to be evidence of the disputed phenomenon.

You keep saying I fault the Zombie image for failing to "exhaust all major facets of NAS." No I don't. In addition to finding the image well-poisoning, sensational, non-notable, and pseudo-evidentiary, I fault it for failing to adequately present any of the facets of NAS that make that concept notable, interesting, and controversial. NAS is not the theory that there are antisemitic conspiracist cranks in the world who see the Jews as the cause of 21st-century problems; it is the theory that such back-alley cranks represent only the most obvious symptoms of a global virus, a mutation of an old virus that has found new hosts not only in marginal cranks but in the chattering classes, a virus sneaking into and finding "increased acceptance...in public discourse." Discourse in venues, say, like the New Statesman.

Lastly, you say you find the New Statesman cover "merely muddled" and "borderline inscrutable." Jay for his part finds it "fairly uncompelling." All very well, but the fact is, the RSs – several of them, and among the better of our sources – find the New Statesman cover both significant and compelling. Which they clearly have not done with the Zombie image. Why not? It may be that for all its sensationalism, they find it says little about NAS, in which case what can I say but me neither. Or it may be that they found the source dubious, in which case I wonder why we're setting our standards well below those of the very sources we rely upon.--G-Dett (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC) --G-Dett (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, since you made that post User:Liftarn has gone and added some images to the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. Would you consider that to be an example of WP:POINT? Since you say you would "object to them", here's your opportunity. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a moot point now. CJCurrie (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke, thanks for making me sound like some kind of spy! You raise the example of the lead image in the Homophobia article. That image is another user-submitted image, but note how citations are given to place the image in a context and demonstrate that the content of the image really is about homophobia - namely, the protestor is from a group identified by reliable sources as being homophobic. We don't have any reliable sources saying that the Zombietime placard is by a person or group identified with New Anti-Semitism. Bondegezou (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And that is the main problem. Including an image that may or may not be an example of new antisemitism is original research unless you find a reliable source saying it is an example of NAS. // Liftarn (talk)

By way of a belated response to User:IronDuke, there's a problem with your logic: our own definition of "new antisemitism" is seriously flawed. The scholars and journalists who have written about the concept of "new antisemitism" have addressed it in a variety of ways. Some use the term to refer to a general increase in anti-Semitism. Some describe the term as referring to left-wing anti-Zionism, while others do not (I just read David Matas's book recently, and while I strongly disagree with his argument I was struck by the fact that he didn't try to malign the left as anti-Semitic). Some focus on developments in Muslim countries, while others have used it to refer to right-wing infiltration of the Left. Our own definition does not encompass these subtleties ... and is accordingly flawed.

The position that Zombietime's image must be used on Wikipedia because it fits Wikipedia's definition of a topic is the very definition of circular logic. CJCurrie (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie, that is your personal interpretation of the way that Wikipedia defines the topic. I would say that Wikipedia's definition is based on the multiple sources brought in the refs listed in the article Chocolatepizza (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the sources don't universally describe "new antisemitism" as a convergence of the "three streams", and many of the sources that mention a convergence don't emphasize this as its primary attribute. The importance point is that the existing literature on "new antisemitism" doesn't yield a definition anywhere near as cut-and-dry as our intro suggests -- you can't determine the feasibility of an image just by listing off its various attributes and comparing it with the article text. (Er ... have we met before?) CJCurrie (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The source that you mention does not mention Wikipedia at all so it can't be explaining how Wikipedia arrived at its definition. When you write that the use of the image is using circular reasoning, this is based on your own personal opinion of how the wikipedia article arrived at its definition. Regarding the convergence, this is a common theme throughout all the refs. (I think I bumped into you at the supermarket, but other than that, no, I don't think so) Chocolatepizza (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm ... I think there's been a misunderstanding here. I wasn't referring to other sources that do or don't mention Wikipedia, and I'm not entirely certain what you're referring to. I was rather addressing IronDuke's decision to defend the Zombietime image as based on the wording of this very Wikipedia article, which strikes me as a problematic strategy even in a best-case scenario. Building on my previous remarks, I could add that several credible sources have referenced both Dave Brown's "Goya Sharon" and "Kosher Conspiracy" image with reference to the idea of a "new antisemitism"; by contrast, the discussion about Zombietime's image has mostly taken place on low-level, amateur and partisan sources. This is the sort of thing that should inform our decision, not whether or not any given picture is closer to our own introductory wording. (And I still believe that the introductory wording is flawed, but I'm really not certain I have the time or patience to go too far into reopening that particular debate at present.) CJCurrie (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Msa sfsu poster.jpg

Image:Msa sfsu poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

New relevant source

Weinberg, Leonard "What's new?: A review essay on the 'new' anti-Semitism", Terrorism and Political Violence 19 (4): 611-620 2007. Please note that I haven't read this yet and don't know what line it is taking, but it looks like it will be very relevant and worth including. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read it and, yes, I think's it's relevant and worth including. It reviews five books about New Anti-Semitism and discusses both recent developments in anti-Semitism and to what degree or in what way this is new anti-Semitism. The line the article takes can be summarised by its closing paragraph: "Despite the diversity of approaches, styles and perspectives, the writers agree that the revival of anti-Semitism is not an optical illusion, a product of hyper-sensitivity. They also agree with Bernard Lewis that the new wave of anti-Semitism is focused on Israel. For Lewis, Israel's efforts to maintain its national independence has aroused a new kind of anti-Semitism one based on political belief rather than religious or racial considerations. On this point, the writers disagree with Lewis and sometimes among themselves. Some elements in the anti-Semitic revival reflect old views about Jews adjusted to fit new conditions. The Jewish world conspiracy for example. Others though do seem new and innovative, tributes to the speed of mass communications and the human imagination." Bondegezou (talk) 12:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for moving forward

I would like to suggest that we use this image at the top of the article. Not only are its provenance and notability known quantities, but it is known to have touched off discussions of the "new antisemitism," which explicitly cite it. In short, everything about it (including its relevance to the subject) is sourced, and we'd be supplying the reader with a key document in the controversy he's reading about.

All sourcing issues aside, I think it's also a far better visual lead-in to the controversy at the heart of 'new antisemitism.' NAS is not controversial for maintaining that fringey images of Jews looking like demons and devils and rubbing their hands in voracious glee while the earth is consumed by the fire of war are antisemitic. It is controversial for maintaining that prominent left-wing criticism of Israel has become infected with forms of antisemitism we thought had vanished from public life, but in fact were only lying dormant.

When an image that flirts with the line between legitimate criticism and paranoid demagoguery makes it on to the cover of the New Statesman, this better captures the controversial dynamics of NAS than does a crazy image of Jewish devils torching the globe – an image whose economy of distribution (before Wikipedia got its hands on it) consisted of having been designed by one crank, held aloft by a second, and photographed by a third.--G-Dett (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we use that image without copyright problems? It does seem closer to "new antisemitism" than the other image. But it's not public domain. --John Nagle (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question, and one I have to admit I hadn't considered.--G-Dett (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We already have an image of that cover on Wikipedia; see Image:NewStatesmancover.jpg. In fact, it's located further down in this same article. If we are discussing controversy surrounding the cover itself, as is the case here, I think we have a solid case for fair use of a low-resolution image, since it's difficult for the reader to get an understanding of the controversy without actually seeing the image. Furthermore, the cover is a very small portion of the magazine content. I love your description of that idiotic Zombietime image: "designed by one crank, held aloft by a second, and photographed by a third." The fact is that there are numerous images which have actually been discussed in reliable sources in the context of new anti-Semitism. This cover is one; the Dave Brown Goya cartoon is another; I believe some of Carlos Latuff's cartoons have also been discussed in this context. *** Crotalus *** 01:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain the article in question doesn't even mention "New antisemitism"; can you quote Zuckerman's statement regarding "New antisemitism"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Red herring. The cover itself has been discussed by reliable sources as an illustration of NAS.--G-Dett (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is an article in The Guardian that specifically discusses that cover as a possible example. "The new anti-Semitism - say those who argue most strongly for its existence - is not simply limited to attacks on individuals like rabbi Gigi, and to a spate of attacks on synagogues and Jewish schools and cemeteries. Instead, they say, it is a pernicious and widespread cancer infecting the media and political classes across Europe. [...] Here too it has been debated across the pages of our more literate press, a debate that has reached boiling point in Britain in recent weeks. The New Statesman - through an ill-advised cover illustration for an article detailing attempts at media bullying and manipulation by the government of Israel's hawkish prime minister, Ariel Sharon - was accused of anti-Semitism and forced to apologise for what it characterised as a 'kosher conspiracy'." *** Crotalus *** 04:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And here's Zuckerman's claim: "The new anti-Semitism transcends boundaries, nationalities, politics, and social systems. [...] AMERICANS, WHO HAVE COME to take for granted the scurrilous anti-Semitism that routinely appears in the Arab press, might be amazed by what now appears in the sophisticated European press. In England, the Guardian wrote that "Israel has no right to exist." The Observer described Israeli settlements in the West Bank as "an affront to civilization." The New Statesman ran a story titled "A Kosher Conspiracy," illustrated by a cover showing the gold Star of David piercing the Union Jack. The story implies that a Zionist-Jewish cabal is attempting to sway the British press to the cause of Israel." *** Crotalus *** 04:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a published book, by Bernard Harrison (The Resurgence of Anti-Semitism: Jews, Israel, and Liberal Opinion, Rowman & Littlefield, 2004) that discusses the image in the context of "a new anti-Semitism abroad in Western cognitive elites." *** Crotalus *** 04:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The third reference is by far the best, and most direct. It also includes an interesting analysis of the entire issue. You certainly have strengthened your argument that the New Statesman cover page is a good candidate for the lead. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. There were a few other references as well that might be relevant; I'll see if I can dig any of them up. *** Crotalus *** 04:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Is B'nai Brith Canada generally considered a reliable source at least for their own views? If so, then this article might also be relevant. *** Crotalus *** 04:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't know enough about the British Parliament to tell whether this has any reliability or not (is it an official report, or just testimony? If the latter, is the group reliable?), but it might be worth looking at as well. It also mentions the cover as one of the "key developments" in what the report says is new anti-Semitism. *** Crotalus *** 05:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism in Europe: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on European Affairs, prepared by the United States Subcommittee on European Affairs (part of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations) discussed the New Statesman cover in the context of NAS, as did Contemporary Antisemitism" Canada and the World ("The cover of the London weekly New Statesman (14 January 2002), long the flagship journal of the British left, carried the headline ‘A Kosher Conspiracy? The story claimed to describe the influence of a rich, potent Zionist lobby that harassed, threatened, and smeared journalists who did not toe ‘the Jewish line' on Israel"). I think if there's no permissions issue, this is the way forward.--G-Dett (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's clearly about "new anti-semitism", and it's from a mainstream source. It makes a better case that "new anti-semitism" is a mainstream issue, and not just something from the outer fringes. --John Nagle (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this point still under discussion? "A Kosher Conspiracy" isn't my first choice, but I agree that it does penetrate to the heart of the controversy (certainly much better than Zombietime's snapshot). CJCurrie (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Zombietime image credit

Why are we linking to his website in this fashion on the article? That is not acceptable. He can get his credit on the image page like all other photograph owners. I'm removing that again. Lawrence Cohen 17:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand, (somewhere in the archives) that this was a request. I have never seen a policy statement on this point. It is fairly standard in all print media to give attributions. While we don't do this as standard since most of our images are free or fair use, it seems reasonable to do so when (a) they are "donated" and (b) this has been requested. I don't see what the objection to this could be, and it should be policy as it would encourage people to licence their works for use on wikipedia. Lobojo (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems a bit much to ask people to let us use their images for free and refuse to give them the traditional photocredit. Lobojo (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen several threads on this on ANI before. It's not appropriate to link to the outside sites like that, from the article space. There was one I brought up myself, which I can't recall now, and the consensus was that it wasn't appropriate. They get their photo credit on the image page. Did this person that owns the photo insist on this special priviledge? Where is that detailed in public? Lawrence Cohen 17:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevant ANI thread from November 2007. There is support for removing such needless tags in article space; image authors are credited on the Image: space page. Lawrence Cohen 17:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There is also support for not removing attribution in captions. Wikipedia:Captions does not answer the question. This subject has been brought up in multiple locations: [28], [29], [30], [31], etc. In each case, strong arguments were made on both sides, but no clear consensus was reached. Wikipedia's Main Page always credits "Today's featured picture", so there are at least some situations where crediting is acceptable.

In this case, the goal of crediting in the caption is to induce photographers to license their photos in such a way that we can use them on Wikipedia. Most of the above discussions ignore this aspect. One place where it is directly covered, though, is here in VO's "how-to" on how to successfully request copyright permission for images. He recommends crediting in the image captions, and this helps create high-quality, free content on Wikipedia.

In this case, this is a highly contentious image. There are definitely partisans who want to remove this picture for political reasons, and there are definitely partisans who want to keep it for political reasons. So anything that jeopardizes this image is bound to attract controversy. With that in mind, I'd recommend leaving the credit in the image caption unless there is clear consensus on the issue in general, not just in this instance. As of now there is no consensus, but Wikipedia-wide RFC would probably be a good idea. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As there is a WP article on Zombietime, why not just do this: "Photo credit: zombietime."? Solves the external link issue. <<-armon->> (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a precedent of doing this for any other image authors on other articles? I'd like to see some other examples. Lawrence Cohen 22:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is precedent. Luisa Casati, Book of the Dead (memoir), Gregory Frost, Cardhalla, Tony Marsh (artist), Baith Israel-Anshei Emeth Synagogue, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Quadell, I think part of the concern here is that we're sort of promoting Zombietime. I don't mean promoting his/her ideological agenda (a separate issue) but rather promoting him as a photographer and so on. (S)he apparently took this picture and sent it anonymously to a lot of different media outlets, and it was only picked up by four blogs, Horowitz's Frontpagemagazine, and a very small local paper in Santa Cruz, California. But if it was rejected by the mainstream press it's going like gangbusters here on Wikipedia, headlining three articles and with a prominent photo credit in mainspace, which we're now proposing to link directly to Zombie's Wikipedia article. Think about it: someone types "new antisemitism" into Google, the first thing they get is the Wikipedia article, click that and the first thing they see is Zombie's image and a prominent link to Zombie's website and/or Wiki bio. And this is someone who isn't discussed, mentioned, cited, or apparently even trusted by most reliable sources. There's something, I don't know, vaguely promotional about this.

I know WP has a tradition of allowing the uploading of amateur images, but we seem to be having it every which way here; professionalism and amateurism are becoming each other's alibis. If you object to the fact that Zombie's a fringey and unsuitable source for article content, you're told that images needn't be verifiable, and that Zombie's contributions are no different from any other amateur's. But then attached to this 'amateur' image we have this promotional link to his "professional" website as a photographer, justified on the grounds that it would encourage other professionals to license their work to us.--G-Dett (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That promotional aspect if why I was wondering. What if someone had a link to their site in these images that didn't qualify for WP:EL, for example? Would they get a free link by virtue of the image? Lawrence Cohen 22:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[post deleted by G-Dett, per Lawrence Cohen]

Alright, there's obviously some bitter blood here over this image. My removal of the external link was 100% based on the fact that we shouldn't be promoting/externally linking in article space like that. If possible, can we stay focused on that? Lawrence Cohen 23:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's your viewpoint, but it doesn't seem supported by either policy, guideline, or even AN discussions - the latter are quite mixed, with firm proponents on both sides. Frankly, it seems petty and churlish to remove the attribution. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no indication that Zombie is a professional photographer, or that his site is a professional one, or that he sent this image round to media outlets. It's quite standard to credit people in the caption, on Wikipedia and elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

But we haven't credited a "person," we've linked to a freelance professional photographer's blog, www.zombietime.com. And the sources given make clear that he or she or they indeed "sent this image round to media outlets"; they say so. We're blurring the line between amateur user-uploaded images and cited reliable sources, and the net effect is promotional.--G-Dett (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't really promotional. Zombitime is nothing more than a nom-de-plume of a anonymous person. Seeing as zombietime isn't a bad link, I don't think there is problem linking to the site. But really, wikipedia should have a firm policy on this declaring that anyone who licenced their work for wikipedia is entitled to both a fair attribution and a link to their homepage if they request it. It really would be an excelent thing for wikipedia. Lobojo (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

However, since the image is being used under as "fair use" it's really a moot point. // Liftarn (talk)

This settles it I think

Wikipedia policy explicitly endorses providing a courtest tag to image and link back to the owner Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators. We have a special template for such situtions Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-Link. Lobojo (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

LawrenceCohen opened this debate by asking why we link to www.zombietime.com in article space, rather than in the usual place for photo credits "like everybody else." This is why it seems so oddly promotional. I don't think the copyright template you link to says anything about linking in article space.

If this is really how things are supposed to be done, I'll pass on the tip to a couple of freelance photographer friends of mine looking for ways to get exposure for their work.--G-Dett (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Most images link to source, but this is for people who have specifically requested a link. And that is very good idea, it will facilitate a tremendous wealth of images for wikipedia, which would be a good thing. Such links are not ads any more than other external links are. Lobojo (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My friends will be delighted, but make no mistake, this is very different from external links. You could not add "Zombietime" to the external links, and more than I could add my blog to the external links. But we're agreed on one thing, Lobojo: your plan will facilitate a tremendous wealth of images for Wikipedia. I have right now, by the way, a tremendous wealth of emails in my inbox offering to enlarge the penis I don't have.--G-Dett (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your penis dude. Zombietime is allowed in external links, it is not on the bad sites list. This is just an external link like any other. You could certainly add your blog to the external links section, if you say were notable and had an article, your blog would belong in the external links. Lobojo (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the condolences girl. Zombie is not an RS; hence this discussion. See relevant sections in WP:External links: "Links normally to be avoided" (esp. #12) and "Advertising and conflicts of interest."--G-Dett (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I linked the photo credit to our article. It's supposed to be NPOV (haven't bothered to look, but it's supposed to be) so it shouldn't be advertorial, or COI, and there is no longer an external link. Can we drop this now? <<-armon->> (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand why we're linking to a non-RS; if the photo stays (a separate subject being hotly debated) why don't we just credit it the same way we credit every other photo?--G-Dett (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My memory of the Creative Commons Attribution licence is that people may ask to be credited using whatever name or website they choose, and this was his choice. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

But the image is used as "fair use" so what Creative Commons says is irrelevant. // Liftarn (talk)

Zombietime's photographing is released under CC as far as that goes; it's the content of what Zombietime photographed which is under fair use... AnonMoos (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. he can not claim own copyright of it. So again I say that the Zombietime credit is a moot point. // Liftarn (talk)

Whatever, dude -- it's a simple fact that a photographer can assign a copyright license to a photo that he takes, yet the content of what is photographed can have further copyright restrictions. AnonMoos (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In this case the replication of a previous artwork doesn't introduce any new copyright. // Liftarn (talk)

Unfortunately for you, you're wrong yet again. The act of taking the photograph certainly doesn't give Zombietime any special rights or permissions with respect to the "artwork" on the placard (which still remains the property of the original placard-maker), but Zombietime still retains the rights to the photograph as a photograph, unless and until Zombietime chooses to give such rights away (partially or fully). If you're likening the position of Zombietime to the position of Bridgeman in Bridgeman vs. Corel, then that's simply and clearly pathetic nonsense -- since Bridgeman vs. Corel only applies to faithful scans (which allow a minimum of scope for individual creativity in the scanning/photographing process) of artworks which are already out of copyright in the United States, and of course NONE of those conditions apply to Zombietime taking a photo at a 2003 demonstration. Therefore I declare your previous remarks to be in non-compliance with policy WP:SUPERCALIFRAGILISTICEXPIALIDOCIOUS. AnonMoos (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well this is all very interesting folks but can I just ask (again) why we don't credit Zombie the same way we credit everyone else – i.e., on the image page?--G-Dett (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned directly above, we often credit other photographers in exactly this way. See Luisa Casati, Book of the Dead (memoir), Gregory Frost, Cardhalla, Tony Marsh (artist), Baith Israel-Anshei Emeth Synagogue, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hey, wait a minute folks. This is a copyrighted image which we're using under a fair use claim. If the idea is to credit photographers who release their work to Wikipedia, as a quid pro quo, then what's the "quo" here? <eleland/talkedits> 18:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Zombietime has apparently released the photograph, as a photograph, under a "CC" licence to Wikipedia, but of course Zombietime has no control over the copyright status of the contents of the placard, and that's where fair use comes in... AnonMoos (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that Zombietime sells those images and has a commercial licensing agent? His site says "If you wish to publish or broadcast any original images from zombietime, please use the email address below to contact my commercial licensing agent Scoopt.com. "[32]. Scoopt is a service which resells pictures taken by amateurs to the news media. They're a subsidiary of Getty Images. We have a copyright problem. --John Nagle (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that Zombietime can't simultaneously sell his photos, and also release one of them under a "CC" license to Wikipedia? AnonMoos (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There's an exclusivity clause in the Scoopt service agreement[http://www.scoopt.com/Articles/Terms-Conditions.aspx}, but it's only for 12 months after the image is submitted to Scoopt. This image is old enough that's probably not an issue. I hadn't noticed until now that Wikipedia has an OTRS ticket granting rights, even though the image has a "fair use" tag. So it looks OK. --John Nagle (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If Zombietime did violate his exclusivity agreement, then that would be an issue between him and Scoopt, and it's rather doubtful that it would affect us... AnonMoos (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation style modification request

I would like to somewhat change the citation style. There are many citations to the same text which only differ by page number. Usually, a Harvard style author-date-page number system works better in this case, but as there are hundreds of footnotes already in the article, changing to a parenthetical citation style would be overwhelming and likely too confusing. However, there does exist the option of using Template:Rp, which would allow one entry for the main text, and a superscripted, in-line notation made as to the page number(s). Would that be too much of a change for this article, or would y'all find that acceptable? As it stands now, the citations are a hodgepodge of templates, non-templates, broken links, multiple entries, and really need work. -- Avi (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Avi, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't introduce citation templates, as they make the text very hard to read and edit for flow. As for the way citations are repeated, this is because some people argue each and every point, and if it's not nailed down, they remove it, but they also don't want to read through the whole paragraph, or even sentence sometimes. Therefore it has been necessary to add citations directly after the point they support, even if it's mid-sentence. I'm not familiar with Template:Rp and what benefits it would bring. It's often helpful to have the book or paper repeated in full, because so few people actually read the text, so they want to see all the details of the source right there, wherever the point of contention is. Whenever we've removed sources, or tried to make them less repetitive, it has led to text being removed. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Slim. A few points.

1. Firstly, there are a number of links that are broken, which I fixed. By reverting back to the old version I believe you may have introduced the non-working links again. Also, the Bauer pdf link is dead, although I have not found a replacement yet.
2. I believe having the templates in a linear form, as opposed to horizonatlly (text-like) makes it easier to decipher what is text and what is citation whilst editing. Otherwise, it gets very confusing, especially when note references contain full-sentence quotations. WHen a template is used, the braces set off what is undoubtedly a citation and the linear format makes for an immediately identifiable differentiation in the edit mode, which is completely transparent in regular viewing mode.
3. Template:Rp Would allow the main text, and link, to be brought once in the NOTES section, and then it would generate the same numeric footnote in the text (and be shown as a, b, c, d, etc. in the notes section). For example, if <ref name = "ZOG" /> is note ^[23], using <ref name = "ZOG" />{{rp|pg. 17}} would give ^{[23]: pg. 17}, where the 23 is linked to the main entry and the page number appears immediately after the footnote inline in the text.

-- Avi (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide an example of an article where this is implemented as you describe? Lobojo (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Which point, 3 or 2? -- Avi (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Avi, I agree with you, the cites are a mess. The problem is that I find template citations a pain, same as SV does. There are especially a problem when cites are placed mid-sentence or paragraph. Maybe there's a better way? <<-armon->> (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What specifically is it about template citations that you find a pain? Knowing what the concern is will help to zero in on any potential solutions :) -- Avi (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

When you're editing, it makes it extremely hard to cast your eye over the article for flow if there templates in the way, either between sentences or sometimes even inside them. So fixing the writing becomes very difficult -- actually close to impossible. Articles that contains lots of citation templates tend to be badly written for that very reason (though there may be exceptions out there I'm not aware of). SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess that is a matter of preference as personally, I find it near impossible to see where article text ends and cite begins, so I know what to skip, unless it is in vertical format. However, even if you do not like vertical format. horizontal format is near identical to what you have now, with just some pipes and equal signs thrown in. Is it specifically the braces and pipes that disturb y'all, or the vertical format? -- Avi (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Progressive' Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism

This section in the article is repeated verbatim in the Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism article. We need to choose one or the other. I suggest we summarize their position and link to that article in the "Response" section. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this would be the most logical course of action. (Now if any we could reach agreement on the more fundamental points of contention ...) CJCurrie (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a {{main}} tag in the section and attempted to impartially synopsize the discussion as per WP:SUMMARY. -- Avi (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Finkelstein

I think Finkelstein section should also be removed, his position summarized and put into the "response" section. Giving a fringey polemicist and conspiracy theorist like Finkelstein that much space brings up some serious WP:UNDUE issues versus content from the multiple groups and scholars who study the subject of antisemitism seriously. They get nowhere near the amount of article space, and I can't see why that should be. <<-armon->> (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My problem with this assessment is that Norman Finkelstein is a serious scholar of anti-Semitism, albeit one whose political views have cost him dearly in academia. I'm not entirely averse to the idea of truncating the section in question (or, better yet, adding other scholarly sources who have expressed similar views), but it might help matters if you addressed this issue in a slightly more serious manner. CJCurrie (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"...a serious scholar of anti-Semitism" -according to whom? <<-armon->> (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, for every Alan Dershowitz or Benny Morris who criticizes him, there's a Noam Chomsky or Raoul Hilberg to sing his praises. Yes, he's controversial. Yes, other participants in this dispute despise him. No, those aren't sufficient grounds to exclude him. CJCurrie (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "excluding" him. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The article as a whole is overlong and remarkably repetitive. I am all for looking for ways to streamline it, and paring down the Finkelstein material could be part of that. This proposal as framed, however, is a non-starter. Finkelstein is highly regarded in his field, widely praised in adjacent fields, and has written a major work of scholarship in large part about the 'new antisemitism', which was published by one of the top university presses in the world. It also passed an unusual degree of peer-review vetting and fact-checking due to political pressure from outside demagogues. He's also written several other highly acclaimed works of scholarship on the political valences of discourse about contemporary antisemitism in America. Yes, he's also quite a polemicist, as are most of the journalists and scholars cited for this most polemical of subjects, but no question about it he's one of our top sources.--G-Dett (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

...and he provides webspace for Latuff cartoons! Seriously, the guy is clearly an "outlier" unless you happen to be far-left, far-right, or Islamist, in which case, he's great. This is the problem with "mainstreaming" the guy in the article.

Yeah and we provide space for Zombietime cartoons. Talk about mainstreaming.--G-Dett (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, we host Latuff as well. The key difference is: we're just using a photo the guy took -and that's it. We're not presenting Zombietime as any sort of "expert" on the subject. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A better way of dealing with Finkelstein is to place him in his proper context, as a apologist for the far-left, far-right, or Islamist position. If you want to call him one of our top sources for that, no problem, I agree. Otherwise he doesn't really shed any light, only heat, on the subject. We'd might as well "balance" him with Dershowitz. <<-armon->> (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering he is a "political scientist and author, specialising in Jewish-related issues"* it seems he is having views within his field of expertise. // Liftarn (talk)

Agreed. The fact that he has cartoons on his webspace does not invalidate his acknowledged expertise, and that appears to be the only actual evidence raised to support the argument here. csloat (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. There is no valid basis to exclude an academic of such stature on the very subject that he is an expert in. If anything he should be given more space for his very relevant expert views on the subject.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

One would think his reputation would be determined by the esteem accorded to his work by his peers. One would think his unanimous recommendation for tenure, not to mention the spirited and very public defense of his work given at a University of Chicago event by what the Jewish Telegraph Agency called "widely cited experts on international affairs and American foreign policy" who "Collectively ... have published more than a hundred books and countless articles," would be a strong sign in that regard. <eleland/talkedits> 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

...actually, he was rejected for tenure, but yeah, I know, it was a conspiracy. <<-armon->> (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a conspiracy – where did you hear that? It was merely a scandal (which is a different thing), because (1) Finkelstein had the full support of his faculty tenure committee, the college-wide personnel committee, both external senior scholars solicited by the College for peer-review evaluations (Ian Lustick and John Mearsheimer), the Middle East Studies Association of America, and the Association of American University Professors; (2) he was acknowledged by DePaul university itself to be an "outstanding teacher and prolific scholar"; (3) there was unprecedented outside pressure on the tenure process from Alan Dershowitz, who sent a 50-page dossier of defamatory materials purporting to show "evidence of academic misconduct" to the departmental tenure committee, who examined it in detail and dismissed every single charge; (4) the only thumbs-down came from the faculty dean, an undistinguished erstwhile urban planning professor, whose solecistic 2-page recommendation to deny tenure suggested an unfamiliarity with Finkelstein's scholarship beyond what had been extracted by the defamatory Dershowitz dossier – and in fact when "quoting" Finkelstein misspelled the very same words the comparably unlettered Dershowitz had misspelled; (5) Finkelstein was the first professor in the history of the university to be recommended for tenure at the departmental and college levels and then be denied at the administrative level; and finally (6) the second professor in DePaul's history to be recommended at the departmental and college levels and denied at the administrative level – she was denied tenure several weeks later, with no explanation – had done exactly one controversial thing in her career, namely, supporting Finkelstein's bid for tenure.

A conspiracy is a secret backroom deal. A scandal is when people in the ordinary course of their public or professional lives disgrace themselves and the institutions they represent through rank cowardice and transparent dishonesty.--G-Dett (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Several credible sources (including Ellen Schrecker, the foremost authority on McCarthyism in academia) have argued that Finkelstein was denied tenure for political reasons. Leaving that point aside, it should also be mentioned that DePaul University acknowledged him as a "prolific scholar and outstanding teacher". CJCurrie (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

...and many more consider that to be rubbish. The point remains that he is fringe, and doesn't actually study antisemitism. He merely axe-grinds about charges of antisemitism being "politically motivated" out of his own obvious political motivations. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Armon, you're wasting our time. We are not a peer-review committee. The peer-review committees Finkelstein's work has encountered in real life have found it outstanding. Virtually all of the sources used for this article, even those very few who are of Finkelstein's caliber and reputation, have readily apparent political motivations. Which is to be expected; this is a political subject.--G-Dett (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, this isn't a peer review committee. He obviously has a fan club here, but that in itself is meaningless. His "reputation" isn't what I'd call "good", and the regard for the caliber of his work has been "mixed" to say the least. It's fair to ask exactly what the "due weight" to grant him on this topic really is. <<-armon->> (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

He's well-known for writing highly polemical works. I'm not sure exactly what makes him a reliable source on Antisemitism; can someone explain that? It wasn't his specialty in University. He seems to have written half a book on the subject, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History. (the other half being his feud with Dershowitz), and a chapter in another book, The Politics of Anti-Semitism. Both of these are highly polemical works; neither is scholarly. What, for example, would make him more of an expert on the subject than, say, Phyllis Chesler, someone who was actually a full professor, and who wrote a popular work on the subject? Note by the way, that we only use Chesler's book as one source in initially defining New antisemitism; she was purposely avoided as a source in the body of the text, precisely because her work was popular, not scholarly. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The Polices of Anti-Semitism is not a scholarly release, but Beyond Chutzpah most certainly is -- it was published by a credible academic firm, and corresponds entirely to the issues under discussion here. In any event, while Finkelstein may not be an expert on historical anti-Semitism, but his work on the Israel-Palestine conflict and its representation in North America is entirely relevant to this article. CJCurrie (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget his book on the Holocaust Industry or his peer-reviewed article about Goldhagen, for example. This debate is silly. His scholarship is well-regarded, and a good bit of it is about antisemitism. And some of it qualifies as "polemic," to be sure, but to pretend that invalidates it is a pretty blatant false correlative. As someone else pointed out, Wikipedia is not a tenure review committee and I think arguments premised on us acting like one are invalid. People want to quote stuff saying specifically that Finkelstein is not an expert in this field, and have a reliable source backing it up, great, go for it. But to say that you don't like what (or how) he writes and that therefore invalidates his work as a reliable source (and invalidates the large chorus of well-known scholarly voices affirming the scholarly nature of his work) is POV-pushing, pure and simple. That argument should be completely rejected by Wikipedia editors no matter what your political leanings. csloat (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As Sloat points out, a central focus of Finkelstein's scholarship – including not only the works named above but also, notably, The Holocaust Industry – is precisely the political valences of contemporary antisemitism and contemporary discourse about contemporary antisemitism. But the comparison with Chesler doesn't make sense at all. Chesler's academic training is in a completely unrelated field (psychotherapy); her work on 'new antisemitism' has been a popular success but not a scholarly one. Conversely, Finkelstein's scholarship on contemporary antisemitism is written from within his discipline, political science, and has been an academic success but not a popular one. Employment status and scholarly status are entirely separate things (which is why peer review mechanisms are often blind). Your employment status is often based on your scholarly status, but the converse is not true. Chesler's full professorship is in psychology and women's s studies, moreover, and has no more bearing on her status as a good source for this article than does Chomsky's full professorship in linguistics.

Another important note: Finkelstein is certainly a polemicist (especially in his role as a blogger and public speaker), but it is not the case that critics and supporters of his scholarship fall neatly along political or partisan lines. Or more precisely, that's true on one side of the ledger but not the other. That is, the scholars who praise his work are all over the political map, from Raul Hilberg to Ian Lustick to John Mearsheimer to Eric Hobsbawm to Noam Chomsky. Those who attack him in the terms Armon has laid out here, by contrast, are uniformly and passionately 'pro-Israel' (in the conventional sense of that misleading phrase). At any rate, Finkelstein's field of expertise makes him not only an acceptable source here but an excellent one, one of our best. That he has political and partisan critics is not surprising and not in itself relevant, as this is a political and partisan subject.--G-Dett (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Under WP:V, the circumstances of publication are often more important than who wrote something. According to the policy, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It specifically says that "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses [...]" Of course, such sources still need to be placed in context, properly attributed, and undue weight avoided. However, the personal characteristics of the author are not particularly relevant to determining this, unless specifically pertinent (for instance, if the author of a scientific study in a peer-reviewed journal was later caught faking data). Our job is not to second-guess peer-review boards. That is a classic example of original research. Our job is to sort out what is said by reliable sources — as defined above in our verifiability policy — and write the most neutral article we can. *** Crotalus *** 08:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

International perspectives

I shaved about 10 kilobytes off the length by cutting some of this section, and it could use being cut some more. We really need to get this under 100 kilobytes, and preferably quite a bit lower (under 80 would be ideal). SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think getting this down under 100 kilobytes is a great idea. There is a certain amount of repetition, and I think the structure could be leaned up a bit. Most of it is well-written sentence-by-sentence (largely thanks to you Slim) but there's a bit of bloat in the thing as a whole.--G-Dett (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Cutting out the original research and coatracking would trim the lenght considerably. // Liftarn (talk)

Broken citations, redundant citations

Slim, there are significant issues with the citations in this article. Many are broken and return errors, others do not link to existing wiki articles properly, still others appear to be woefully redundant in the list, not the article text itself. I agree that sometimes every sentence needs to be cited, but that does not mean we need 17 near-identical entries in the list when one entry with 17 backlinks to each mention in the text will suffice. Please leave the tags there until we make some significant headway with this morass. Not to mention the apparent redundancy with the section below Notes. -- Avi (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have asked you a number of times, Slim, for a response. You say to take it to the talk page; so, where is your response? -- Avi (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

tendentious edits?

I noticed a number of edits are reverted as "tendentious," even those that clearly are not obviously so in any way. I think those editors need to explain themselves here before reverting again. Specifically, I refer to language I introduced in the introduction to makes this subject more NPOV, i.e. balanced according to the content of the article. Saying that its a concept (not "the" concept--who makes the claim that there is only one concept? That is absurd) that is disputed, should be a rather non-controversial statement of fact. The rest of this article proves this. The introduction should be honest and reflect the basic, elementary facts that will be discussed in the main body, i.e. that there is much controversy and that the concept is disputed. The main body can then give details about this, as it does. So why is there opposition to mentioning this quite cardinal fact that marks the main nature of this article on the subject? Does anyone dispute that its disputed and controversial? Of course not. So why leave this out of the introduction? Its the first thing a reader should know about this concept. I'd like to hear from the editors who are reverting, though, before I restore it. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

reliable source?

Question: What makes the personal news/blog website of some conservative (I'm talking about "zombietime"), a reliable source to be used in an encyclopedia's main article on a subject? I looked over ZombieTime and its its loaded with false, inaccurate, claims to boot. This is not a very reliable source, and certainly not a best source, for us to rely on it. If this is the only source for the picture, then the picture should be removed.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of lengthy discussions on exactly this topic, above. I suggest that, rather than starting afresh, you read the earlier discussions, and join in there. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right that Zombietime isn't a reliable source and the picture probably should be removed since it's not about the subject of the article, buy many editors like to have the picture in the article. // Liftarn (talk)

Thanks for the responses. Since editors are discussing this issue above, I won't remove it. I'll review the arguments, above, and join the discussion. I know that simply editors liking the photo is not good enough of an argument to keep it. In fact, its never a good idea to bolster a non-reliable source on WP, as it degrades the quality of Wikipedia to use such non-reliable sources, even if it means we sacrifice some valid content in doing so (until a good source can be found). The zombie site would be fine for use about itself on its own article, but not for other articles, as a reference. As I said, I looked through it and spotted various claims which I happen to know are false, factually. Its an embarrassment to this encyclopedia to use it as a reference source. I would hope that we have consensus as wikipedians over this proposition, as its a very basic one.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a very basic one, and I've looked through the arguments above on this issue. There aren't any arguments justifying the use of a non-reliable source. There are also several other valid objections raised to this photo above. I really don't see any clear rationale on the other side -- comparisons to other antisemitic drawings, for sure, but no argument about why Wikipedia should be quoting a blog in this manner as a reliable source. The image should be removed forthwith. csloat (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, it is slightly more complicated than that, because Wikipedia (both by policy and tradition) does allow the uploading of 'amateur' pictures, but they're almost always used in a self-evident and non-controversial way. The objections to this image arise from the fact that the subject of the article is a complicated and hotly disputed theory or concept, rather than an agreed-upon phenomenon. The objections are roughly of three kinds: (1) It is not self-evident that this image illustrates 'new antisemitism', since NAS posits not that classic antisemitism exists (a truism) but rather that it has infected quasi-mainstream discourse, and a picture of some crank's hateful doodle on a placard can't demonstrate that; (2) in an article about a much-disputed theoretical concept, it is well-poisoning to present an image that purports to be evidence of the phenomenon, especially when there are no good sources saying it is (what we should be doing is illustrating the concept as a disputed hypothesis, and the best way to do this is by presenting one of several images that themselves stirred controversy and have been widely discussed by reliable sources as exemplifying NAS); and (3) by justifying this image on the grounds that amateur images are allowed (since www.zombietime.com is not a reliable source), and then turning around and providing prominent article-space links to www.zombietime.com and/or the Zombietime Wikipedia article, we are playing a double game, steering web traffic to Zombie's website as well as leaving the reader to conclude that it's a reliable source.

It basically boils down to what we think an image should do. Jay & co. think it should shock and 'provoke an emotional response'; CJ & co. think it should dispassionately enlighten and draw the reader into the substantive core of the subject. Put another way, we're choosing between an image that says Hey reader! This is the New Antisemitism in action! and one that says Hi reader. The 'New Antisemitism' is a disputed concept. This image has been cited by many as an example of it.--G-Dett (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Bauer pdf

I have found an archive of the Bauer pdf. However, since it is not the original source, in this one instance I am using a template so that the original source (which is verifiable on the web) can be maintained. It will be horizontal, and it will appear once as I will be implementing the {{Rp}}. If y'all find it so absolutely abhorrent, please discuss it here. -- Avi (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We really need some comments here. I know the housekeeping stuff isn't as "compelling" -but help us out. <<-armon->> (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

By all means. I am done collapsing the obvious citations for now. How about y'all take a look and see if you like it. The most dramatic example is that of the British APP report. It is cited nearly twenty times. What do you think? -- Avi (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So are you just talking about implementing {{Rp}}, not the full template? <<-armon->> (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

For just the Bauer pdf, I used the full template (horizontally), since that allows a link back to the UC Santa Cruz webpage (which is now dead). For all of the others, I used the Rp, which is really a shortcut for ^{: #}. Take a look. -- Avi (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me...<<-armon->> (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)